Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199153 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37808 Aug 13, 2012
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.

popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.” They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity! Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37809 Aug 13, 2012
Feigned(?) Ignorance
A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives. There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed)“no one’s ever seen it.”[2] Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism. Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts. Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone. These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature. They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying. Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration. Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37810 Aug 13, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>Are those differences consistent with God making them after their own kind and having them to be fruitful and multiply that way. Why, Yes.
Ah, but nothing is inconsistent with Goddidit, as it doesn't matter if the evidence is blue or red, both are evidence for Goddidit no matter what!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#37811 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your concept of inheritance is false. For natural selection to act, it must act on a single mutated individual
Wrong, plain wrong, utter wrong, completely wrong, totally wrong, just plain utter completely totally wrong.

See, the reason why you can't falsify evolution is because you can't actually ADDRESS evolution. You either invent caricatures or simply misunderstand some of the concepts.

That's NOT our problem.
HTS wrote:
... It it doesn't the trait will become diluted in subsequent generations.
You failed to provide any evolutionary explanation of biological altruism. How do mutations resulting in hundreds of pharmacological agents in plants come incorporated into plant populations when they provide o benefit to the plants?
For something to live, something else must die. Death is not an advantage to any individual.

Well done once again for completely misunderstanding natural selection. For someone who claimed to be a 2 year med student you have an uncanny ability to sound as knowledgeable as a 14 year old.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37812 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
How does the non-existence of "monkey professors" provide evidence for the existence of a god?(There isn't anything in the process of evolution that requires all species to evolve in the exact same way.)
<quoted text>
In sincerity, I'll be glad to, as soon as you answer my question first.
Many ways...
A creator made this to be possible...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#37813 Aug 13, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
Where do you get that they reproduced before the forbidden tree incident?
So you're saying that all of the living things (animals, plants, fungi, etc.) in the Garden of Eden had reproductive structures that they didn't use?

Is that your argument?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#37814 Aug 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
no matter how you colour it, they(humans) can never be apes
Why not?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#37815 Aug 13, 2012
Why should current science be able to stop death?
Charles Idemi wrote:
They can never, i bet you, why? because there is a greater power beyond science and that is God...
You didn't answer my question:*Why* should current science be able to stop death?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#37816 Aug 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Ape is ape! They can never be humans, never!!!
Why not?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37817 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Common descent states that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common population of great apes.(It doesn't say anything about "elements".)
Wrong use of adjectives. No great apes, apes are apes.Period...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#37818 Aug 13, 2012
How does the non-existence of "monkey professors" provide evidence for the existence of a god?(There isn't anything in the process of evolution that requires all species to evolve in the exact same way.)
Charles Idemi wrote:
Many ways
Can you name *one* way?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#37819 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Claim.....Now, Prove It
Not my claim. Science's claim. You have heard of cosmology haven't you. Or do you think all cosmologists are Satan's spawn.

You didn't answer my question. If you believe in god, wWhy would you take the words in an old book of unknown origin over the evidence plainly left for us to explore?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37820 Aug 13, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay.
Creationism = myth
Evolution = scientific reality
In your own frustrated imagination...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#37821 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
http://www.trueorigin.org/crea theory.asp
A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists
© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.
popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.” They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity! Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.
Where is the hypothesis of creationism?

Hint, a theory has to pass a few tests and present stuff we call evidence to be tested first, until then, it's a hypothesis. By dishonestly calling it a theory is flat out lying.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#37822 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow....So You Believe Speculation As Proof ?
Perhaps You Can Convince The Third Graders, But Im Betting They Are Smarter Then That.
Sorry Pal...You And Science Dont Come Close To Proving Your Assertions.
Actually, it does and with far more certainty than your never seen or heard from god. You're refusal to understand the science doesn't make it go away.

Again, if you believe in god, why would you take the words in an old book of unknown origin over the evidence plainly left for us to explore?

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37823 Aug 13, 2012
What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise,“science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.“Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason,“the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37824 Aug 13, 2012
It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.[It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.”[It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:

The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
Biblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical support
Citation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
Citation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37825 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
You are going back to my earlier question...
Show me where on earth do we have a monkey professor?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#37826 Aug 13, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is correct?,Ha,ha,ha,I 'm sure you have the recipe in the kitchen next to the pancake batter mix.Abiogenesis has absolutely ZERO evidence, Zero! yet you have swallowed it all on faith, why? It concurs with your world view, why don't you just choose the aliens seeded earth theory, it hasn't been proven unworkable in a lab like abiogenesis and you can still use the liar,fundie and uneducated tags for those who disagree.
Now you are just plain lying. The evidence supporting Abiogenesis is surprisingly simple, I am not surprised you fail to understand it. Here it is, in brief form:

In the past there is evidnece that there was no life on Earth. At a point evidence of life is present. So no life -- then life. There, evidence for Abiogenesis!

Now, the real Abiogenesis question is HOW did it happen, not if it happened. We are still working on that question. Of course, the answer to that question doesn't have any impact on evolutionary theory. Whether God, Aliens, or chemistry did it, doesn't really matter for evolution.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37827 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Why should current science be able to stop death?
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question:*Why* should current science be able to stop death?
Be practical!
I am giving you a direct answer, they can never stop death...
Back to my questions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min -Dont Panic- 387,774
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 min WasteWater 12,896
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 2 min TheOriginalDoby 52
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 4 min WasteWater 970
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 6 min Jay 228,355
News Biden to rip Trump: Bullying is not a foreign p... 6 min Chilli J 82
News Donald Trump: Brexit is sign of independence de... 6 min Go Blue Forever 19
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Yeah 1,394,386
News Trump hits 'hostile' media, 'rogue' Scarborough... 8 min WasteWater 246
News Rebellious Democrats disrupt House, stage protest 20 min Jimmay 216
More from around the web