Regarding teaching evolution / creation in the schools.

duordi · May 17, 2005

I propose that origins should be taught as catastrophic and non-catastrophic conditions.

Non catastrophic theory would assume slow consistent progressive change over long time spans of millions or billions of years causing all current geological and biological conditions.

Catastrophic theory would assume an event occurred which caused changes which have affected the current geological and biological conditions in shorter time spans of thousands of years or less.

The catastrophic theories would include meteor strikes, Earth magnetic pole reversals, floods, nova radiation bombardment, ancient nuclear wars, disease, an ice age or any other event which would be considered to cause a major ecological or biological reconfiguration.

In this way personal emotional preferences for or against a religious belief need not prevent the consideration of all possible historical configurations.

Would this be acceptable to both sides of the argument ?

If not what is your reasoning ?

Duane

ImmortalTechnique · May 17, 2005

ancient nuclear wars? i'd love to hear about that one

HRE · May 17, 2005

Ditto the above...

Maybe he was being facetious?

ImmortalTechnique · May 17, 2005

and in what way would these catastrophic events (if there were any evidence for them) cause "changes which have affected the current geological and biological conditions in shorter time spans of thousands of years or less."

besides, you are talking about taking out biology and replacing it with catastrophic geology (it appears)

and finally, there would have to be evidence of these catastrophic events and explanations of how they could show what you claim they could before they could rise to the level of currently accepted, peer reviewed science

Randall McNally · May 17, 2005

Maybe we need new terms; uniformitarianism (much like gradualistic evolution) is often assumed to entail single-speed change, which is simply not the case. Essentially, the only things uniformitarianism assumes are actually 'uniform' are the laws of physics. Pole reversals, meteor impacts, cosmic rays, etc. are all quite easily assimilated by a uniformitarian model because they don't demand a radical reshaping of the underlying processes of the universe.

Most YEC objections to uniformitarianism are misguided. Continental drift occurred slowly not because uniformitarian philosophy demands it but because the evidence suggests is.

The only halfway-legitimate complaints against uniformitarianism that I am aware of involve the speed of light and radioactive decay. Those are, of course, fraught with problems of their own.

Mechanical Bliss · May 17, 2005

Catastrophism has become nothing but wishful thinking. Creationists use it as a buzzword to provide explanations for which they have no evidence (e.g., limestone forming at an unheard of rate that has neither been observed nor replicated to accomodate an emotionally favorable conclusion--that a global flood occurred even though we know it's false).

Uniformitarianism, which is continually misunderstood to be the equivalent of gradualism, continues to use observation to provide geological insight which is why it has infinitely more credibility. Catastrophism was discarded by geologists (who were Christian creationists) nearly two centuries ago because it lacked any meaningful explanatory power and was contradicted by the evidence.

But the bottom line is that science education is not about emotional preferences.

duordi · May 18, 2005

So the only question is did the process happen slowly and the massive meteor strikes that are recorded in the strata have no effect on anything.....

Or did meteors for an example, have a big part in the process causing most of the technic plate movement at a specific time.

If a meteor hit a deep ocean area what amount of water volume would end up having to rain back?

Would the ocean bottoms stay at the same elevation without the water cover or would they raise?

And if they rose to compensate for the incredible weight removed from them what happens when the water returns?

A raised ocean bottom wont hold all the water....

until it sinks back down again and equilibrium is restored.

Here is a site which shows meteor strikes on a world map.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html

Notice that these are not random as would occur if they were one random strike at a time but have struck concentrated in specific localized areas which indicates they are from a common source and therefore happened at a specific time.
The combined total megatons of this record is equal to about 12000 times the world nuclear arsenal.

So I guess I am wondering how you can suggest a catastrophic event didnt happen?

This of course proves nothing beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it does beg the question...

Is it possible that we are biasing science for the benefit of our religious preferences ?

Duane

P.S

Regarding ancient nuclear wars.

I know that most who post here are typically concerned about Bible texts but there are other religions of course and some of the eastern worlds ancient texts describe mushroom clouds, the effects of radiation poising, and black rain with shocking accuracy and claim they were due to war as opposed to a meteor strike.

If you have further question on this do a search on "ancient nuclear wars".

The intent of this thread is to allow participation of all who would be affected by the teaching in public schools.

Valkhorn · May 18, 2005

Wait a second. Creationists are actually trying to come up with excuses to why their bogus ideas happened? I thought they wanted to find out that 'god did it' or something.

So is creationism Atheistic now? Are they trying to exclude god from what they believe happened? If there is a god involved, why do you need any reason? He or she could just 'poof' it there.... right?

Wow the logic you use Duane is dizzying at best.

notto · May 18, 2005

duordi said:
Notice that these are not random as would occur if they were one random strike at a time but have struck concentrated in specific localized areas which indicates they are from a common source and therefore happened at a specific time.

This is simply not true and cannot be deduced from the map.

1) We find meteors where we look.
2) We can't find them in the ocean
3) We haven't found all of them because we haven't looked everywhere
4) We haven't found them in places that have not been explored (like Central Africa, Siberia, and Central South America) but we do find them where lots of geological work has been done (mainly Europe and North America)

You are using the data outside its margins.

duordi · May 18, 2005

notto said:
This is simply not true and cannot be deduced from the map.

1) We find meteors where we look.
2) We can't find them in the ocean

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/mjolnir.htm

Here is an ocean example.

Due to satellite use the surface of the Earth including the ocean bottom has been mapped.
Some of the most preserved creators are in the oceans as they do not have rain or wind erosion.
Even if erosion has taken place certain ground materials give away the location.
A creator of any real size is hard to miss but the map is of the .

notto said:
3) We haven't found all of them because we haven't looked everywhere
4) We haven't found them in places that have not been explored (like Central Africa, Siberia, and Central South America) but we do find them where lots of geological work has been done (mainly Europe and North America)

Ok, I will look just at the density around Europe compared with the US and
Its not evenly spread even with the blinders on.

notto said:
You are using the data outside its margins.

I guess you have answered my question.

Adherence to a slow even steady non catastrophic theories are so ingrained that consideration of any information that disagrees with them will not be accepted.

I kind of knew this to be the case but it seemed so illogical that I simply had to see the results with my own eyes.

I have not heard from the young Earth group.
Are you for or against the teaching scope as given in the tread starting post?

Duane

MartinM · May 18, 2005

duordi said:
Notice that these are not random

Prove it.

Pete Harcoff · May 18, 2005

duordi said:
In this way personal emotional preferences for or against a religious belief need not prevent the consideration of all possible historical configurations.

So in other words, science class should become philosophy. Maybe we should do the same with history class while we're at it?

At any rate, science works by evidence. Wishful thinking is no substitute.

notto · May 18, 2005

duordi said:
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/mjolnir.htm

Ok, I will look just at the density around Europe compared with the US and
Its not evenly spread even with the blinders on.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Does the crater inventory include non-confirmed craters?[/font]

The simple answer is "no". Prospective new impact structres are only added to the listing if convincing details of shock metamorphic features, associated shatter cones or other similarly unambiguous evidence of formation by impact is presented, preferably in a published format. By excluding other prospective impact structures, we hope to maintain the integrity of the listing. As such, many promising, but hitherto unproven, impact structures are not included on the list.

Most of the terrestrial impact craters that ever formed, however, have been obliterated by other terrestrial geological processes. Some examples, however remain.

You would need to show that all of the territory has been equally researched. You are using the data outside its scope to make an assertion that has no validity. You also need to take into account that the earth has been reworked so if more are found in a certain area, that doesn't mean that it is any more likely to have impacts. It just meanst that more remain (i.e. Europe vs North America).

If you take the impact database as your data, then you must also accept the methodology used to develop it and confirm the craters (including the age of the craters)

You are using selective reasoning (blinders) to support your assertion with data that simply doesn't do that.

LittleNipper · May 18, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
So in other words, science class should become philosophy. Maybe we should do the same with history class while we're at it?

At any rate, science works by evidence. Wishful thinking is no substitute.

Science class is where the HYPOTHETICAL is supposed to be explored. It should not to be a soapbox for grandstanding one select view of a theory.

AirPo · May 18, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Science class is where the HYPOTHETICAL is supposed to be explored. It should not to be a soapbox for grandstanding one select view of a theory.

Unless of course that view is the only one supported by the evidence.

notto · May 18, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Science class is where the HYPOTHETICAL is supposed to be explored. It should not to be a soapbox for grandstanding one select view of a theory.

But it is not a place to explore already falsified ideas or ideas that are not falsifiable. That is best left to philosphy and history class (or religious studies)

Pete Harcoff · May 18, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Science class is where the HYPOTHETICAL is supposed to be explored. It should not to be a soapbox for grandstanding one select view of a theory.

I disagree, at least with respect to high school level science. Face it, if every single fringe idea in science was shoehorned into a science class, there wouldn't be time to learn anything. I think that the ideas that should be taught at the high school level are well-established theories that are supported by research and evidence.

I believe in the "trickle down" effect. Ideas that are first proposed should be tested within the scientific community (i.e. published research and so on). Then, the ideas can make their way into university-level programs, before eventually making their way into high school.

Creationists want the opposite. They want ideas to start at the high school level and work their way up. The only reason I can see for this is some sort of underlying fear or perceived conflict with origins science. They never want "alternative theories" taught with respect to other branches of science.

LittleNipper · May 18, 2005

AirPo said:
Unless of course that view is the only one supported by the evidence.

The evidence must be PERFECTLY HARMONIOUS. If it is not, if there are any cloudy areas WHATSOEVER, you cannot claim HONESTLY to have a cut and dry case.

LittleNipper · May 18, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
I disagree, at least with respect to high school level science. Face it, if every single fringe idea in science was shoehorned into a science class, there wouldn't be time to learn anything. I think that the ideas that should be taught at the high school level are well-established theories that are supported by research and evidence.

I believe in the "trickle down" effect. Ideas that are first proposed should be tested within the scientific community (i.e. published research and so on). Then, the ideas can make their way into university-level programs, before eventually making their way into high school.

Creationists want the opposite. They want ideas to start at the high school level and work their way up. The only reason I can see for this is some sort of underlying fear or perceived conflict with origins science. They never want "alternative theories" taught with respect to other branches of science.

So both grammar & high school science classes should be limited to experimentation, chemistry, the habitation of all LIVING things present, modern world topagraphy, existing oceanography, present day astronomy, and historic inventors / men of science with a mention of what each one believed in. This would include Galileo, Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Darwin, and Henry M. Morris.

There is absolutely no reason to explain in detail any aspect of any theory. That is something that one can do as a personal persuit. Understanding evolution is not going to make anyone a better person. It is only going to provide more fuel for thought. However, facts are all that should be provided and not authoritative assumptions. That is again concerning the private sector. If we are going to entertain reason and logic, UNLESS the sacred is included as a necessary part of the contemplation along with the secular, THEN there is no room to insist that childern grow up to think as Darwin on Darwin. Provide ONLY the rudiments and train in areas of procedural methodology and leave the students to come to their OWN conclusions with their parents on their OWN dollar. That WOULD be a much better science education then is provided presently.

AirPo · May 18, 2005

LittleNipper said:
The evidence must be PERFECTLY HARMONIOUS.

No it mustn't.

If it is not, if there are any cloudy areas WHATSOEVER, you cannot claim HONESTLY to have a cut and dry case.

Nobody is claiming a cut and dry case.

Regarding teaching evolution / creation in the schools.

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

HRE

Guest

Senior Veteran

Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Senior Member

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Legend

Senior Member

GondolierAce

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Legend

Contributor

with a Touch of Grey

Legend

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Contributor

Contributor

with a Touch of Grey

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency