Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[Visu]

My view is that "scientific creationism" is pushed by a small but very influential group in the US. As for the rest of the world the word "creationism" is closer to theistic evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

I also think that the first is far easier to debunk than the other although you are not going to succeed in converting the "true believers" in any case. The best that you can hope for is that it stays out of the classroom.

For me the second is far harder to argue against because the goalposts can always be shifted.(See the Spectrum of Viewpoints section of the wikipedia article above especially the views of the Roman Catholic Church.)Any argument against theistic evolution still needs a component to explain the origin of life.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Another report today of a scientific study whose findings are consistent with evolution, but not with creationism:

"Like Humans, Other Apes Plan Ahead".

That is not inconsistent with creationism.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

That is not inconsistent with creationism.

But "The Scientific Method" is.

Creationism, in all its various guises [the latest being "scientific creationism", which is a tacit admittal by the creationists that their only hope is to pretend they are doing science], inevitably boils down to "God is all-powerful and can do whatever He wants." The other tactic used by the creationists, to try to find "holes" or "gaps" in various scientific fields, is also not science - as used by the creationists it's anti-science, in the sense thast it's nothing more than eternal nitpicking [quite often resting on flagrant misrepresentation of the data] without ever presenting any kind of of plausible alternative.

[Though ironically enough, the finding of flaws and gaps, used properly, is precisely the method by which science in fact does advance.]

[Spherical Cow]

Actually on-topic, Olivia Judson's current column in the NYT is on "Darwinmania", and as usual is very good- a nice review of Darwin and "the Origin...". Even more interesting, as usual, are some of the comments posted by readers.

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/

Norm

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

That is not inconsistent with creationism.

1) Note above in my reply to Visu that when I write "creationism" in this thread, I mean so-called "creation science" (because that is the aspect of creationism directly relevant to this thread), not any of the other aspects or definitions of "creationism".

2) I have seen more than one "creation science" advocate state that no other animals possess the group of higher thought processes that are unique to human beings. (I recall that our own dear departed Mally once made a statement of that type, perhaps in one of the "God" threads. I can look it up if necessary.)

3) From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology:

In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals.

...

In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded.

Every new scientific finding of commonality between humans and other species, especially in brain function or thought processes, weakens the argument that baraminology (and, thus, "scientific creationism") is science rather than pseudoscience.

OTOH, if you can show us where a creation science advocate says or implies that creation science is compatible with the sharing of rational thought processes between humans and other species, such as described in the article I linked earlier, I'd appreciate the enlightenment.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Visu

My view is that "scientific creationism" is pushed by a small but very influential group in the US. As for the rest of the world the word "creationism" is closer to theistic evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Good point. When "creationism" makes the news in the U.S., it's usually "scientific creationism", so I'm often not thinking globally when I write about it.

But beware: if another country's grade school science education has the same flaws (in particular, failure to stress what distinguishes science from pseudoscience) as all-too-many U.S. science classes, motivated "scientific creationists" may try to make inroads there, too.

I also think that the first is far easier to debunk than the other although you are not going to succeed in converting the "true believers" in any case. The best that you can hope for is that it stays out of the classroom. For me the second is far harder to argue against because the goalposts can always be shifted.

Will you please clarify what "the first", "the other", "it", and "the second" refer to in those sentences?

[Visu]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Good point. When "creationism" makes the news in the U.S., it's usually "scientific creationism", so I'm often not thinking globally when I write about it.

But beware: if another country's grade school science education has the same flaws (in particular, failure to stress what distinguishes science from pseudoscience) as all-too-many U.S. science classes, motivated "scientific creationists" may try to make inroads there, too.

Will you please clarify what "the first", "the other", "it", and "the second" refer to in those sentences?

The First - Scientific Creationism
The Other - Theistic Evolution
It - Scientific Creationism
The Second - Theistic Evolution

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

1) Note above in my reply to Visu that when I write "creationism" in this thread, I mean so-called "creation science" (because that is the aspect of creationism directly relevant to this thread), not any of the other aspects or definitions of "creationism".

If you mean "creation science" (which often insist that the earth is 6000 years old) or general creationism (which often will point out a time gap between the creation of earth and the appearence of advanced life), please be more specific.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

If you mean "creation science" (which often insist that the earth is 6000 years old) or general creationism (which often will point out a time gap between the creation of earth and the appearence of advanced life), please be more specific.

In the context of this thread ("Evolution: The Scientific Evidence"), I think the default for the unqualified term creationism should be: whichever aspects of creationism deny evolution and universal common descent, and/or practice pseudoscience such as baraminology.

Such aspects include Young Earth creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism); creation science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science), which includes Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) and the current Teach the Controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy) campaign; plus Old Earth creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism), Gap creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism) and Progressive creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism) insofar as those branches reject evolution. Because of the number of anti-evolutionary branches (I don't think the preceding list is complete), the variations in degree of their rejections of evolution, and because some adherents in some of those branches of creationism do accept the theory of evolution in greater part than the leaders of the branch of creationism with which they self-identify, it could be impractical to be specific in a way that satisfies both of us.

So just take any unqualified mention of "creationism", in this thread about evolution, to mean the anti-evolution aspects of any branch of creationism. I will try to use the term "anti-evolution creationism" when I think of it.

If this continues to offend any readers, then I suggest that they work within the creationist community to separate out the anti-evolutionists into a group more easily referred-to by outsiders without tarring the others.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

In the context of this thread ("Evolution: The Scientific Evidence"), I think the default for the unqualified term creationism should be: whichever aspects of creationism deny evolution and universal common descent, and/or practice pseudoscience such as baraminology.
......
So just take any unqualified mention of "creationism", in this thread about evolution, to mean the anti-evolution aspects of any branch of creationism. I will try to use the term "anti-evolution creationism" when I think of it.

If this is going to be the case, it will cease to be worth my while to look at this thread. I won't know if I should speak up and defend or not. I think it is important that people know that those that believe in creation are not all "bury my head in the sand, I don't believe in Newton" nuts. I am willing to differential between different types of evolution to discuss them. I would hope that you and others would afford me this respect.

[cheesehead]

Please enlighten us as to how you prefer that we make the differentiation!

Since you want me or anyone else who's not a creationist to make our references palatable to you, then you should show us how.

I've never been inside the creationist movement (unless you count early church-going in a nonfundamentalist Christian denomination); I've just read some of the literature. (Oh -- and I am acquainted with a young-earth-creationist family, but not enough to discuss this stuff with them.) I would never consider myself to be expert enough to make important distinctions without lengthy research and composition.

I went to some length in my previous posting to explain why I use the terminology that I do, and I offered a modification ("anti-evolution creationism") I thought was reasonable, but you just reject all that without any explanation of what sort of response would have been acceptable to you!

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

If this is going to be the case,

If what is going to be the case? I offered an alternative to my current practice -- are you rejecting it without even the courtesy of specifically mentioning it?

You haven't offered any alternative!

it will cease to be worth my while to look at this thread.

... just because we can't guess what's on your mind?

Mind-guessing isn't part of evolu- ... well, actually there can be traced a connection involving the subject of an article I linked-to a few days ago. But it would be more efficient for you to tell us your conception than for us to try to guess it.

I won't know if I should speak up and defend or not.

You've already spoken-up enough to make clear there's a problem. All I'm asking is a little cooperation in solving it. I made an effort to find a solution more pleasing to you. You rejected that but proposed no alternative of your own.

I think it is important that people know that those that believe in creation are not all "bury my head in the sand, I don't believe in Newton" nuts.

So, demonstrate that importance by putting forth effort to cooperate in finding a solution to your complaint.

I am willing to differential between different types of evolution to discuss them.

So, show us how you would have us do that for creationism.

I would hope that you and others would afford me this respect.

Dismissing my effort without explanation is disrespectful -- I haven't done that to you.