Phil Doubts it!

Len Lekx wrote:
On 25 Jan 2004 01:35:25 -0800, (Donald L
Ferrt) wrote:

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both
evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.
"He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to
decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said.

Ummm... this isn't his opinion on Creationism itself, but whether
it should be introduced to young minds as a *theory*. How can
allowing people to make up their own minds about the subject be BAD?
:-)


Theory? Its hardly a theory. To be that, it would need some scientific
basis. You might as well teach them von Daenicen's and Blavatskaya's
ideas alongside history on the premise that they can hardly be hurt by
being introduced to the theory and will obviously differentiate between
the crackpot and non-crackpot ones.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Len Lekx wrote:
On 25 Jan 2004 10:48:09 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

Creationism is a disproved theory. Evolution is a
proved theory. Nobody teaches the phlogiston

You can't "prove" or "disprove" these kinds of theories. We have
evidence suggesting the idea that organisms adapt, but that's a far
cry from proving the mechanism by which it happens.

You can very easily disprove the majority of creationism - except
possibly the question whetever life was created or evolved from inorganics -
by simply asking the proponents to provide any real concrete evidence.
If they consistemtly fail and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary,
then there is in fact no reason to assume it might be true.

And of course, organisms adapting is not just something evidence suggests,
there is loads of first-hand evidence of it hapenning.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:23:37 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Len Lekx wrote:
On 25 Jan 2004 10:48:09 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

Creationism is a disproved theory. Evolution is a
proved theory. Nobody teaches the phlogiston

You can't "prove" or "disprove" these kinds of theories. We have
evidence suggesting the idea that organisms adapt, but that's a far
cry from proving the mechanism by which it happens.

You can very easily disprove the majority of creationism - except
possibly the question whetever life was created or evolved from inorganics -
by simply asking the proponents to provide any real concrete evidence.
If they consistemtly fail and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary,
then there is in fact no reason to assume it might be true.

That is not a disproof.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:12:12 GMT, Len Lekx
wrote:

On 25 Jan 2004 10:48:09 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:

Creationism is a disproved theory. Evolution is a
proved theory. Nobody teaches the phlogiston

You can't "prove" or "disprove" these kinds of theories. We have
evidence suggesting the idea that organisms adapt, but that's a far
cry from proving the mechanism by which it happens.

theory in schools, except as an example of wrong
headed theories which can be disproved.

And you don't think that, a hundred or so years from now,
scientists may revisit the phlogiston theory with new insights... and
say "DAMN! They had it right all along!" ;-)

I wish people would understand the difference between the "Theory of
Evolution" (i.e. species change over time) which is an everyday
observable fact and "Natural Selection" which is the theory that
postulates how evolution can lead to what we see today.

Go to any university fruit fly lab and you will be able to directly
observe evolution in action, it is as much as observed fact as fire is
hot, things fall down, if you warm up ice it will melt. Evolution is
about as solid as science gets

Natural selection is the process that is thought to drive evolution in
a manner that will lead towards species that have a greater chance of
reproduction in the evironment that they live in, and that this may
account for the production of complex animals from single cells
organisms over a 3.5 billion year timeframe.

All evidence points to natural selection as being the most likely
explanation for this, but there is still discussion as to how natural
selection operates in complex environments, what impact evironmental
changes has on natural selection, and how quickly natural selection
operates. The controversy in the scientific commmunity isn't about
evolution, and its really not even about natural selection, but about
the specifics of how natural selection works.

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
Creationism is a disproved theory.

Yes, and can you cite the laboratory work and tests that disproved
Creationism?

Can you show me the proof that the moon isn't pushed in its orbit by
the beats of invisible, intangible, angel's wings? (I am neither being
facetious nor ridiculous- I ask this in all seriousness.)

The last things that I read about Creationism lead me to believe that
it is internally consistent.

I'm sure a creationist theory can be produced that would be so. But it
would still doubtless be a daft theory.

But that isn't the question.

Note that this is not the same thing as scientifically proving it.

Unfortunately, in the formalism of physics, it is not possible to
prove a theory against all other possible theories, there are always
theories that can be constructed that match known reality that differ
from the currently accepted theory.

The beat of angels wings is one example of that.

Evolution is a proved theory.

There is a lot of consistent scientific evidence that points to evolution as
the process by which life was developed. If it was complete and
irrefutable it would be described as The Law of Evolution.

Sadly, this is not the case, plenty of theories; such as 'Newton's
laws of motion' are called laws, but really are only theories; and in
fact are known to be only approximately correct (i.e. false). In
modern physics, partly due to the historical baggage, 'law' and
'theory' are interchangeable.

The nearest thing physics has to laws is 'the standard model'.

Nobody teaches the phlogiston
theory in schools, except as an example of wrong
headed theories which can be disproved.

I believe we know quite a bit more about combustion than we
do about the origin of the species.

Yeah, well, mankind now has access to the source code; the history is
writ large in the organisms DNA. Incidentally, there's not a massive
mystery about species, it's simply that some organisms rarely mate
with other organisms and their DNA has drifted far enough away that
their offspring are increasingly less viable, and these are
conventionally called 'species'. But there's no hard and fast boundary
between species.

Mike Walsh

"Michael Walsh" wrote ...

Donald L Ferrt wrote:

But
we can figure out the age of the earth and the ordering of species
during that timeline! Which totally disputes the Bibical Creationism
being taught!

According to what I have read about Creationism they make the
claim that God implanted the species in the rocks during the
Creation. Thus there is no contradiction between what we observe
and the Bible.

I've no objection to people teaching creation, but it gets really sticky
when they start teaching 'creation science'.

What you've read may be true for a particular subset of Creationism -
but what I've come across (and find particularly objectionable) is
things that 'show' Creationism is 'true'.

"Look - A dinosaur's footprint overlapping a human one!"

If you're going to attach 'science' to a name your evidence should
be subject to scientific standards - not just faked, made up
or photoshop-doctored.

Maybe someone who's got better access to the material actually used
can provide an idea of how common this sort of 'evidence based
creationism' is.

"Paul Blay" wrote ...
Maybe someone who's got better access to the material actually used
can provide an idea of how common this sort of 'evidence based
creationism' is.

Take
http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm
for instance.

On dinosaurs :
"The interpretation (or belief) that they all died off millions and millions of
years ago is in dispute between creationists and evolutionists. "

Sure is. Note that they aren't claiming dinosaur fossils were created
along with the rest of the universe - already old (false/created history), but
that dinosaurs existed but did not die off millions and millions of years ago.

On the age of the Earth:
"But other creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued
learning ... [...] there really is no good scientific evidence supporting
evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000
years old."

This is the sort of stuff that I wouldn't want to see taught in any school -
unless it was followed by a class on how to pull their theories apart ;-)

So just what _would_ be taught in schools as 'creationism' ?

"God could have created everything including all evidence of
existance prior to that instant of creation. Discuss."
Wouldn't really take more than five minutes or so.

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
Donald L Ferrt wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Len Lekx wrote in message . ..
On 25 Jan 2004 01:35:25 -0800, (Donald L
Ferrt) wrote:

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both
evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.
"He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to
decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said.

Ummm... this isn't his opinion on Creationism itself, but whether
it should be introduced to young minds as a *theory*. How can
allowing people to make up their own minds about the subject be BAD?
:-)

Creationism is a disproved theory.

Yes, and can you cite the laboratory work and tests that disproved
Creationism?

The last things that I read about Creationism lead me to believe that
it is internally consistent.

I don't believe it can be disproved.

Note that this is not the same thing as scientifically proving it.


How do you proove an enity removed from the Physical Universe as we
know it? One could also teach in schools that Wizzards and Witches
run things = It would be as legitimate as teaching Creationism!

After reading this I thought you almost got the point about what
I was saying, but then you continued on.

But
we can figure out the age of the earth and the ordering of species
during that timeline! Which totally disputes the Bibical Creationism
being taught!

According to what I have read about Creationism they make the
claim that God implanted the species in the rocks during the
Creation. Thus there is no contradiction between what we observe
and the Bible.


Never heard that! Many a fundamentalist will claim the Devil produced
all the fossils to deveive us about the turth of God! But to them the
whole earth is nothing but one big deception!

Creationists either claim the earth is a few thousand years old and
dispute measurements that determine age of rocks; or they say God
created all the species and say the earth may be very old!

Paul Blay wrote:

"Michael Walsh" wrote ...

Donald L Ferrt wrote:

But
we can figure out the age of the earth and the ordering of species
during that timeline! Which totally disputes the Bibical Creationism
being taught!

According to what I have read about Creationism they make the
claim that God implanted the species in the rocks during the
Creation. Thus there is no contradiction between what we observe
and the Bible.

I've no objection to people teaching creation, but it gets really sticky
when they start teaching 'creation science'.

What you've read may be true for a particular subset of Creationism -
but what I've come across (and find particularly objectionable) is
things that 'show' Creationism is 'true'.

"Look - A dinosaur's footprint overlapping a human one!"

If you're going to attach 'science' to a name your evidence should
be subject to scientific standards - not just faked, made up
or photoshop-doctored.

Maybe someone who's got better access to the material actually used
can provide an idea of how common this sort of 'evidence based
creationism' is.

I never suggested and certainly would not approve of "Creationism"
being taught as a science.

I restricted myself to claiming that "Creationism" is internally consistent
and cannot be disproved.

The same thing is true about trying to disprove a conspiracy theory.
All conspiracy theories can be defended by increasing the level
and the layer of the conspiracy. Some conspiracies require that
the national media be deeply involved.

Mike Walsh

This seems to be taking on a life of its own and my viewpoint
seems to be getting a bit distorted by people responding.

Ian Woollard wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
Creationism is a disproved theory.

Yes, and can you cite the laboratory work and tests that disproved
Creationism?

Can you show me the proof that the moon isn't pushed in its orbit by
the beats of invisible, intangible, angel's wings? (I am neither being
facetious nor ridiculous- I ask this in all seriousness.)

Actually that pretty much corresponds to my point.

The last things that I read about Creationism lead me to believe that
it is internally consistent.

I'm sure a creationist theory can be produced that would be so. But it
would still doubtless be a daft theory.

I am not arguing that particular point.

But that isn't the question.

Note that this is not the same thing as scientifically proving it.

Unfortunately, in the formalism of physics, it is not possible to
prove a theory against all other possible theories, there are always
theories that can be constructed that match known reality that differ
from the currently accepted theory.

You can spin current reality in all kinds of ways and plausibilities.

The scientific method has a very strong method of investigation by
repeatable experiments. There are quite a few things that cannot
be fully tested, such as what really is happening and has happened
in cosmology?

Doesn't mean we should stop trying to make these determinations.

Mike Walsh