Teaching of creationism in US public school science classes has dropped over past 12 years

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,174
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,153,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can Intelligent Design explain this list?

1. Earth before Sun
2. Light before Sun
3. Plants before marine organisms
4. Fruit bearing trees before fish
5. Birds before insects
6. Plants before Sun
7. Man before rain
This response is zero about any particular theory, ID or any other. We do know that God is able to do whatever He wants. And...according to Genesis chapter 1, the day/night cycle began on the first special 'day' of creation:

3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Not the 4th day, when the Sun, Moon and Stars are finally seen and also their ultimate value for us in particular described.

But already on the first day, we can see by the words above, already the Earth must be rotating, and a light shining onto it from one side, creating a day/night cycle.

Ergo, the sun has begun to shine, even though it will not be visible yet from the surface of the Earth -- such as perhaps due to constant cloudiness -- until the fourth day, when the purpose of the heavens, the Sun, Moon and stars, are told to us.

And we can easily see in the text that all 6 days have the exact same morning/evening daily cycle, just like one another!

God could have made Earth have a featureless gray sky without the awe inspiring beauty and wonderful qualities of the heavens that we do have. He gave us something "very good" instead!

As I was mentioning last week, when I didn't have enough time to talk on these details very well, it's never ok for believers though to merely argue disputable matters in a contentious way, so when anyone does get contentious with me on these interesting side questions that have no ultimate importance (the small details of God's creation we are not clearly told in the words of scripture) -- I/we should try not to participate in contentiousness with them, but just wish them a good day or such. :)
 
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This article talks about how species can adapt to their environment, for example the polar bear. This is not dissimilar from what Darwin saw with the beaks of finches. I already talked about dogs having tremendous diversity all within the same genome. The ability of a species to adapt is well proven, not what we are talking about, but again, thanks for trying. This is where "survival of the fittest" coupled with random mutations truly is a proven theory. But feet that are less slippery for a polar bear is a minor mutation, not nearly what would be required to have the body structure of an entirely new phyla.
 
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Probably the best counterclaim of the references you have given so far because these are truly cases where one species evolved due to a random mutation that was a new species because it could not produce viable offspring with the previous species. But although this is the best argument you have given so far it has nothing to do with the issues raised. During the Cambrian explosion we had quite a few new phyla, these are major taxonomic divisions, all appear in the span of about 15 million years. A random mutation of a bird apparently can result in a viable species that can no longer mate with the species it evolved from.

But what we are saying is that for the first time an entire trilobite appeared. You need the various organs, the shell, the entire system. To do this you need a number of very specific proteins to do very specific jobs. The odds of these proteins occurring randomly is something on the order of 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros following it.

In contrast that bird that evolved into a different species may not have had any new proteins at all.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
staff edit
The problem with ID is that it makes claims that are not testable. It is just a series of claims.

The requirements of a hypothesis are:
  • must be testable
  • must be falsifiable
I have not seen a good way to tell if something is designed outside of things humans have made. Just claiming you can tell something is designed is not acceptable. You need a well-defined process to do so, something I have not seen ID supporters do.

Which leads to the second requirement, falsifiable. Most of the claims of ID are just that, claims. No real evidence to back them up or a way to test it to show it is false. For it to be falsifiable it needs to be tested to see if the claim is false. I have not seen the ID supporters do this either, and in most cases, the claim something is designed just stops investigation into how something came about. It doesn't look further to see if it could be evolved, or try to see if it could to disprove the idea.

ID is not interested in testing the idea, they just want to make a claim so they can shove their deity in science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,174
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,153,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem with ID is that it makes claims that are not testable. It is just a series of claims.

The requirements of a hypothesis are:
  • must be testable
  • must be falsifiable
I have not seen a good way to tell if something is designed outside of things humans have made. Just claiming you can tell something is designed is not acceptable. You need a well-defined process to do so, something I have not seen ID supporters do.

Which leads to the second requirement, falsifiable. Most of the claims of ID are just that, claims. No real evidence to back them up or a way to test it to show it is false. For it to be falsifiable it needs to be tested to see if the claim is false. I have not seen the ID supporters do this either, and in most cases, the claim something is designed just stops investigation into how something came about. It doesn't look further to see if it could be evolved, or try to see if it could to disprove the idea.

ID is not interested in testing the idea, they just want to make a claim so they can shove their deity in science.

Fortunately the many diverse theories that many diverse believers have come up with to explain small details about the history of life and of Earth/creation in no way constrain or control the real meaning of Genesis chapters 1 through 3, but only show their own guesses about how to interpret, and which added ideas they have assumed (often without awareness of their added assumptions).
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
So the discussion is about the odds of getting a new protein, necessary for many species, and you provide evidence of how a virus mutated. Gee, great job on looking at the probability of a random mutation creating a functional protein.
Move the goalposts much?
ZNP said:
You have evidence of one species evolving into another? Where?"
You asked for examples of speciation - that is one. There are others.
 
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem with ID is that it makes claims that are not testable. It is just a series of claims.

The requirements of a hypothesis are:
  • must be testable
  • must be falsifiable
I have not seen a good way to tell if something is designed outside of things humans have made. Just claiming you can tell something is designed is not acceptable. You need a well-defined process to do so, something I have not seen ID supporters do.

Which leads to the second requirement, falsifiable. Most of the claims of ID are just that, claims. No real evidence to back them up or a way to test it to show it is false. For it to be falsifiable it needs to be tested to see if the claim is false. I have not seen the ID supporters do this either, and in most cases, the claim something is designed just stops investigation into how something came about. It doesn't look further to see if it could be evolved, or try to see if it could to disprove the idea.

ID is not interested in testing the idea, they just want to make a claim so they can shove their deity in science.
Darwin's theory of evolution concerning how the Finches had different beaks was both testable and falsifiable. So on that aspect of his theory it is quite scientific and has been tested enough to go from being a hypothesis to a theory.

In his work he also saw the problem that the Cambrian explosion posed and he hypothesized that "missing links" would be found showing a gradual evolution towards these species. This also has been thoroughly researched and no missing links have been found. Instead the time period of the Cambrian explosion has actually been narrowed from the original 25-50 million years to less than 15 million years.

Darwin's theory was before the discovery of DNA, and microbiology. No one was able to calculate exactly how many random mutations would have to take place to actually have a shot at a new phyla emerging. So no one is blaming him for positing this hypothesis. But now that we do know it comes across as so absurdly unlikely as to be absolutely impossible.
 
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Move the goalposts much?

You asked for examples of speciation - that is one. There are others.
The question that has been raised by scientists, mathematicians and computer scientists for the last 30-40 years is what are the odds of a new and functioning protein evolving. Because the odds are so astronomically high it has brought into question the idea that these phyla at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion could have arisen due to random mutation.

That is the underlying scientific basis for questioning the theory of Evolution. If you have anything useful that would answer that question it would be appreciated.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Fortunately the many diverse theories that many diverse believers have come up with to explain small details about the history of life and of Earth/creation in no way constrain or control the real meaning of Genesis chapters 1 through 3, but only show their own guesses about how to interpret, and which added ideas they have assumed (often without awareness of their added assumptions).
How does that have anything to do with Intelligent Design and how it is not even a hypothesis?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
This article talks about how species can adapt to their environment, for example the polar bear. This is not dissimilar from what Darwin saw with the beaks of finches. I already talked about dogs having tremendous diversity all within the same genome. The ability of a species to adapt is well proven, not what we are talking about, but again, thanks for trying. This is where "survival of the fittest" coupled with random mutations truly is a proven theory. But feet that are less slippery for a polar bear is a minor mutation, not nearly what would be required to have the body structure of an entirely new phyla.
The examples given are evidence of one species evolving into another - as you requested. Speciation events do not involve the creation of "the body structure of an entirely new phyla" [phylum].
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,711
51,428
Guam
✟4,897,529.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The problem is, it leads to looking at something, saying "it looks like design to me!' and not looking any further. Because if you are proven wrong and it wasn't designed, what would you do?
You can't look at the earth today and say, "Yup. Looks designed to me!"

In the original "design," there was no Grand Canyon, no oceans (except one big one), no death, no this, that, and the other stuff.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,174
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,153,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How does that have anything to do with Intelligent Design and how it is not even a hypothesis?
The ID variations are some of the various theories -- theories created at some point (even if only in initiation) by using assumptions and interpretations. (this may be unclear. What I mean can be illustrated by a contrast -- many Christians believe evolution happened naturally, just by chemistry alone, and that was God's design from the beginning -- unfolding just as He made it to do, like a flower from a seed.)
About 'hypothesis' are you asking about whether as a theory/hypothesis such can makes testable predictions about observables? That's a good point. If someone comes up with a theory that the sun is powered by coal and oxygen combustion, then there will be testable aspects of such a theory.
 
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The examples given are evidence of one species evolving into another - as you requested. Speciation events do not involve the creation of "the body structure of an entirely new phyla" [phylum].
This has been responded to twice by me and once by empiric35. A random mutation might make one species of bird unable to breed with another. No one has any issue with that.

The question is how would a random mutation result in a functioning protein before you have any creatures in that phyla? You can't have a phyla without different proteins doing certain tasks. It is an essential step in getting a new phyla. It may be that two different species of bird cannot mate, yet they still have all the same proteins. That doesn't answer the question.

You can't have a new phyla without new proteins. The odds of a random mutation getting a functional protein are so absurdly low that it seems impossible. Still, to get a new phyla you would need thousands of these proteins all at once. Statistically speaking you have trillions of trillions greater chance of winning the lottery. The odds of winning the lottery is 1 out of 1 with 8 zeros. The odds of a random mutation making a functional protein is 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros after it.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You can't look at the earth today and say, "Yup. Looks designed to me!"

That is what many ID proponents do.

In the original "design," there was no Grand Canyon, no oceans (except one big one), no death, no this, that, and the other stuff.

What original design? Do you have some evidence of that?

Oh wait, let me guess. The Bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is all the constraint the typical naturalistic evolution advocate will actually hold himself to.

No, there is the environment the species finds themselves in, the other species around them, as well as luck that all play a part in evolution. Like I said, it is complex how species change over time. But they do change.

"Evolution itself is a designed process". Voila, -complete- equivalence on all possible empirical observables.

Except there is no evidence for it being a designed process. It is just wordplay to get your ID excepted as science without going through the rigors of it being peer-reviewed.

As for what ID can explain, and evolution -cannot-, I've already extensively addressed that in other posts. Can all biology be explained by evolutionary processes? No, as direct empirical fact. All cases of genetic engineering in the last 50 years are biology that evolutionary processes does not have the explanatory power to explain. Why "last 50 years"? Good question for -you-. Actually absolutely no reason that has evidence to back it.

Genetic engineering is doing at the gene level what humans have been doing for a long time by breeding animals and plants. Trying to removed bad traits while improving the good traits. Genetic engineering has allowed us to do more by putting in traits that were not there before, and that can lead to some problems in the ecosystem.

But all this is explained by biology and still fits in the evolutionary theory as well. What part doesn't?

Well, wrong. ID is science. We can keep saying "no", "yes" until evolution kills you off, or you can read the very basics about ID. Also, ID is independent of what the intelligence is. It includes extraterrestrial intelligence and panspermia as additional compatible models. But why argue this? You know this, and you'll just continue to directly lie about it.

Sorry no. ID wasn't science at the time of the wedge document, and it is not now. I understand you want it to be science. But until it goes through the rigors of peer-review and having other scientists redo the experiments, it is just an attempt to take a short cut with the idea.

As far as the intelligence bit, what process brought the extraterrestrial intelligence forth? More intelligence? A never-ending chain of one species uplifting another?

Sorry, not falling for that one bit. The people that brought forth ID meant it to have God shoved into the classroom.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,174
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,153,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is what many ID proponents do.



What original design? Do you have some evidence of that?

Oh wait, let me guess. The Bible.
About 1/2 of Christians in the U.S. believe evolution is how God made life on Earth unfold.

Many of them, or most, are very familiar with all the words of Genesis chapters 1 through 3, and believe in these words.

There's a bigger point here that helps frame all these discussions, and more discussions -- There is not a way to learn whether God exists by simply observation (evidence).

As scripture says, God explicitly wants those willing to relate to Him in faith, without seeing/without easy proof of Him. So, it's by scripture we can learn there cannot be any easily observable evidence before faith (until Christ returns), as such simply observable evidence would preclude faith, which is belief without seeing. (notice an interesting side fact -- some individual physicists will believe in things they cannot yet observe -- e.g. some theories about dark matter, supersymmetry (widely believed before any proof), and so on) and are working to find evidence for, but God is one Who won't allow easy evidence, since He wants a leap of faith from us.)
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Probably the best counterclaim of the references you have given so far because these are truly cases where one species evolved due to a random mutation that was a new species because it could not produce viable offspring with the previous species. But although this is the best argument you have given so far it has nothing to do with the issues raised.
Again, I answered the question you asked.

During the Cambrian explosion we had quite a few new phyla, these are major taxonomic divisions, all appear in the span of about 15 million years. A random mutation of a bird apparently can result in a viable species that can no longer mate with the species it evolved from.
A phylum is a major taxonomic classification, typically based on body plan. It is unlikely that a new phylum would emerge once specialisations of existing phyla are well-established. The span of the Cambrian Explosion is somewhat arbitrary, with suggestions from 13 to 25 million years or more, and it may have been just one part of a number of evolutionary spurts around that period - see 'Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosion'.

It's extremely rare for a single mutation to produce a new species (although it has happened recently). The most common form occurs when two populations become isolated from each other for a significant time and gradually drift apart genetically.

...The odds of these proteins occurring randomly is something on the order of 1 out of 1 with 40 zeros following it.
You keep quoting that figure without any indication of how you arrived at it. I doubt it is representative of evolutionary processes for reasons already mentioned.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The question that has been raised by scientists, mathematicians and computer scientists for the last 30-40 years is what are the odds of a new and functioning protein evolving. Because the odds are so astronomically high it has brought into question the idea that these phyla at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion could have arisen due to random mutation.
If you can show me how the 'astronomically high' odds are calculated (a reference is fine), I may be able to shed some light.

That is the underlying scientific basis for questioning the theory of Evolution. If you have anything useful that would answer that question it would be appreciated.
I gave some suggestions in #20.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0