Macro-Evolution

[Nathan Poe]

Made up, basic doctrine, literal interpretation; if it's past Genesis 1, does it matter?

you've never cared before. Don't get me wrong, AV -- you do a slightly above average job of mixing in your own fabrications with actual Christian doctrine in attampts to give it credibility, and given a more inexperienced/naive audience, you might succeed once in a while.

As it is, however... :meh:

 

[Karbek6]

The problem is that the way that creationists define "macroevolution" is not the way that evolutionary biologists define it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The problem is that the way that creationists define "macroevolution" is not the way that evolutionary biologists define it.

I wasn't aware evolutionary biologists defined it at all -- I always assumed it was a made-up creationist term for them to rail against.

 

[firechild_82]

I wasn't aware evolutionary biologists defined it at all -- I always assumed it was a made-up creationist term for them to rail against.

It was a term coined by creationists but few actual biologists use the term. However, the definition used by those scientists is a more strict definition (i.e. anything that leads to a new taxon) than that used by creationists (i.e. when a cat gives birth to a dog).

 

[sfs]

It was a term coined by creationists

No, it was coined by a biologist, and introduced into English by Dobzhansky, who can hardly be called a creationist.

 

[firechild_82]

Ok, I stand corrected. It still remains a term that is not widely used by biologists and is merely used as a detrogatory term by creationists. The reality is there is no real difference between the two besides time required. It is not what creationists misrepresent it as.

 

[Friendly.Atheist]

My Anthropology professor this quarter used the term Macroevolution quite frequently while we were reviewing the fundamentals of Evolution during the first few weeks of class.

 

[plindboe]

Ok, I stand corrected. It still remains a term that is not widely used by biologists and is merely used as a detrogatory term by creationists. The reality is there is no real difference between the two besides time required. It is not what creationists misrepresent it as.

One of my evolution text books, "Evolution" by Douglas J. Futuyma has a chapter called "Macroevolution: Evolution above the species level". Most biologists might not use the term much, but I think it's a more common term for evolutionary biologists.

It's a shame that creationists take a well-defined scientific term and pervert its meaning so much that sooner or later evolutionists start distancing themselves from it. Don't let them have such an influence.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Do any Christians or non-christians believe that Macro-Evolution should be taught in schools.

Absolutely not.

 

[chris4243]

Do any Christians or non-christians believe that Macro-Evolution should be taught in schools. (By the way, macro-evolution is the idea that creatures evolved from other creatures. Micro-evolution is the idea that creatures or humans will adapt when put into a new enviroment.) I would really like to know.

Yes, the truth should be taught in school no matter how much people complain about it.

 

[USincognito]

Yes, the truth should be taught in school no matter how much people complain about it.

19th April 2002, 04:22 PM

 

[AV1611VET]

19th April 2002, 04:22 PM

Aren't you supposed to append that by shouting: AND ALL IS WELL!?

 

[Freodin]

Aren't you supposed to append that by shouting: AND ALL IS WELL!?

This is the second time you resurrected this thread. Do you really think that your opinion is so valuable that you need to present it again and again?

And if you think that...

Because a good point never dies!

... why don't you respond to the good points made in your recent threads instead of talking to absent people?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the second time you resurrected this thread. Do you really think that your opinion is so valuable that you need to present it again and again?

Yes ... yes I do.

And if you think that...

... why don't you respond to the good points made in your recent threads instead of talking to absent people?

Because I didn't make them --

 

[Phred]

If macro evolution is to be taught, then so should Creation, they both have science to back them up, and they both have theories, so they should both be taught. Remember, in Christianity, no decision at all is still a decision and we should give the kids the oppurtunity to hear both sides.

I'm sorry but this is the kind of statement that makes you look foolish. Science classes are for science. Creationism is not science. It's religion. It's faith. Scientifically Creationism is a falsified scientific hypothesis. The evidence that should have been there to support creationism and the Bible just isn't. So no, Creationism should NOT be taught in science classes. Unless you want to have Creationism taught as a hypothesis that was once thought to be valid but was then falsified. I'm fine with teaching that.

Further, it's not a matter of teaching both sides. There aren't two sides. There's the scientific side which is backed up by the evidence. Then there are all the creation myths from all the religions around the world. Why do you think that your particular myth deserves more credence than any other creation myth? Is it just because you happen to believe it? More people at the current moment believe the Hindu myth than believe the Christian Creation myth.

I also notice that for someone who thinks we should teach "both sides" you don't advocate teaching science in church. Why is that? If your deity created everything shouldn't what science finds match up exactly with what your holy books say? So why aren't you teaching both sides in your church?

Lastly, when you say that Creationism is backed by science... that's a lie. It's not. The earth is billions, not thousands of years old. No dating method has ever agreed with Creationism in any way. No paper has ever been published that supports Creationism in any way, shape or form. Not one. No scientific works are based upon Creationism. No cures, no breakthroughs, no data, no evidence. Creationism is a purely negative hypothesis. Evolution must be wrong so Creationism is right. Except only Creationists accept that tortured logic.

The Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education case settled this for us all. Creationism in any form may not be taught in schools because it is not science, it is religion. Please, stop this nonsense or you might get what you want but you won't like the form it takes.

 

[Phred]

Crap, taken in by a zombie thread. Darn you AV

 

[AV1611VET]

Science classes are for science. Creationism is not science. It's religion. It's faith.

It's history.

 

[rikerjoe]

It's history.

and it should stay history....

 

[AV1611VET]

and it should stay history....

I agree -- but then you have Internet scientists here screaming & frothing at the mouse for evidence.

If they want to raise this "sleeping giant" (creationism), I'll be more than happy to accommodate them.

 

[Assyrian]

I agree -- but then you have Internet scientists here screaming & frothing at the mouse for evidence.

If they want to raise this "sleeping giant" (creationism), I'll be more than happy to accommodate them.

Isn't the more scriptural way to deal with a giant to whack it on the head with a rock and chop its head off?