What would be achieved if ‘Creation Science’ replaced ‘Evolution’ in biology lessons?

[notto]

In regards to radiometric dating, the associate professor of geology of East Carolina University, Richard Mauger said, "In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other dates are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." Seems like no one is above this falsification tactic.

This quote was from 1977. Can you provide any evidence that it is still accurate (or that it ever really was)?

Why would an almost 30 year old quote have any relevence to this discussion today?

You need to actually show evidence that these quotes are correct. If I can find quotes that state that we never went to the moon, does that mean that we never went to the moon?

 

[jayebrownlee]

[mod hat on]

remember to argue the facts and not to make comments on other people

Jay

[mod hat off]

 

[david_84]

This quote was from 1977. Can you provide any evidence that it is still accurate (or that it ever really was)?

Why would an almost 30 year old quote have any relevence to this discussion today?

The other quote I gave was from people who were responsible for doing that and admitted to it.

Now imagine that every creationist and evolutionist everywhere were to immediately stop falsifying everything. Do you think that they would cease to point out to each other what they WERE guilty of? I am confident that they wouldn't. There are at least two benefits for this. One is that we are reminded that neither side is blameless or will necessarily always continue to be. The other is that each side is kept in check by the other and thus motivated to be honest.

I did not intend or expect to disprove evolution with an example of how it has been distorted by some. I only hoped that the two things mentioned above might come of its mention.

 

[david_84]

notto,

The original source of the C-14 quote was "Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium." Edited by Ingred U. Olsson.
I invite you to read the text for yourself.

 

[notto]

notto,

The original source of the C-14 quote was "Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium." Edited by Ingred U. Olsson.
I invite you to read the text for yourself.

Perhaps you could just provide for us the complete paragraph and context in which it appears. Have you read the original paper or can you tell us where to get acess to it?

I'm still not sure how C14 dating relates to anything that 'evolutionists' would be interested in as it is not a useful method for determining the age of anything that 'evolutionist' would be interested in.

It would appear that the original context of the quote related to archeology specifically related to the Nile Valley, not biology or geology. I believe the specific paper the quote comes from is called '[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C14 dating and Egyptian chronology'.

Accusing 'evolutionists' (read biologists) of anything based on this quote is certainly misdirection of accusations that should clearly be directed at archeologists.
[/font]

 

[david_84]

Accusing 'evolutionists' (read biologists) of anything based on this quote is certainly misdirection of accusations that should clearly be directed at archeologists.

If you would rather that I "accuse" biologists based on things that are very obviously related to biology and evolution I will. I'm sure you are aware of the drawings by Ernst Haeckel of the embryos of different kinds of animals. His drawings show them as all looking very much alike, which they are not. He later admitted that he had drawn them "from memory" and his own university convicted him of fraud. I still see textbooks that teach his drawings as fact. I assume you also know of the pepper moth incident where smoke from factories caused the trees to change color and, in order to survive, the moth population changed color as well. I don't doubt that it could have happened, but it was found out to be a hoax. They were never able to find many (2 total, I believe) moths on trees so they caught some, froze them, and glued them to the trees. This is still being taught as legitimate evidence for natural selection. Biology textbooks teach that the human embryo has gill slits for breathing. It is a known fact that those 'slits' develop into bones for the ear and never have anything to do with breathing. Biology textbooks also teach that whales (evolved from cows, they would say) have a vestigial pelvis. That 'vestigial pelvis' is actually the anchor for muscles necessary for the whale to reproduce.

If you want to continue to take anything I say as an accusation specified toward biologists, use those examples. It should be fairly obvious how those all relate to evolution.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I honestly don't know what position is held by the guy I just quoted but the following is from an evolutionist (actually two of them.)

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out-of-date,' we just drop it."

That was from T. Save-Soderbergh of the Institute of Egyptology and I.U. Olsson of the Institute of Physics at the University of Uppsala, Sweden.

This is undoubtably bad science, and I am sure it probably goes on all too often. At least this guy was honest enough to admit it. Anyone working or planning to work in science (which might include myself) must work to improve its general integrety - searching for truth and not trying to shoe-horn results into the theories we are trying to prove. Certainly, both creationists and evolutionists are guilty of this.

However, I deffinately believe that the generally accepted scientific theories, an old earth and evolution (IMO guided by God), are the correct ones and that replacing evolution with creation science (which in all the examples I have seen has been, IMHO, poor science) would be a disaster for shcools. At most, they could be tought as competing theories that students could make their own minds up about, but as YEC has been considered to be falsified by the large majority of scientific opinion for so long I do not think even this approach is valid.

Shalom,
YN.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

If you would rather that I "accuse" biologists based on things that are very obviously related to biology and evolution I will. I'm sure you are aware of the drawings by Ernst Haeckel of the embryos of different kinds of animals. His drawings show them as all looking very much alike, which they are not. He later admitted that he had drawn them "from memory" and his own university convicted him of fraud. I still see textbooks that teach his drawings as fact. I assume you also know of the pepper moth incident where smoke from factories caused the trees to change color and, in order to survive, the moth population changed color as well. I don't doubt that it could have happened, but it was found out to be a hoax. They were never able to find many (2 total, I believe) moths on trees so they caught some, froze them, and glued them to the trees. This is still being taught as legitimate evidence for natural selection. Biology textbooks teach that the human embryo has gill slits for breathing. It is a known fact that those 'slits' develop into bones for the ear and never have anything to do with breathing. Biology textbooks also teach that whales (evolved from cows, they would say) have a vestigial pelvis. That 'vestigial pelvis' is actually the anchor for muscles necessary for the whale to reproduce.

If you want to continue to take anything I say as an accusation specified toward biologists, use those examples. It should be fairly obvious how those all relate to evolution.

It is certainly true that there is a lot of outdated, or just plain bad, science going round in textbooks. Of course, for school level science it is necessary to make simplifications, e.g. in chemistry where you are first tought about electron shells, then later about sub-shells and finally at Uni (I cover this in atomic physics) you learn about even finner structure and the splitting of the wavefunctions by various effects that cause it. This is fine - it builds up understanding and you are at least told it is a simplification. But in biology you are still tought the old five kingdoms classification system, even at A-level, when this is plain wrong, not a simplification. Noone uses it anymore and some of the old groups are a mess of unrelated (to the degree the group would suggest - of course every living thing is related somehow) organisms. But you are still tought it like it was gospel truth. Very frustrating.

 

[david_84]

Certainly, both creationists and evolutionists are guilty of this.

Thank you. That is all I was trying to say.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Thank you. That is all I was trying to say.

The difference is that science tries to discover and eliminate errors. Creationism nurtures them.

 

[david_84]

The difference is that science tries to discover and eliminate errors. Creationism nurtures them.

Yes, science does attempt to do just what you said. And yes, some creationists will attempt to nurture errors in order to prove an idea, as will anyone who cares more about what they think than they do about the truth.

But science involves predictions and observations. Because of that creationism cannot be purely scientific. On the other hand no one has ever observed chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution, or macro-evolution. This puts all these ideas in the same boat as creationism.

 

[Bushido216]

Fruit Flies

 

[ThePhoenix]

Yes, science does attempt to do just what you said. And yes, some creationists will attempt to nurture errors in order to prove an idea, as will anyone who cares more about what they think than they do about the truth.

But science involves predictions and observations. Because of that creationism cannot be purely scientific. On the other hand no one has ever observed chemical evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution, or macro-evolution. This puts all these ideas in the same boat as creationism.

What is Stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and organic evolution, and why have I never heard of them? How do chemicals evolve anyway?

 

[Bushido216]

I think he means the development of chemicals, i.e., how gases evolved. By Stellar evolution, I believe he is referring to the evolution of cosmic bodies.

It's all **** straight from the Dr. Dino website.

 

[ThePhoenix]

I think he means the development of chemicals, i.e., how gases evolved. By Stellar evolution, I believe he is referring to the evolution of cosmic bodies.

It's all **** straight from the Dr. Dino website.

Gases don't evolve. They form in chemical reactions, most of which take less then a minute. So I'm still really confused.

 

[lucaspa]

In regards to radiometric dating, the associate professor of geology of East Carolina University, Richard Mauger said, "In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other dates are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." Seems like no one is above this falsification tactic.

Young earth creationism was falsified long before radiometric dating came along. Geologists realized that the strata of the earth simply could not 1) have been formed by a Flood or 2) formed in a short period of time.

I notice, David, that you didn't post a citation. Where did you read this? Where did Richard Mauger say this?

The next question is: is the quote accurate? I can cite several examples where dates have been argued and the discrepancies explained.

 

[lucaspa]

I didn't say all of radiometric dating is falsified. I only said that falsification is not absent from evolutionism. Both creationism and evolutionism are backed by many people and not all of them in either group are above misrepresenting the facts in order to further their viewpoint.

1. There ain't no such animal as "evolutionism".

2. What matters is the data, not whether the position is "backed by a number of people." The data falsifies creationism.

3. Creationism was falsified in the period 1700-1831 when it was the accepted scientific theory. The people who did the falsifying were all theists, nearly all Christians, and many were ministers. So there goes any hint of bias. Like geocentrism, creationism is a falsified theory.

4. The instances where data was falsified were not to support evolution but rather some subsidiary hypothesis. For instance, when Haeckel falsified his drawings of embryos, it wasn't to "prove" evolution but to support his theory of Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. This is a subtheory of evolution that Haeckel wanted to be true. But evolution never proposed this and works just fine without it.

 

[Dracil]

I wonder... isn't saying "Evolutionism" like saying "Christianism"?

 

[lucaspa]

notto,

The original source of the C-14 quote was "Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium." Edited by Ingred U. Olsson.
I invite you to read the text for yourself.

And that quote says "C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as
follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is
completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having
sometimes applied this method. . ."

Now, this appears to be the opinion of Professor Brew. However, the quote is hearsay and I see no documentation by anyone where this has happened. If it were widespread and common, certainly creationists could do better than taking the quote out of context.

Sorry, David, but if you are using this as evidence that fraud even exists within the archeological community, much less science as a whole, it isn't going to cut it. Nor does it in any way undercut the accuracy of radiometric dating, which is where you started.

 

[lucaspa]

I assume you also know of the pepper moth incident where smoke from factories caused the trees to change color and, in order to survive, the moth population changed color as well. I don't doubt that it could have happened, but it was found out to be a hoax. They were never able to find many (2 total, I believe) moths on trees so they caught some, froze them, and glued them to the trees. This is still being taught as legitimate evidence for natural selection.

I'm sorry, but you have been misled. What is being debated is whether predation was the selection method. You can see here that the numbers of just the confirming studies, not the original, are far higher than 2.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/wells-april-2002.html

Biology textbooks teach that the human embryo has gill slits for breathing. It is a known fact that those 'slits' develop into bones for the ear and never have anything to do with breathing.

But they still start out as gill arches. It shows how one structure is modified for other uses. Perfectly legitimate.

Biology textbooks also teach that whales (evolved from cows, they would say) have a vestigial pelvis. That 'vestigial pelvis' is actually the anchor for muscles necessary for the whale to reproduce.

Sorry, but again no. The point is, however, why a whale has a pelvis at all, including vestigial femurs, unless they evolved from an animal that had legs? The muscles could just as easily be attached to the spine. There is no need, if whales were created from scratch, for them to have pelvic bones, including rudimentary thigh bones, at all.

If you want to continue to take anything I say as an accusation specified toward biologists, use those examples. It should be fairly obvious how those all relate to evolution.

It is. Unfortunately, Jonathan Wells (the author of Icons of Evolution, which I own) did not present the information accurately. I'm afraid you have been misled.