PDA

View Full Version : Creationism and Evolution debated in France


IBC
03-26-2007, 04:40 PM
French Scientists Rebut U.S., Muslim Creationism
by Tom Heneghan

With creationism now coming in Christian and Muslim versions, scientists, teachers and theologians in France are debating ways to counteract what they see as growing religious attacks on science.

Bible-based criticism of evolution, once limited to Protestant fundamentalists in the United States, has become an issue in France now that Pope Benedict and some leading Catholic theologians have criticized the neo-Darwinist view of creation.

An Islamist publisher in Turkey mass-mailed a lavishly illustrated Muslim creationist book to schools across France recently, prompting the Education Ministry to proscribe the volume and question the way the story of life is taught here.

The Bible and the Koran say God directly created the world and everything in it. In Christianity, fundamentalists believe this literally but the largest denomination, Catholicism, and most mainline Protestant churches read it more symbolically.

This literalism led Christian fundamentalists to reject the theory of evolution elaborated in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, the foundation stone of modern biology. Muslim scholars also dispute evolution but have not made this a major issue.

“There is a growing distrust of science in public opinion, especially among the young, and that worries us,” said Philippe Deterre, a research biologist and Catholic priest who organized a colloquium on creationism for scientists at the weekend.

“There are many issues that go beyond strictly scientific or strictly theological explanations,” he said at the colloquium in this university town southwest of Paris. Deterre’s Blaise Pascal Network promotes understanding between science and religion.

Barred from teaching creationism in U.S. public schools, some conservative Christians now advocate the “intelligent design” argument that some forms of life are too complex to have simply evolved. Scientists call this creationism in disguise.

These American concerns caught notice in Europe after Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a confidant of Pope Benedict, attacked neo-Darwinist theories in 2005 in what seemed to be a move to ally the Catholic Church with “intelligent design.”

GROWING ISSUES IN FRANCE

These theoretical debates became a pressing issue in France last month when schools unexpectedly received free copies of an “Atlas of Creation” by Turkish Islamist Harun Yahya that blames Darwinism for everything from terrorism to Nazism.

Herve Le Guyader, a University of Paris biology professor who advised the Education Ministry on the Atlas, said high school biology teachers needed more training now to respond to the increasingly open challenges to the theory of evolution.

“It’s often taught in a simplistic way,” he said. “We have to give them the philosophical arguments they need to respond.”

Paleontologist Marc Godinot said creationists and their critics drew overblown conclusions from a theory that explains how life developed but not how it was created. The ultimate origin of life is not a question science can answer, he said.

Creationists reject evolution because some scientists say the role of chance in it proves that life has no final meaning.

“We have to decode this, but that’s a job for philosophers and theologians,” Godinot said . “Creation is actually a big mystery.”

Jacques Arnould, a Catholic priest who works at France’s National Center for Space Research, said Christians in Europe should not look down with bemusement at creationists abroad.

“They are believers, as we are,” the Dominican theologian told the meeting of about 100, mostly Catholic scientists with a few Muslims as well. “There are Christian, Muslim and Jewish approaches that we have to respect.”

Arnould said the question of life’s purpose arose naturally in biology class but science could not answer it. Instead of offering simple creationism, he said, theologians should develop views that respect modern science and faith in a divine purpose.

He said Catholic thinkers should update “natural theology,” the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) that married philosophy and science in a view that dominated European thought until the 18th-century Enlightenment divorced the two fields.

“Natural theology was based on the knowledge of the time,” said Arnould. “That knowledge keeps changing, so natural theology has to change too.”

Copyright © 2007 Reuters

LSU
03-26-2007, 04:47 PM
One thing I agree with for sure is that evolution is taught too simplistically in high school. Way way too simplistically. I can hardly blame some people for having second thoughts about it.

But unless they cut out some other stuff in the cirricula, there's not enough time to cover everything.

Biological knowledge is expanding quickly. Nowhere near enough time to cover it in HS. And glossing it over leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

Vegas
03-26-2007, 04:50 PM
One thing I agree with for sure is that evolution is taught too simplistically in high school. Way way too simplistically. I can hardly blame some people for having second thoughts about it.

But unless they cut out some other stuff in the cirricula, there's not enough time to cover everything.

Biological knowledge is expanding quickly. Nowhere near enough time to cover it in HS. And glossing it over leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

But at the same time, they're teaching a lot of bunk in those classes. They are still using the same monkey to man chart that has the extinct pig and the piltdown man hoax even though they have been universally discarded.

And they still use the peppered moth display, which was artificially made.

LSU
03-26-2007, 04:53 PM
But at the same time, they're teaching a lot of bunk in those classes. They are still using the same monkey to man chart that has the extinct pig and the piltdown man hoax even though they have been universally discarded.

And they still use the peppered moth display, which was artificially made.



bunk, yes. (mainly because most teachers probably don't understand the theory well enough to teach it)

Ape to man, yes. That is wrong because it implies linear evolution, which is not true. More branch-like.

I'm not sure about the extinct pig and piltdown man hoax...I've never heard of them.

As for the peppered moth display, yeah it was staged. But that doesn't mean that what it's trying to portray is wrong.

Vegas
03-26-2007, 04:57 PM
bunk, yes. (mainly because most teachers probably don't understand the theory well enough to teach it)

Ape to man, yes. That is wrong because it implies linear evolution, which is not true. More branch-like.

I'm not sure about the extinct pig and piltdown man hoax...I've never heard of them.

As for the peppered moth display, yeah it was staged. But that doesn't mean that what it's trying to portray is wrong.


http://www.unmuseum.org/piltdown.htm

The peppered moth display was/is heralded as a great proof of evolution. If it was such a great proof, it shouldn't have been necessary to fake it. Or they should have been upfront about it and said that it was staged to make a point.

LSU
03-26-2007, 05:00 PM
http://www.unmuseum.org/piltdown.htm

The peppered moth display was/is heralded as a great proof of evolution. If it was such a great proof, it shouldn't have been necessary to fake it. Or they should have been upfront about it and said that it was staged to make a point.



For the moth, I disagree. Having been in bio for the past dozen years or so, I've never heard of it referred to as "great" proof. It was just a way to show how adaptation is advantageous. It's not fake. The moth is real, the tree is real. But the moth was dead. They didn't color the moth to make it look darker. They nailed a dead moth to a tree to show that a dark one is harder to see than a light one.

I don't know about whether the were upfront about it or if they tried to keep it a secret that the moth was dead. Either way, it's irrelevant to the fact that a dark moth had better chances of predator avoidance than a lighter moth in that environment.


Oh, and as for the piltdown stuff, in any class I've ever had, I've never heard about it, so you'd have a hard time convincing me that it's a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

Vegas
03-26-2007, 05:02 PM
For the moth, I disagree. Having been in bio for the past dozen years or so, I've never heard of it referred to as "great" proof. It was just a way to show how adaptation is advantageous. It's not fake. The moth is real, the tree is real. But the moth was dead. They didn't color the moth to make it look darker. They nailed a dead moth to a tree to show that a dark one is harder to see than a light one.

I don't know about whether the were upfront about it or if they tried to keep it a secret that the moth was dead. Either way, it's irrelevant to the fact that a dark moth had better chances of predator avoidance than a lighter moth in that environment.

Regardless of whether you think the whole display was intellectually honest, the fact remains that you only have variation in type. There is no vertical evolution.

LSU
03-26-2007, 05:07 PM
Regardless of whether you think the whole display was intellectually honest, the fact remains that you only have variation in type. There is no vertical evolution.



I didn't say there was.

But evolution is more than species begat species. Adaptation is part of it. A single adaptation does not make a new species, as you know. But an adaptation of an adapted organism might, depending on if the genetics are significant enough to warrant.

The level of significance I cannot speak of as I'm not well trained in the evolutionary stuff (phylogenetics).

Vegas
03-26-2007, 05:11 PM
I didn't say there was.

But evolution is more than species begat species. Adaptation is part of it. A single adaptation does not make a new species, as you know. But an adaptation of an adapted organism might, depending on if the genetics are significant enough to warrant.

The level of significance I cannot speak of as I'm not well trained in the evolutionary stuff (phylogenetics).

But the point remains that nobody has ever observed vertical evolution. It's an unproven theory (as is creation). And the peppered moth display, the poster showing the links in the fossil record that have hoaxes and entire models based on an extinct pig's tooth, variation within the horse species that is far less than you observe today in dogs (which we know to be from selective breeding) is hardly intellectually honest.

LSU
03-26-2007, 05:15 PM
But the point remains that nobody has ever observed vertical evolution. It's an unproven theory (as is creation). And the peppered moth display, the poster showing the links in the fossil record that have hoaxes and entire models based on an extinct pig's tooth, variation within the horse species that is far less than you observe today in dogs (which we know to be from selective breeding) is hardly intellectually honest.


Tell me, how do observe something that in theory occurs over millions of years?

Again, I'll say I've never learned anything in regards to a pig's tooth.

How is the variation measured among the horse in regards to dogs? What variation are they looking at?

And for the moths, I got my intro to Bio book out and found the infamous picture.

The caption reads:

"Individuals of a population of peppered moths (Biston betularia) that has undergone directional selection in response to changes in the environment. Light-winged and dark-winged individuals are resting on a lichen-covered tree trunk in (a) and on a soot-darkened tree trunk in (b)."

JCD
03-26-2007, 05:22 PM
The French are going to rebut Muslim creationism?

That'll be a real hoot.

Vegas
03-26-2007, 05:22 PM
Tell me, how do observe something that in theory occurs over millions of years?

Again, I'll say I've never learned anything in regards to a pig's tooth.

How is the variation measured among the horse in regards to dogs? What variation are they looking at?

And for the moths, I got my intro to Bio book out and found the infamous picture.

The caption reads:

"Individuals of a population of peppered moths (Biston betularia) that has undergone directional selection in response to changes in the environment. Light-winged and dark-winged individuals are resting on a lichen-covered tree trunk in (a) and on a soot-darkened tree trunk in (b)."

Obviously nobody can observe something that takes millions of years. That's why I said that evolution is an unproven theory. Creation is also an unproven theory, as nobody can look into the past.

One of the most popular "textbook" examples of the proof of evolution from the fossil record is that of the horse. They show different fossils of horses and show the progress. There are a couple of issues with that. They are still horses -- again nothing vertical. And the amount of variation that they show is smaller than the variation you currently see among dogs as a result of selective breeding. And the examples given weren't from a single area in one geologic column. They are from different parts of the world, but put into a sequence.

LSU
03-26-2007, 05:31 PM
Obviously nobody can observe something that takes millions of years. That's why I said that evolution is an unproven theory. Creation is also an unproven theory, as nobody can look into the past.

One of the most popular "textbook" examples of the proof of evolution from the fossil record is that of the horse. They show different fossils of horses and show the progress. There are a couple of issues with that. They are still horses -- again nothing vertical. And the amount of variation that they show is smaller than the variation you currently see among dogs as a result of selective breeding. And the examples given weren't from a single area in one geologic column. They are from different parts of the world, but put into a sequence.

Where have you gotten your information from that a horse is the "textbook" example? My textbook I'm looking at doesn't have a horse in it anywhere in the 3 or 4 chapters discussing evolution.

Again, what's the variation? Variation in what? Form? Physiology? Genetics? What? "Variation" is a very loose term you're throwing around.



In biological terms, a theory is "generalization based on many observations, measurements, and experiments conducted to test the validity of a hypothesis and found to support the hypothesis."

Explain clearly how the biological theory of evolution is the same as the theory of creation in the context of the biological definition of a theory including observations, measurements and experiments conducted.

Vegas
03-26-2007, 05:49 PM
Where have you gotten your information from that a horse is the "textbook" example? My textbook I'm looking at doesn't have a horse in it anywhere in the 3 or 4 chapters discussing evolution.

Again, what's the variation? Variation in what? Form? Physiology? Genetics? What? "Variation" is a very loose term you're throwing around.



In biological terms, a theory is "generalization based on many observations, measurements, and experiments conducted to test the validity of a hypothesis and found to support the hypothesis."

Explain clearly how the biological theory of evolution is the same as the theory of creation in the context of the biological definition of a theory including observations, measurements and experiments conducted.


Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/equid2t.gif

In most schools, they still use charts like the horse charts above.

LSU
03-26-2007, 05:57 PM
Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/equid2t.gif

In most schools, they still use charts like the horse charts above.



Where did you get your definition of theory? A standard dictionary or a biologicial one?

"Most" schools? You're again throwing around very vague statements.

But, I'll play along for a bit.

You're saying all those images are horses? Based on form, i.e., they all look alike? I can't tell in what context the diagram is trying to show evolution, other than bone structure of the foreleg and shape of teeth...is that what they're basing it on? It's hard for me to make any sort of judgement on that image without an accompanied text.