Do Creationists Understand The Theory Of Evolution?

[Booko]

A Law has been proven, a theory has not. Life cannot come from non-life, hence we have peanut-butter sealed in jars at every grocery store.

Thank you for proving the point that Creationists do not in fact understand as much about science as Evolutionists do.

Newton's "Laws" were tossed out the window when Einstein came along with relativity. As I wrote before, a "Law" is nothing but a theory that we are very very confident about.

This is the difference between science and Creationism:

1. Science, when it happens across additional evidence that conflicts with existing theories and yes "Laws" retools and adjusts the theories and "Laws" to fit observed Reality.

2. Creationism, when it is confronted with evidence that disproves one of its theses, just refines scientific terms in ways that can be best described as intellectually dishonest.

Science starts with evidence and looks for a theory that fits it.

Creationism starts with the conclusion and then digs around selectively crediting evidence that appears to support that conclusion and casually disregarding anything that conflicts with the conclusion.

Reason #165892 why Creationism is not science and has no place whatsoever in a science classroom.

If you want to teach it in Social Studies, knock yourself out.

 

[Booko]

I don't need to prove a Law that has already been proven. Life cannot come from non-life. It is true, the Earth does have life. Since life cannot come from non-life, then life came from God.

The statement "Life cannot come from non-life" has not been proven.

"Life cannot come from non-life" is an axiom, and one that I see no particular reason to accept.

Should you care to continue down this path, let's apply the Socratic method for a spell:

Joe...please define "life."

 

[Booko]

Throughout my schooling I was always shown the disproofs of spontanteous generation.

Yes, and I had a HS Physics teacher who claimed that evolutionary theory violated the Laws of Thermodynamics.

And he was full of beans as well.

How do know your teachers were not equally over their head and full of beans, as was my HS Physics teacher?

Why should those few who "schooled" you be given more credibility than the rest of the scientific community? Just because they tell you what you want to hear?

Life simply does not come from non-life.

Repeating a statement does not make it more true.

Please point us at the papers where this is proved.

As far as God is concerned, I believe he has always existed, he is eternal, outside time and does not need to have been "created" as he has always been. The creation had a beginning and thus needed a creator. It is nonsense to me to observe all the wonders of creation and believe they just happened. But whatever floats your boat.

I believe this as well, Joe. I just don't believe it's a scientific statement.

Evolution, despite what you may think of it, has no implication whatever about the existence or non-existence of a Creator. That's metaphysics, not physics.

I really don't understand why Creationists have such a difficult time grasping this simple point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evolution, despite what you may think of it, has no implication whatever about the existence or non-existence of a Creator. That's metaphysics, not physics.

I really don't understand why Creationists have such a difficult time grasping this simple point.

Evolution doesn't even have any implication about how life came to be in the first place, either, which is another biggie that plenty of people have trouble with.

Evolution doesn't say whether the first seeds of life on Earth were planted by God's own hand, arose spontaneously, rode in on an asteroid, or fell off the back of a pickup truck. It only says what happened after life started.

 

[Quiddity]

Evolution doesn't even have any implication about how life came to be in the first place, either, which is another biggie that plenty of people have trouble with.

Evolution doesn't say whether the first seeds of life on Earth were planted by God's own hand, arose spontaneously, rode in on an asteroid, or fell off the back of a pickup truck. It only says what happened after life started.

You probably meant Abiogenesis?

Evolution deals with populations and it's changes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You probably meant Abiogenesis?

Evolution deals with populations and it's changes.

Yes, that's what I was driving at.

 

[Booko]

Evolution doesn't even have any implication about how life came to be in the first place, either, which is another biggie that plenty of people have trouble with.

A point that is often made in conversation with Creationists -- and promptly ignored by them.

Really, saying that evolution does not address abiogenesis is not that difficult to understand. :areyoucra

Evolution doesn't say whether the first seeds of life on Earth were planted by God's own hand, arose spontaneously, rode in on an asteroid, or fell off the back of a pickup truck. It only says what happened after life started.

Personally I adhere to the theory of abiogenesis first put forth by Philip Jose Farmer that the "seeds" of life here on Earth were the result of aliens that look rather like giant cockroaches flushing their loo as they passed by.

 

[~Amin~]

In your experience, do most of the creationists you encounter understand the Theory of Evolution? Why or why not?

Peace
If you whatched Darwins documentry even he said
"my THEORY(not fact),has loop holes which would
indicate he didnt even understand it.
But yes ive studied it and cant agree with something
he didnt even KNOW.

 

[YmirGF]

If you watched Darwin's documentry he said
"my THEORY(not fact),has loop holes" which would
indicate he didnt even understand it.
But yes ive studied it and cant agree with something
he didnt even KNOW.

I hadn't realized that Charles Darwin had made a documentary considering motion picture films arrived in the last century whereas Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, so for him to even have a documentary would be quite a feat.

Did you study it for more than three minutes? Aside from this Charles (Chucky to his friends) Darwin wrote the dang thing so it is rather likely that he understood his own mind fairly well. Heck I am working on several "theories" as we speak, lol, but like all good theories, they are "works in progress" based on understanding and direct observation. As Booko so clearly stated, the idea behind laws and theories it that they are designed to "evolve" as our understanding grows through them.

Try to grasp the fact that ALL theories have loose ends or loop holes. That is why they are called Theories in the first place.

Excellent work to the crew on this thread defending Evolution. Well done and keep up the great work. Special kudo's to 9/10ths, Booko and Gnostic Storyteller. :clap:clap:clap

 

[~Amin~]

I hadn't realized that Charles Darwin had made a documentary considering motion picture films arrived in the last century whereas Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, so for him to even have a documentary would be quite a feat.

WERE DID YOU POP OUT FROM?
I didnt say darwn spoke on the documentary
it was baesed on him and dont forget budy,
its a THEORY.

 

[YmirGF]

WERE DID YOU POP OUT FROM?
I didnt say darwn spoke on the documentary
it was baesed on him and dont forget budy,
its a THEORY.

Well Amin, first off, I knew precisely what you meant to say, but rather, for your edification, I wrote my reply gearing it to what you ACTUALLY said, lol. You will grow to understand the proper use of English if you stick around long enough. It is a lesson and not meant to offend in any way, but rather, to educate. If you write something that does not convey what you actually mean you will unwittingly create confusion. Got it?

Back to "Chucky" and his Theory. I agree, that "evolution" is indeed ONLY a theory, however it is the very best "working model" that mankind has come up with. The odd thing with science is that it almost BEGS brilliant minds to out-do what comes before them. Science would marvel with respect and admiration anyone who could conclusively prove why The Theory of Evolution was incorrect by replacing it with a new, better "model".

That is what I love about science, as there is NO "sacred cows", as it were and IN THEORY everything we know is "open season" for he who makes the "better mousetrap". You have to admit, if you are honest, that that is the way the aquisition of knowledge should work. If science was so arrogant to stick to models that were concrete and could not be strayed from, we would still be in the Dark Ages. Do you have any better ideas? What is YOUR understanding of "evolution" rather than just spitting on it somewhat haughtily? To clarify, I mean, HOW do you understand this process, IN YOUR OWN WORDS?

Where did I "pop" out of? Well... you see, just over 52 years ago this nice man who really loved this sweet and beautiful damsel "danced" all night and ate lots of chocolate and cupcakes. Approximately nine months later, I "popped" out of the dear lady and well, the rest is history. Have you heard the one about the birds and the bees?

In regards to Phil's original OP, I believe one only needs to read this thread to garner the answers. Each question here is repeatedly answered, in spades. It would seem that there are two schools of thought that are at odds. One school of thought is static or unchanging while the other school of thought is dynamic and embodies change.

 

[Booko]

I hadn't realized that Charles Darwin had made a documentary considering motion picture films arrived in the last century whereas Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, so for him to even have a documentary would be quite a feat.

WERE DID YOU POP OUT FROM?
I didnt say darwn spoke on the documentary
it was baesed on him and dont forget budy,
its a THEORY.

The way you wrote your reply rather sounded like Darwin had made a documentary. It's not just Ymir that read it that way, though I figured that's not what you really meant.

As for "it's a theory" -- yes that's what it is.

And that's more than one can say for Creationism, which is not a "theory" at all, but a religious idea.

On the subject of Creationism, there are many religious ideas about Creation. So if we were going to teach them in science classes, how would we determine which one is the "right" one?

I believe the correct religious view of Creation is the Norse story where Earth is created from the body of a frost giant.

I say we should teach that in a science class. Why? Oh...just because I "believe" it. No scientific standards of proof need be met.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the subject of Creationism, there are many religious ideas about Creation. So if we were going to teach them in science classes, how would we determine which one is the "right" one?

I believe the correct religious view of Creation is the Norse story where Earth is created from the body of a frost giant.

I say we should teach that in a science class. Why? Oh...just because I "believe" it. No scientific standards of proof need be met.

I share the view of Bobby Henderson, prophet of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

 

[Booko]

All hail the Church of the :fsm:! :bow:

 

[Quiddity]

I share the view of Bobby Henderson, prophet of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

May your sauciness be forever tasty...:eat:

 

[Booko]

In your experience, do most of the creationists you encounter understand the Theory of Evolution? Why or why not?

I don't know what mental lapse caused me to neglect mentioning this (probably need for ), but one of the salient features of Creationists is their misunderstanding that any theories regarding evolution in any way address the existence or non-existence of God.

As the primary objection of Creationists seems to boil down to "But that removes God from the picture!" it would be helpful if they could come to understand that scientific theories simply don't deal with the subject of God's existence in any manner.

 

[painted wolf]

No, nor do most care to.
Most often they say "I know enough to know I don't agree."
Which is a way of saying "I don't want to know, I just want to disagree."

many who argue for evolution also don't actually understand it... they have it as a 'just so story'.
Evolution is very complex, it encompases genetics, ecology, paleontology, embryology, chemistry and so on.
The basics are easy to grasp, the details require a lot more effort.

Naturally most supporters understand the theory better, as they have made an effort to understand/ learn about the theory and the evidence.
Most Creationists simply regurgitate the same arguments that they heard from someone elce... most of which goes back to the 1920's. Terribly misinformed.

wa:do

 

[logician]

Actually, most people don't really understand the theory of evolution, creationist or not, many equate it to man evolving from monkey which is not true.

 

[supersport]

In your experience, do most of the creationists you encounter understand the Theory of Evolution? Why or why not?

Also, in your experience, do most proponents of evolutionary theory understand the Theory of Evolution? Why or why not?

In your opinion, which group in general understands the Theory of Evolution best: Creationists or proponents of evolutionary theory? Why?

why don't you, in your own words, tell me what it is and I'll tell you if I understand it or not.

 

[supersport]

I would actually like to hear an evolutionist tell me what evolution is in his/her own words.