NationStates Jolt Archive

This is supposed to be a draft


Equality of Life Origins Theories

Catagory: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Aware that different cultures have different theories as to the origins of all life:

Aware that the conflict between creationists and evolutionists creates civil and religious strife;

Aware that such conflict is a threat to nation's internal stability;

Aware that such theories are equal;

Aware that creationism and evolutionism are discussing two different aspects of the same issue;

Aware that creationism purports to teach how life came about whereas evolution purports to teach how life came to be as it is today;

Aware that in recent years a third theory, the theory of Pan Genesis, has been proposed by eminent scientists;

That advanced scientific knowledge is a necessity in learning about evolution whereas creationism requires at least an elementary knowledge of science;

That mathematical probability plays a role in all three theories;

Noting that societies benefit best from the free exchange of ideas;

That societies benefit when their people's are able to make educated choices;

Clarifies that the three major theories of life origins are equal;

Asks that all theories of the origin of life be taught in a seperate Origins of Life class that will be seperate from religion and science classes;

That no person shall be allowed to take such a class without a good strong scientific education in the areas of biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and astrobiology;

That no person shall be allowed to take such a course without a good background in the Bible, Koran or other holy book and or teachings of the faith from which the creationism part of the course comes.

That, since we have no way of knowing exactly how life started, that each of the religions of Judeo-christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zaoism, and animism be given equal time in the faith part of the course, as long as such teachings be based on sound logic and observation of natural phenomena.

That evolution be treated as 60% of the course;

That such course be no less than 1 year in total;

That parents shall have the right to opt their children out of such course;

Reiterates the right of all people's to exchange in a free and educated debate of ideas;

Asks that member nations to teach religious ideas as equally valid to scientific ones in the context of philosophical discussion.

Political Stability?

Ecopoeia will not support, I'm afraid.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Changed to Human rights since it sounds more like a human rights issue than a political stability issue given the wording.

I don't think i'll support it, we in wegason allow all theories to be taught, discussed and attacked anyway:D

Well, as long as Creationism is not taught as a science I have no qualms with this. :)


EDIT: Well, I take that back. If you are saying evolution should not be taught in science, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.

This is because if we did this with everything that could be believed, we would not be teaching astronomy in science, but rather in a "position and shape of earth" class, where flat and/or geocentric views were also taught.

Methinks separating everything with religious disputes in to separate classes would be wasteful.

No I am talking about a seperate class that would into more depth on it. Science classes could still touch on it on account of it being a fundamental theory of science. You can't really cover general science or even biology without touching on evolution. But your general science class is not going to be enough time to go over the theory thoroughly. My proposal treats evolution as science and stuff such as creationism as religious/philosophical views.

Point of order:The origins of life are not part of evolutionary science. The study of the origins of life is exobiology. As such, this is illegal as there is a sharp contrast between the title and text of your proposal.

Point of order:The origins of life are not part of evolutionary science. The study of the origins of life is exobiology. As such, this is illegal as there is a sharp contrast between the title and text of your proposal.
I object to your point of order. Exobiology is not the study of the origin of life, but rather the study of the search for extraterrestrial life.

As taken from the encyclopedia:

"exobiology also called Xenobiology, or Astrobiology, a branch of biology that deals with the search for extraterrestrial life (q.v.), especially intelligent life, outside the solar system. The word exobiology was coined by the American geneticist Joshua Lederberg; the word commonly used in Russia translates into English as astrobiology.

Remote astronomical observations of a planet or other body provide information about its physical environment, but the determination of the presence of life is much more difficult. Techniques are designed to detect life-forms, artifacts produced by intelligent life, waste products of metabolic reactions, remnants of former life, prebiological molecules that may represent early evolutionary stages, or substances such as carbon that are necessary for life as it is experienced on Earth. If these conditions are present, microorganisms would be the most likely life-forms present beyond Earth; however, the possibility of life unlike that on Earth should not be ruled out. Theoretical silicon-based life or unknown forms of life may exist in places where conditions do not warrant the search for life.

Earth-based communication efforts to locate extraterrestrial life have ranged from sending coded radio transmissions and pictorial diagrams by satellite to monitoring radio emissions from stars and starlike objects."


Further, the proposal deals with creationism, which is not evolution. Seeking to give it equal coverage.

The encyclopedia brittanica also states that creationism is a "theory"

"Creationism: theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo).

Biblical creationists believe that the story told in Genesis of God's six-day creation of all things is literally correct. Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, but they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation. Both types of creationists, however, believe that changes in organisms may involve changes within a species or downward changes (negative mutations), but they do not believe that any of these changes can lead to the evolution of a species into a higher or more complex species. Thus, the theory of human evolution from lower animals is disputed by all creationists.

Creationism developed as a result of the advancement of the theory of evolution after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Within two decades most of the scientific community had accepted some form of organic evolution, and most churches eventually followed suit. Some conservative religious groups, however, have argued that Darwinian evolution alone cannot account for the complexity of the living world and have insisted that certain biblical descriptions of creation are revealed scientific truth. In the early 20th century, some areas of the United States banned the teaching of Darwinian theory on these grounds, which led to the famous Scopes Trial (the so-called “Monkey Trial”) of 1925, in which a high-school teacher, John T. Scopes, was convicted of unlawfully teaching the theory of evolution. William Jennings Bryan, leader of the prosecution, saw modern war and other purported signs of moral decay to be evidence of the damage brought about by the teaching of godless evolution. Many creationists today work toward ensuring that schools and textbooks present evolution as a theory that is no more provable than biblical creationism.

Creationism is not a scientific theory for the simple fact that it is untestable. Evolutionary theory is so called because the original hypothesis has withstood the test of time with little modification. Similar scientific ideas include the theories of gravitation, relativity (special and general), and that germs cause disease. Please don't mix religious ideas with scientific hypothesis and theory. The word "theory" doesn't mean the same thing in science as it does in the world at large, and this is due to misconceptions among nonscientists as to how scientists use the term.

Evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis. For the theory of evolution to have any impact, it requires life having already existed, and it dictates how that life will likely change and adapt to its environment, leading to speciation. Evolutionary theory makes no claim as to how life originated, though there are several possible hypotheses (difficult to test, as many require the ability to recapitulate the atmosphere of primordial planets).

Director Varik Dekker
Science and Technology
Armed Republic of Krioval

Evolution has not stood the test of time. It's only been around about 140 years. You can't call that standing the test of time. Meantime, the theory of gravity has been around for centuries. And in that very short time it has been around evolution has been modified substantially.


The proposal is on the theory's of the origin of life. It is not meant to be a debate on the nature of evolution.
I realize there is difference in that creationism explains how life came into existence whereas evolution explains how that life changes over time.

But in order for there to be evolution, there has to be life and that life has to come into existence for the first, at some point in the past.

And don't forget that many of the scientific explanations for how life came into being are as faulty as the religious ones. As you yourself said, they are not testable. And by your standards, if they aren't testable, they aren't science either.

At the same time you would have to say that most of cosmology isn't science either since most cosmological theories are not testable.

OOC:

Evolution has not stood the test of time. It's only been around about 140 years. You can't call that standing the test of time. Meantime, the theory of gravity has been around for centuries.Barely twice your date for evolution, in fact. And now they are starting to find problems with Newton's theorems - perhaps they should be called theories.
And in that very short time it has been around evolution has been modified substantially.
So what? Does modification of a theory cause it to be declared false? A theory is called that because it has not been proved, but has been predicted. So far, the evidence supports the theory. Newton's theorems (so called because they had been proved) have evidence supporting them, but some recent evidence against them (search for Modified Newtonian Dynamics, there have been several stories on the topic in New Scientist magazine).

As such, I find your analogy to Gravity theory flimsy at best.

1. For something to stand the test of time it has to have been around for at least 500 years without modification. That was the test that Krioval put up for it. I merely said that if that is the test then evolution clearly fails. It's relatively recent invention and (unlike relativity) gone through very substantial changes. I didn't make up the test, he did.

2. Does the lack of change in a theory cause it to be false?

3. "A theory is called that because it has not been proved, but has been predicted." That's your definition. Let's see what Mr. Webster has to say on the matter:

"Main Entry: the·o·ry
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theomacrria, from theomacrrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS"

"Theory" has at least 6 definitions and you took definition 6b.

So that must mean that you don't think there is evidence for evolution.
I think nearly all evolutionary biologists would use definition numbers 3 and 5.
In fact, the average lay person, when referring to evolution as a theory use definition number 5.

4. The fact that the critical difference between science and religion, is that unlike religious belief, scientific ideas and theories can be changed to fit the facts that are discovered. In religion, you don't tend to see that. Most religious groups tend to twist the facts to fit their religious views.
As an example, take the issue of the first dinosaur to be studied, the Iguanodon. When it was first discovered, the naturalists who were religious men, had a preconcieved notion of how it stood walked, etc. So they "modified" (chiseled and through other means altered) the fossils to make it look like Iguanadon walked on all fours. Paleontologists however, take the fossils and put each place where it naturally goes, instead of trying to make it fit preconcieved notions.
Religion is like the naturalist.
Science is like the paleontologist.
You see, what I was doing in my previous post was showing the other guy the error of his logic.

BTW, I would hardly call evolution or creationism "unproved assumptions". Evolution has something that makes it credible, and creationism sounds good in logic.

You know, I would really prefer that you didn't put words in my mouth.

In any case, your point about gravity still doesn't stand, as gravity was only explained by Newton some 300 years ago, still a full 2 centuries short of your (and Krioval's) chosen date of 500 years. I was attempting to make a point about how you shouldn't choose analogies without fully understanding them.

Indeed, does anything really fall under the category of "standing the test of time"? Art practice and theory certainly doesn't. Most science couldn't possibly fit that, as it only came about after 1500.

Aware that such theories are equal;

There goes my vote.

The fact is, that one theory is TRUE and the others FALSE. The Region of Armageddia cannot support any resolution which treats true and false as equal.

The Holy Republic of Universal Divinity, while having a faith-based government nevertheless favours science over religion where the two disagree. Evolutionary theory is a theory in the scientific sense.

About the time: General Relativity has been around less than half the time that evolutionary theory has, yet we accept it. Newtonian motion has been around about twice the time but we are now finding it is inaccurate. The wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting.

When science finds some theory is wrong, it corrects it. When creationists find their theory is wrong, they continue to try to convert people; they shout even louder, in the hope that he who shouts loudest shouts the truth. Never mind the fact that creationism can never be proved wrong, so it can never be corrected or improved. Not because it is already perfect, but because we'll never know in what way it is imperfect.

You know, I would really prefer that you didn't put words in my mouth.

In any case, your point about gravity still doesn't stand, as gravity was only explained by Newton some 300 years ago, still a full 2 centuries short of your (and Krioval's) chosen date of 500 years. I was attempting to make a point about how you shouldn't choose analogies without fully understanding them.

Indeed, does anything really fall under the category of "standing the test of time"? Art practice and theory certainly doesn't. Most science couldn't possibly fit that, as it only came about after 1500.
Science did not come after 1500. It's been around since Aristotle and Plato. Western Europe may not have had science before then but the rest of the world did.

This is not General. Arguments about creationism vs. evolution belong there, not here.

Also, if your Proposal is only asking nations to do this, it's 'Mild' at best.

There goes my vote.

The fact is, that one theory is TRUE and the others FALSE. The Region of Armageddia cannot support any resolution which treats true and false as equal.

The Holy Republic of Universal Divinity, while having a faith-based government nevertheless favours science over religion where the two disagree. Evolutionary theory is a theory in the scientific sense.

About the time: General Relativity has been around less than half the time that evolutionary theory has, yet we accept it. Newtonian motion has been around about twice the time but we are now finding it is inaccurate. The wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting.

When science finds some theory is wrong, it corrects it. When creationists find their theory is wrong, they continue to try to convert people; they shout even louder, in the hope that he who shouts loudest shouts the truth. Never mind the fact that creationism can never be proved wrong, so it can never be corrected or improved. Not because it is already perfect, but because we'll never know in what way it is imperfect.


You can't prove creationism to be false. Just as you can't prove it to be true. Therefore, you cannot say for certain that it is false. Both creationism and evolution could be true. Evolution as a scientific theory can only explain the mechanism of how life arrived to be the way it is today. It cannot explain how life got started. Hence creationism remains a valid theory because it explains something that evolution cannot.

As for general relativity, it hasn't around for long but the world's best physicists and cosmologists are already finding flaws in it.

Creationism is not about shouting. It's about interpreting the Bible. And to interpret the Bible you have to know what was meant when the original genesis story was first told. That was so long ago that we can't possibly know.
But creationism can be studied from a scientific stand point to determine how God brought all this about. We just got a wait for the right person to come along and do it. Science explains how the nature that God created works.
According to secularist dogma, some people insist, that say there was a nuclear war, then every single life form would be eliminated.
But the laws of nature and the laws of God say that life always finds a way to survive no matter what happens.
Those same laws dictate that there is life on other planets also.
The real problem with creationism is that the "creationists" have not been able to get past their own ego. But I guess you can say the same thing about some secular evolutionists.
But creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. By using science you can find out how God did this and how God did that.
The average creationist, you have to understand, misinteprets the Bible just like they often tend to misinterpret the will of God. God does not seek blind faith. It is written in the Bible, "Search the heavens, consider every creature that walks the earth, every fish that swims in the sea. Consider the circle that is the earth. And you shall know that my laws are good." The Bible supports scientific investigation.

This is not General. Arguments about creationism vs. evolution belong there, not here.

Also, if your Proposal is only asking nations to do this, it's 'Mild' at best.


Changed it to mild.

Science did not come after 1500. It's been around since Aristotle and Plato. Western Europe may not have had science before then but the rest of the world did.
Again, people are putting words into my mouth which I did not say. Plato was not a scientist in any case, he was a philosopher and student of Socrates. Aristotle was philosopher first, scientist second, and his scientific theories have been debunked by now.
I said most science. Nearly all chemistry (as distinct to alchemy) dates from after 1500. As does most physics. Relativity, radio, radar, X-rays, nuclear physics, quantum physics, the periodic table, complex numbers, the telescope, the heliocentric solar system and calculus are all scientific discoveries, theories and fields that have arisen since 1500.

[edit] Hack, only just saw your post. I'll stop now.

Commenting on the proposal from the Yuunli perspective:

Aware that different cultures have different theories as to the origins of all life:
Schools in Yuunli do not teach culturally motivated fairytales.

Aware that the conflict between creationists and evolutionists creates civil and religious strife;
Aware that such conflict is a threat to nation's internal stability;
There is no such conflict in our nation.

Aware that such theories are equal;
They are not. Creationism is part of a religion, thus not taught in our schools.

Aware that creationism and evolutionism are discussing two different aspects of the same issue;
So what? Many people in Yuunli beleive owls are born again people. But we don't teach that in our schools.

Aware that creationism purports to teach how life came about whereas evolution purports to teach how life came to be as it is today;
What?

Aware that in recent years a third theory, the theory of Pan Genesis, has been proposed by eminent scientists;
What's that?

That advanced scientific knowledge is a necessity in learning about evolution whereas creationism requires at least an elementary knowledge of science;
So?

That mathematical probability plays a role in all three theories;
Our schools teach mathematics, too.

Noting that societies benefit best from the free exchange of ideas;
They do. But that doesn't mean we have to teach them in public schools. The great majority of Yuunlians say religion is something personal, not public.

That societies benefit when their people's are able to make educated choices;
We believe in good education, too.

Clarifies that the three major theories of life origins are equal;
They are not.

Mandates that all theories of the origin of life be taught in a seperate Origins of Life class that will be seperate from religion and science classes;
There are no religion classes in Yuunli. And we have no plans to strictly separate teaching about evolution from other science classes.

That no person shall be allowed to take such a class without a good strong scientific education in the areas of biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and astrobiology;
We teach this in high school, not just in universities.

That no person shall be allowed to take such a course without a good background in the Bible, Koran or other holy book and or teachings of the faith from which the creationism part of the course comes
There is no creation part..

That, since we have no way of knowing exactly how life started, that each of the religions of Judeo-christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zaoism, and animism be given equal time in the faith part of the course.
Those religions make up 4% of our population. Why should we emphasize them so much?

That evolution be treated as 60% of the course;
That such course be no less than 1 year in total;
There will be no such course in Yuunli.

That parents shall have the right to opt their children out of such course;
Basic education is compulsory in our nation.

Reiterates the right of all people's to exchange in a free and educated debate of ideas;
Educated people can read up on religions if they like.

Asks that member nations treat the theories of evolution and creationism as theories that deal with seperate and not mutually exclusive parts of the issue of the origins of life.
We do not teach religions.

Kizzy Renito (Free Citizens Party)
Councilor for Education
The Republic of Yuunli

I object to your point of order. Exobiology is not the study of the origin of life, but rather the study of the search for extraterrestrial life.

As taken from the encyclopedia:

"exobiology also called Xenobiology, or Astrobiology, a branch of biology that deals with the search for extraterrestrial life (q.v.), especially intelligent life, outside the solar system. The word exobiology was coined by the American geneticist Joshua Lederberg; the word commonly used in Russia translates into English as astrobiology.

Remote astronomical observations of a planet or other body provide information about its physical environment, but the determination of the presence of life is much more difficult. Techniques are designed to detect life-forms, artifacts produced by intelligent life, waste products of metabolic reactions, remnants of former life, prebiological molecules that may represent early evolutionary stages, or substances such as carbon that are necessary for life as it is experienced on Earth. If these conditions are present, microorganisms would be the most likely life-forms present beyond Earth; however, the possibility of life unlike that on Earth should not be ruled out. Theoretical silicon-based life or unknown forms of life may exist in places where conditions do not warrant the search for life.

Earth-based communication efforts to locate extraterrestrial life have ranged from sending coded radio transmissions and pictorial diagrams by satellite to monitoring radio emissions from stars and starlike objects."


Further, the proposal deals with creationism, which is not evolution. Seeking to give it equal coverage.

Exobiology is also a study of origin as well. Exobioogist also study the conditions of pre-life earth that could possible explain the formation of materials naturally to result in life as it is presently known on this planet, exobiology covers the realm of biology also known as "pre-biotic" evolutionary theory. And as such, is tied to evolutionary theory, and even earth-based evolution during pre-biotic epochs.

The Democratic Republic of Indolent and workshy cannot support this resolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory which explains how by the process of natural selection the rich variety of species on earth have come to be. Our nation has accepted this theory and does not teach any other competing theorem particularly any motivated or based on any religion.

Of particular concern in considering the views of those that support creationism is that by and large they do not want their theory to be taught alongside the theory of evolution but wish to remove any attempt to teach evolution and when they can't ban it ensure that a disclaimer is placed on all teaching materials that refer to it in a poor attempt to discredit it.

Church and state must be seperated and this should apply to schooling as well, if religion is taught at all it should be in a dispassionate consideration of theology and mans need to create and believe in a higher being. Also no parent should be allowed to remove their children from lessons and hamper there abilty to learn and thus employment chances on the off chance that it conflicts with whatever fairy tale they believe in. This is child abuse.

incidently the main religon of the indolent believes that life was excreted from the great penguin after a particular large and tasty meal. This is however not taught as fact in our schools.


Jacob schlongworthy

Grand Poo-ba and Sumpreme Mufty of the Indolent

Exobiology is also a study of origin as well. Exobioogist also study the conditions of pre-life earth that could possible explain the formation of materials naturally to result in life as it is presently known on this planet, exobiology covers the realm of biology also known as "pre-biotic" evolutionary theory. And as such, is tied to evolutionary theory, and even earth-based evolution during pre-biotic epochs.

Exobiology is one theory to explain the origin of life on earth.

Abiogenesis is another.

Evolution is a theory which explains, among other things, the way life on earth came to be the way it is.



However, just because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life on earth doesn't mean creationism should scientifically be used for that purpose. Creationism is not a science. It is an explanation of how life came to both be on earth and why it is as it is today. However, it is not scientific.



Of course, regarding the proposal, I do not think a class on the "origins of life" should be required. Though I don't see a problem with it being taught as a class, I do not see it deserving the status of a required class.


Cumulo Nimbusland would therefore reject the proposal.

The worst thing is, I can understand that Achuelia has put a lot of work in to this trying to get creationism taught along with evolution. They are both valid theories, but one cannot be disproven and one can. Things that cannot be disproven are not science.

But, Achuelia has been trying to give up more and more to the other side and by now it probably seems as if evolutionists are just unfair, and won't listen to other theories. I can assure you that this is not the case. Please don't look down upon us evolutionists because of this experience.

Exobiology is one theory to explain the origin of life on earth.

Abiogenesis is another.

Evolution is a theory which explains, among other things, the way life on earth came to be the way it is.



However, just because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life on earth doesn't mean creationism should scientifically be used for that purpose. Creationism is not a science. It is an explanation of how life came to both be on earth and why it is as it is today. However, it is not scientific.



Of course, regarding the proposal, I do not think a class on the "origins of life" should be required. Though I don't see a problem with it being taught as a class, I do not see it deserving the status of a required class.


Cumulo Nimbusland would therefore reject the proposal.

The worst thing is, I can understand that Achuelia has put a lot of work in to this trying to get creationism taught along with evolution. They are both valid theories, but one cannot be disproven and one can. Things that cannot be disproven are not science.

But, Achuelia has been trying to give up more and more to the other side and by now it probably seems as if evolutionists are just unfair, and won't listen to other theories. I can assure you that this is not the case. Please don't look down upon us evolutionists because of this experience.


The Achuelian delegate, Heger Smokovich, stood to respond to his colleague from Cumulo Nimbusland.

"Regarding the objection to such a class being mandatory, I have changed to proposals wording on the matter from "Mandated" to "Asks". It is my hope that this would satisfy my counterpart's concern on that issue.
As to whether one theory can be disproven and one cannot. I submit that creationism as it is taught in some circles can be disproven. For a long time, it was taught by creationists that whites and blacks were seperate species. We know today that this is false and creationists have changed their theory accordingly. It was also taught by creationists, for centuries, that the apes were formerly humans whose people had become so degenerate that God had given them over to their low bestial natures. As time went on, Creationists realized that the apes were not lower class humans but indeed seperate species that developed seperately from the human race. And indeed, in light of fossil findings, creationism has no choice but to further alter its interpretation of how God brought man into existence. For all we know, the first people God created could have been the Australipithicines. The diet of the Australipiths fits the diet of the first people that existed before the flood, namely fruits, nuts, tubers, and vegetables. And I am sure, an occasional insect or two.
As for evolution being disproven, while it is adapted to fit new information, I would hardly say it disprovable. Even though the interpretation of the fossil record is based on speculation and guesses, those guesses tend to be educated guesses these days.
I submit that there are many types of creationism. I for one, prefer the logical type. After all, we weren't there at the beginning, but we can at least make our theories based on sound logic and sound natural observation. Evolution is based on both. Creationism, also, should be based on both.

The Achuelian delegate, Heger Smokovich, stood to respond to his colleague from Cumulo Nimbusland.

"Regarding the objection to such a class being mandatory, I have changed to proposals wording on the matter from "Mandated" to "Asks". It is my hope that this would satisfy my counterpart's concern on that issue.
As to whether one theory can be disproven and one cannot. I submit that creationism as it is taught in some circles can be disproven. For a long time, it was taught by creationists that whites and blacks were seperate species. We know today that this is false and creationists have changed their theory accordingly. It was also taught by creationists, for centuries, that the apes were formerly humans whose people had become so degenerate that God had given them over to their low bestial natures. As time went on, Creationists realized that the apes were not lower class humans but indeed seperate species that developed seperately from the human race. And indeed, in light of fossil findings, creationism has no choice but to further alter its interpretation of how God brought man into existence. For all we know, the first people God created could have been the Australipithicines. The diet of the Australipiths fits the diet of the first people that existed before the flood, namely fruits, nuts, tubers, and vegetables. And I am sure, an occasional insect or two.
As for evolution being disproven, while it is adapted to fit new information, I would hardly say it disprovable. Even though the interpretation of the fossil record is based on speculation and guesses, those guesses tend to be educated guesses these days.
I submit that there are many types of creationism. I for one, prefer the logical type. After all, we weren't there at the beginning, but we can at least make our theories based on sound logic and sound natural observation. Evolution is based on both. Creationism, also, should be based on both.


In this context, the people of Cumulo Nimbusland then have no qualms with the proposal, and believe it fair to vote on.

I thank my counter part for his support, however I must advise the delegates that due to a possible misintrepretation the following paragraph in the resolution has been altered to include the words which are bolded.

"That, since we have no way of knowing exactly how life started, that each of the religions of Judeo-christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zaoism, and animism be given equal time in the faith part of the course, as long as such teachings are based on sound logic and observation of natural phenomena."

It is my hope that such addition will strongly discourage people from using such a class as a bully pulpit for religious prosylitazation (spelling). And make the resolution more agreeable to the other delegates.

We teach our science students exactly what constitutes a scientific theory, and the nature of scientific progress. We teach Darwinism in its modern form as the currently accepted theory, perhaps mentioning Lamarckian ideas as an example of how theories are proposed then abandoned by science. We teach, at higher levels, theories about where life originated (seas? volcanic areas? space?) and our current best guesses about how life might have developed from abiotic materials. We might mention that some people believe that the developments described by evolution and abiogenesis were guided by some higher power, and we might mention that some reject such ideas altogether, choosing to base their ideas on various religious ideas.

But detail on the various creation theories is reserved for religious education, because whilst it might be a scientific idea that a deity was the cause of life and/or of its development, distinctions between different religious ideas are totally non-scientific.

We will not accept any attempt to separate any particular part of science teaching from science classes, nor to teach religious ideas as equally valid to scientific ones.

You can't prove creationism to be false. Just as you can't prove it to be true. Therefore, you cannot say for certain that it is false. Both creationism and evolution could be true.

Great point...keep it out of the classroom then and leave it to the university level courses to ponder over.



Creationism is not about shouting. It's about interpreting the Bible.

Again, save this for university level work. For most of us the Bible is an interesting document with some good writing in it and some genealogy important to several human ethnic groups.



But creationism can be studied from a scientific stand point to determine how God brought all this about. We just got a wait for the right person to come along and do it. Science explains how the nature that God created works.
According to secularist dogma, some people insist, that say there was a nuclear war, then every single life form would be eliminated.
But the laws of nature and the laws of God say that life always finds a way to survive no matter what happens.
Those same laws dictate that there is life on other planets also.
The real problem with creationism is that the "creationists" have not been able to get past their own ego. But I guess you can say the same thing about some secular evolutionists.



To study creationism from a scientific stand point would be to abandon creationism. In terms of literary work, its beautiful but makes little sense. How can something come of nothing? Okay, take it to Prime Mover level and thus it can be argued that it is illogical to believe in eternal chemicals as far as it is illogical to believe in Deitic powers.
Right person to come along? I really hope no one comes along that is able to make creationism enter the minds of our young. Remember Darwin was a very religious man himself. Most Christians do not believe in Creationism that rejects evolution of life. I've heard some say thay they are concerned with the Why and the by Whom but not so much in the how...that is partly the matter of science.
"But the laws of nature and the laws of God say that life always finds a way to survive no matter what happens." Where are these laws? I don't believe I'v ever seen "the laws of nature" written anywhere... was I supposed to be given that at birth? I have read the so called Laws of God but which format are you considering? Bible? Torah? Collected works of Brittany Spears? Not to make light of the oh so serious discussion.
I'm very sorry but there is no way I could possibly allow my region to support such a motion. We do not teach myth based stories. I know what they teach in Baptist Bible Camp but I wouldn't send my children there and I'm not making my nation into one.

In Solidarity

Ton
U.N affairs
Principality of Prachya

Laws of nature?

Do you refer to the Golden Ratio, phi? Or the natural logarithm and exponential, e? Or the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter, pi? Or are you referring to the Laws of Physics, as they form the basis for all that is natural, as well as pretty much everything else?

Please be clear with the language you use, as even something you might consider simple and to the point can be quite difficult to work out when you analyse it.

(The above sentance was not a great example of that, instead it was quite convoluted. But hopefully it made sense. It's 9:30 here, and I really need to get to bed.)

We teach our science students exactly what constitutes a scientific theory, and the nature of scientific progress....We will not accept any attempt to separate any particular part of science teaching from science classes, nor to teach religious ideas as equally valid to scientific ones.
It is relatively clear from context, but I would amend your last clause to "to teach religious ideas as equally valid to scientific ones in the context of scientific discussion."

It is relatively clear from context, but I would amend your last clause to "to teach religious ideas as equally valid to scientific ones in the context of scientific discussion."
Your amendment has been adopted. But I changed it to "philosophical discussion" instead of "scientific discussion". Cause if it were to scientific discussion, it would imply that things like the miracles and ressurection of christ were scientifically proven and such stuff.

I believe Petronea's comment was in response to what I posted (which, I might add, was not intended as a proposal but simply a statement of _Myopia_'s position), not a suggestion for your proposal, judging by the quotation used.

"That, since we have no way of knowing exactly how life started, that each of the religions of Judeo-christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zaoism, and animism be given equal time in the faith part of the course, as long as such teachings are based on sound logic and observation of natural phenomena."

It is my hope that such addition will strongly discourage people from using such a class as a bully pulpit for religious prosylitazation (spelling). And make the resolution more agreeable to the other delegates.
Absolutely not. What is this 'Zaoism'? Why combine Judaism and Chistianity? What of Daoism, Shintoism, Buddhism; do not these religions also have stories of creation?

I appreciate and commend your efforts to make this more palatable, but I'm afraid that we simply cannot offer our support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I believe Petronea's comment was in response to what I posted (which, I might add, was not intended as a proposal but simply a statement of _Myopia_'s position), not a suggestion for your proposal, judging by the quotation used.
true, but the change still makes sense.

Clarifies that the three major theories of life origins are equal
all i can say to this is: welcome to nationstates, where there is a vast variety of theories on everything. in otherwords, 'three major theories' is very much an assumption. also, this also affects curriculum in schools of each nation, thus meaning we are against it on that basis too. to us, UN has no place in individual states' classrooms

Cobdenian scientists have recently discovered and proved beyond all doubt how life began and how intelligent life came into being. We intend this to be taught in all our schools; however we have no desire to teach several other theories that have been disproved totally and utterly by our own scientist, which this resolution forces us to do.
No, we will never support it...

all i can say to this is: welcome to nationstates, where there is a vast variety of theories on everything. in otherwords, 'three major theories' is very much an assumption. also, this also affects curriculum in schools of each nation, thus meaning we are against it on that basis too. to us, UN has no place in individual states' classrooms
actually I'm an old nation that has been ressurected.