ForumsWEPRA New Fifty Page Intro to "On the Origin of Species"

63 12285
wistress
offline
wistress
262 posts
Peasant

I was directed to a video the other day that shows Kirk Cameron talking about how he and his business partner have written a new 50 page introduction to Charles Darwin's scientific book, "On the Origin of Species". They have printed out thousands of these now tampered books and are going to pass them out free to college campuses nation wide in November. The problem I have with the introduction is that it introduces creationism. Even if I believed creationism to be true, which I don't, it seems pointless to pick a book about the evolution of man and other species to counteract the origin of the universe. If anyone has ever read this book, you would know that it doesn't delve into the creation of the universe one iota. So, my question is this, do you think it's OK to alter a book that has been a foundation for evolutionary biology for the past 150 years. If you think it's a good idea, let us know why you think they picked a book that has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. Have they not read the book? Or is it merely because the book is now public domain and it was the only well known science journal that they could use? Personally, if I wanted to debate creationism in the format they are using, I would have picked a well known book about cosmology.
Here is the link to the video, if you haven't seen it yet. Any debate about this video is welcome.

  • 63 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Saw that video as well. Here's another.

A Small Comfort

German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

ill checkitout some other time.


unless you're messing with me

no, it's just my (and some other peoples' way of expressing general agreement or support.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

if you don't thing Gravity is a Law, you need to have a real teacher.

I think statements like this come down a misunderstanding of the terms "law" and "theory." Off topic, but there is no law in place yet that completely and accurately solves gravity. Also, there is no widely accepted theory for why there is gravity in the first place.
My point in mentioning this, though, is to point out that evolution is and will always remain a theory. But calling something a theory indicates that it has failed to be disproven.
That being said, the context of the textbook must be taken into consideration. I seriously doubt a university biology department would buy these textbooks. "The Origin of Species" is a terribly tedious read and wouldn't provide that much real information for students of biology.
Odds are, students will continue to use standard textbooks that have been tried and true. So where does that leave this new text?
My first thought is that it my appear in a Philosophy of Evolution class. Maybe even certain other classes that are theoretical in nature - I really don't know what they would be.
I don't know the intentions of Kirk Cameron and whoever else was behind the preface to the book, but perhaps this can end up being something beneficial. If it promotes classroom discussion and helps students' ability to critically assess a text, then good for them.
But any decent school, I would hope, would have very little interest in this book.
wistress
offline
wistress
262 posts
Peasant

German,
I am a bit perplexed by which side you are debating. Your first post on this thread stated that you think this intro about a Christian God and creationism should be placed in the book (which is really a science journal). Now you are stating that you believe in evolution and all the science that I too believe in. DO you still think that Cameron and Comfort should be placing this intro into the book? Since creationism and God are ideas that have never been explained, let alone able to be tested or analyzed, none of their information in the intro is based on fact. in addition, as I stated before, the origin of species is a totally different reference book then a book called the origin of the universe. Species, referring to species progression here on earth, not referring to other life forms outside this earth. Since there are billions of galaxies in the universe, just like ours, there has to be life elsewhere. Why include creationism into a book about species progression?

Moegreche,
technically, in the science field, it IS known as the "law of gravity". As MegaGray wrote the definitions down earlier of the differences between science "law" and "theory", I do not feel the need to do so again. However, in the science field, the "theory of evolution" is also known. However, theory in science does NOT hold the same meaning as theory to the non-scientific masses. Scientific "theory" means that it has to based upon solid evidence. Whereas "theory" to the general public means and unproved assumption.
Although we bought general textbooks for evolutionary biology when I was in college, we were also required to read "On the origin of Species" ... it is after all, the foundational book for evolutionary biology.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Although we bought general textbooks for evolutionary biology when I was in college, we were also required to read "On the origin of Species" ... it is after all, the foundational book for evolutionary biology.

Wow, I really wouldn't think many people in actual scientific or technical fields would have to read it. I realize the importance, it's just that in the same amount of time it takes a student to read that, he or she could have learned a great deal more from a standard textbook.
But since you mentioned that, I'm a lot more opposed to the new preface. Although, again, I would highly doubt this text would make its way into a college bookstore. ... at least I hope it wouldn't ...
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

German,
I am a bit perplexed by which side you are debating. Your first post on this thread stated that you think this intro about a Christian God and creationism should be placed in the book (which is really a science journal). Now you are stating that you believe in evolution and all the science that I too believe in. DO you still think that Cameron and Comfort should be placing this intro into the book? Since creationism and God are ideas that have never been explained, let alone able to be tested or analyzed, none of their information in the intro is based on fact. in addition, as I stated before, the origin of species is a totally different reference book then a book called the origin of the universe. Species, referring to species progression here on earth, not referring to other life forms outside this earth. Since there are billions of galaxies in the universe, just like ours, there has to be life elsewhere. Why include creationism into a book about species progression?

no one here ever provided evidence that creationism would be used in the intro.

if it's something like "god made the first bacterium", then hell no.

i'm all for something on how life first got on Earth, especially if we (finally) have a greatly substantiated theory on it. (last time i was taught evolution, two years ago, they didn't know how the first bacterium was made). Nothing including things that aren't approved by most-all scientists should be included. This was presented as an addition simply about the first organism, nothing was said about including creationism.

it should be included if it simply has the facts that most-all scientists support (which would not include creationism), but at any rate should not be 50 pages on it. 20 would be plenty to talk about the whole Heavy Bombardment, first organisms in the ocean, all that crap.
wistress
offline
wistress
262 posts
Peasant

no one here ever provided evidence that creationism would be used in the intro.

if it's something like "god made the first bacterium", then hell no.

i'm all for something on how life first got on Earth, especially if we (finally) have a greatly substantiated theory on it. (last time i was taught evolution, two years ago, they didn't know how the first bacterium was made). Nothing including things that aren't approved by most-all scientists should be included. This was presented as an addition simply about the first organism, nothing was said about including creationism.


What OP did you read? I wrote the OP on this thread and I know I explicitly stated "creationism", in addition I posted a link to the video which explained that's what they put in the intro. MegaGray DID provide a link to the actual written intro ... you might want to try to watch the video AND read the intro provided by MegaGray before you state that no one has provided proof that they have put that in the intro. I wouldn't be upset about this issue if they were putting scientific facts about evolution biology in the intro. That wouldn't even make sense to be upset about that. :/

Wow, I really wouldn't think many people in actual scientific or technical fields would have to read it. I realize the importance, it's just that in the same amount of time it takes a student to read that, he or she could have learned a great deal more from a standard textbook.


I know, I didn't think any professor would have students read "On Origin of Species" in addition to the textbook, however I had quite a task master professor in that class. I guess they can do it, as long as they follow the correct curriculum also.


But since you mentioned that, I'm a lot more opposed to the new preface. Although, again, I would highly doubt this text would make its way into a college bookstore. ... at least I hope it wouldn't ..


I hope not either. From the looks of the intro, Cameron and Comfort re-copyrighted the book with their intro in it ( Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Addition ~ Copyright ©2009 by Bridge-Logos)
... Makes me shudder.
wistress
offline
wistress
262 posts
Peasant

BTW - Bridge-Logos, the company that published and copyrighted the 150th anniversary addition of this book, with the 50 page intro on creationism, is a Christian based publishing house.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

I really like the irony that a Christian-based company has the word 'logos' in their name. (Not a hate comment, it's just that religion is faith-based and not logic-based.)

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I hope not either. From the looks of the intro, Cameron and Comfort re-copyrighted the book with their intro in it ( Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Addition ~ Copyright é2009 by Bridge-Logos)
... Makes me shudder.


I didn't know they had re-copyrighted the book for this publication. Oh @#&*! $&%*! expletive! expletive! expletive!...
wistress
offline
wistress
262 posts
Peasant

I really like the irony that a Christian-based company has the word 'logos' in their name. (Not a hate comment, it's just that religion is faith-based and not logic-based.)


Since Creationist do believe the fact that the universe exist is proof enough of God, they believe that is logical. In science, we call it a singularity, and we do not refer, nor do we believe this singularity to be any type of entity.


I didn't know they had re-copyrighted the book for this publication. Oh @#&*! $&%*! expletive! expletive! expletive!...


Oh yes, they did ... scary huh?
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

Since Creationist do believe the fact that the universe exist is proof enough of God, they believe that is logical. In science, we call it a singularity, and we do not refer, nor do we believe this singularity to be any type of entity.


Oh, I know that. Just saying, logos is persuasion through logic, and that's usually not how religions try to convert people.

Just thought is was kind of an odd name choice.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

i'm all for something on how life first got on Earth, especially if we (finally) have a greatly substantiated theory on it. (last time i was taught evolution, two years ago, they didn't know how the first bacterium was made). Nothing including things that aren't approved by most-all scientists should be included. This was presented as an addition simply about the first organism, nothing was said about including creationism.


Pulling this out of another thread. I'm going to continue posting this here, so people finally understand how life really got put on this planet:

Well, for most people, we as humans are like paintings, where they are created by a painter, a designer. The only difference is that the painting has chemicals which can't replicate themselves. However, the human body does, AKA DNA. Even if God DID create DNA, he doesn't need to intervene every time an animal mates with another, the DNA does the job of creating the offspring on its own. So what's the question of the...er, night? How did DNA appear is the correct choice. How did living matter get created from non-living matter?

Here, Creationists need to drop the common argument that many seem to use all the time in order to bash the opposite side of the table with the statement which was based totally off ignorance of other Creationists, which was this:

All you monkey believers think that life popped out of nowhere and out of nothingness!

Of course, that's NOT the correct way in which we think. Life popping out of nowhere is no better than popping out of the hand of a deity. So what DO top Evolutionists believe? Why don't I take this step by step for you:

1. Best way to start is looking at ancient earth 4.7 billion years ago. Many different compounds were around back then, such as hydrogen cyanide and methane gas. DNA is made from only 4 different types of Nucleotides, so where did that come from? How in the world did they come to be in this universe?

Here's this: In 1964 a brilliant researcher called Wan Oro put methane and the cyanide to boil in a solution under the perfect conditions that were in ancient earth back then. Afterwards, the solution produced adenine, one of the four types of nucleotide bases. To make a full nucleotide, it needs to gain a sugar called Ribose and a group of phosphates. How in the world did the ribose and phosphate group get formed and get attached to that nucleotide?

2. From the nucleotide to the polynucleotide

Well, once the nucleotide was formed, they needed to form together in chains called polynucleotides. In the 1980s, researchers found that a clay, called "montmorillonite", a very abundant resource in ancient earth, was a perfect catalyst for this process of "chaining".

3. Now we are going to make RNA!

Some of these copies of the polynucleotides with ribose inside, or RNA (ribonucleic acid) are able to make copies of themselves...huh. Of course the copies aren't as perfect, but again, some copies are more adapted than the other copies to survive in the hot, dense planet earth used to be. So these molecules that did survive would replicate and pass on their traits, while those that aren't so great at surviving would just break apart into regular compounds of methane and cyanide.

4. Making protocells! WHOO!

As RNA replicated, they shared their surroundings with other chemicals around them. Some chemicals, called "lipids" like to clump together to form circular bodies called micelles. RNA molecules that attracted the micelles found themselves protected inside them. Because they were protected, they better survived than those that weren't. From there, they replicated successfully, but with the entire protocell with them. There, you have the first primitive cellular structure.

5. Then from the span of hundreds of millions of years later, RNA grew more complex from replicating and passing on better traits. The single strand formed to create a double-strand molecule, and the more successful DNA molecule evolved. One thing however: DNA needs proteins to replicate. Proteins are made from amino acids or the building blocks of life, so how/where in the world did the amino acids get into the picture?

GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD

No...there was no need for God....

6. formation of amino acids

a number of experiments with the montmorillonite not only produced amino acids, but long chains of them that are called &quotolypeptides". It turns out that this long-difficult name clay stuff is a natural breeding ground for all these complex chemicals. So there you have it. RNA, DNA, what made it, and what made amino acids, non-living chemicals that in turn made living organisms and the process in which these chemicals came to be.

So as I build this up, I ask you this: if God did create life, when did he come in, using the same kinds of steps that I have provided for you? And if the chemical process needed to create life can happen on its own, why does he need to come in?

Before I end class tonight, I want you guys to look at some old arguments that end nowhere and show complete ignorance of people's views:

"It can't be done! simple chemicals can't form into complex chemicals without intervention!"

Are you sure? Just because a lot of people pass around this argument doesn't mean it's true. It's not true. Given time and left alone, smaller, simpler chemicals can and will polymerize into complex chemicals.

"2nd law of thermodynamics, genius. FAIL"

This sad argument? Simple chemicals polymerizing into complex chemicals conflicts with NO laws of thermodynamics. I suggest if you use this argument to freely read up on this law, because I believe you haven't and are just ignorantly repeating a myth that's already been shot down many times.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

And if anyone read through that in its entirety, I commend you for your endurance.

wistress
offline
wistress
262 posts
Peasant

Freakenstein,

Yep.. most of us on this thread already know the science in your above statement. I, as a Chemist, of course know how chemicals interact, react, or don't react with each other because of their electron configurations. I could write pages and pages on valence electrons and how that's the reason chemicals react or don't react with each other. Thanks for your post about DNA and such, it might help a few people here. However, the OP is about whether people think a 50 page introduction about creationism should be placed in a book about the evolution of species. It is also a debate of the video that was introduced in the OP which states some fairly disturbing comments about Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin. MegaGray also posted a link to the introduction which you might find interesting and amusing (of course, it might also anger you). All those links can be found on the first page of this thread.

Showing 46-60 of 63