Hi, I just learned of this discussion. It's much more thoughtful and reasonable than many discussions on the subject of evo vs creo. Right at the start there is a statement that there is hardly any evidence for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs. (the word 'lizards' is used; there is a big difference, and I'm not referring to size) Then this view is revised! So few people will revise anything they say, I have to be impressed. However there is now lots of fossil evidence for this transition. The big technical problem is figuring out where to draw an arbitrary line saying '"Birds start here". There is no clear divide, and there may well have been some small feathered flying theropods that were
not on the line to birds as we know them, as well as others that were.
If you are new to evo/creo, the place to start is The Index to Creationist Claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Evolution is so little taught, yet you hear so much about it in the news, that most of what people think they know about the subject is false or misleading or so oversimplified that it is easily taken advantage of by antievolutionists. Quotations play a large part , so it helps to know something about:
Quotations and Misquotations
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
and quote mining
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
What about IDC (or DIC - Disc. Institute Creationism, since it is the DI that advertises this brand)? You don't know nuthin til you know The Wedge:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
For some technical stuff on the 'design inference':
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/theftovertoil/theftovertoil.html
Why not teach 'both theories'? To teach something in science class, you must have some actual valid content to put into science lesson plans. Creationism including DIC hasn't any and there is not even a theory of IDesign. Leading Designists admit this. Is evolution a fact of natural history, or a theory? Yes, both. As with gravity - think about it. By the way, that the earth is at least millions of years old was worked out by Christian geologists before they had heard of evolution.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/theory_not_fact.html
The well funded DICs have been very very good at antiscience propaganda. Their famous 'irreducible complexity' (IC ) provides an illustration. Think about 'parts' of organisms, from large body parts down to proteins. Evolution naturally leads to co-adapted parts. Now, from the observer's point of view, specify a 'function' of an organism. Next, designate a 'system', or overall part of the organism that accomplishes the function. Finally, divide the 'system' into parts, and don't include any extra parts. If evolution has been at work, there surely are situations where this can be done. But according to leading Designist Behe:
Behe said:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system
composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that
contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one
of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
[emphasis in original]
and this just couldn't have evolved.
As I know now, the idea (but not the clever name for it) came from a major work of creationism:
Morris said:
This issue can actually be attacked quantitatively, using
simple principles of mathematical probability. The problem
is simply whether a complex system, in which many com-
ponents function unitedly together, and in which each com-
ponent is uniquely necessary to the efficient functioning of
the whole, could ever arise by random processes.
Absurd, but powerful propaganda.
By the way, note the last two words in the quote: 'random processes'. Creationists have been told hundreds of times that natural selection is not random. Most pay no attention. Perhaps it's easier to reject evolution if you think it's random period. In general, talking about the 'probability' of anything apart from the process leading to it is nonsense. Think of a fluffy white cloud in a blue sky.
The big big deal in evo/creo just now is the Kitzmiller trial stemming from the actions of the Dover, PA school board. The trial lasted for about six weeks, and then it was about that long again until the Judge's decision came out yesterday. There was extensive testimony from scientists and citizens, IDists and school board members, a philosopher, a theologian and an expert on science education. The trial was extensively covered at The Panda's Thumb, and there were several posts yesterday on the decision.
http://www.pandasthumb.org
Here is one comment from a scientist on Behe's testimony:
Julie
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/witt_in_the_sea.html#comment-59541
Bad Religion and I don't mean the rock group
Upon looking into it, most people can figure out that 'scientific creationism' is a misnomer and relabeling it doesn't change this. What is often overlooked is that it's bad religion too. It is the Designer (formerly known as God) of the gaps - the idea that God is to be found in gaps in human knowledge. This is made worse by the fact that they essentially make up the gaps, whether in fossils or in molecules. There is also the principle of more gaps: every new data point means that one gap turns into two. Let's not use public schools to push crackpot theology.
http://www.evolvingcode.net/recon.php
Part of a recent news article:
Baylor vice-president Randall O'Brien (where
evolution is taught) said, "At Baylor, we believe Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3534415.html
Students bridge science, faith at Christian colleges Intelligent design not taught at Baylor University
By LISA ANDERSON
Chicago Tribune
BOURBONNAIS, Ill. As the battle over the teaching of biological evolution buffets public high schools, a more delicate challenge faces many of the nation's Christian colleges and universities: helping students bridge the growing gap between modern science and fundamentalist faith.
With the increase in evangelical Christians and the rise in home schooling for religious reasons, Christian schools of all types find that many of their students come from a creationist tradition. "Young Earth" creationists take the Bible's Genesis account of creation literally while "old Earth" adherents believe the planet is older than 10,000 years. Both consider Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and particularly its assertion of the common ancestry of all life and the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection to be evil, faith-threatening concepts.
Some extremely conservative colleges and universities, such as Patrick Henry College in Virginia and Bob Jones University in South Carolina, approach all studies from a strict biblical perspective. While biology classes may cover neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, creationism, often including an Earth age of less than 10,000 years, is presented as the best explanation for the development of humans and the universe.
But many, more moderate "Christ-centered" institutions have firmly distanced themselves from the less-rigorous academic stereotype of the "Bible college" and have invested in cutting-edge science programs and facilities comparable to those at highly rated secular schools.
The intersection of Bible and biology lab, however, seems more like a collision course for some students.
"Imagine telling a very devout creationist that evolution is real, but it doesn't endanger their faith," said Richard Colling, a professor of biology at Olivet Nazarene University, affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, in Bourbonnais, south of Chicago. "That's exactly the journey many of our college students begin when they come into my biology class."
Toni Moran, 21, a senior biology major from Decatur, Ill., has taken that journey.
"Personally, I think there's such a divide among Christians that we're forced to choose evolution or creationism. I think so many Christians are afraid that if they even look at the scientific evidence, they'll lose their faith," she said, noting that "'evolution' is a taboo word in my church and in my home."
Moran said she has come to accept evolution as compatible with her faith but thinks intelligent design should be included in science classes. Intelligent design, or ID, presents itself as a scientific theory positing that some complex aspects of the natural world, yet unexplained by evolution, best are attributed to an unnamed and unseen intelligent designer, whom many ID proponents believe is God. Nearly universally rejected by scientists, ID is considered by many to be a high-tech name for creationism.
Colling vigorously opposes ID, calling it "a God of the gaps" concept without scientific merit that uses God to fill gaps in scientific understanding.
"Intelligent design ensures that God will be pushed into an ever- diminishing corner and ultimately be viewed as obsolete. Every time science makes a new discovery, God is erased," Colling said.
