NationStates Jolt Archive

This whole place is going to hell in a handbasket. Most notably the South, but apparently the Great Lakes too: see CNN article:
Creationism to be taught in Wisconsin (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html)

The district's superintendent said that science curricula "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory." What the district is failing to realize is that Creationism is, by definition, not a scientific theory. Hence, it SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM!!!

Am I the only one who sees the idiocy of this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!

Creationism on its own could be classed as a scientific theory as long as it isn't tied to any religion.

Creationism on its own could be classed as a scientific theory as long as it isn't tied to any religion.
Nope. It necessarily involves supernatural forces. Hence, it is not science (Which is solely the study of that which is real and "natural." Natural is kinda a relative term when you get to theoretical stuff.)

This is thoroughly disturbing.

Personally, I like the way my high school science classes did it. "Alternative theories" such as creationism and extraterrestrial orgins were mentioned, but not taught.

However, I would be ok with an "alternative theories" course as an ELECTIVE--only if a good amount of these theories are taught, however.

Creationism on its own could be classed as a scientific theory as long as it isn't tied to any religion.
yes indeed, Creationism in it's broadest sense can in fact be considered as part of evolution (funny but Darwin was a creationist, he felt the Divine used evolution as the mechanism of creation). Since evolution is a required portion of the science cirrriculum it is perfectly appropriate to consider the origin of evolution. Now if evolution were not a requirment of the ciriculum then I could not see justifying creationism.

I don't really have a problem with it being taught in public schools. As long as all theories are put forth as such, theories.

Evolution can't be proven, although it can be tested.
Creationalism can't be proven, and Im not sure if it can be tested scientifically.

No one really knows.

Evolution can't be proven, although it can be tested.
Creationalism can't be proven, and Im not sure if it can be tested scientifically.

Creationism most definitely cannot be scientifically tested. Evolution can be inferred, however. We see it happening in the world around us (think antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticide-resistant bugs). Can't say the same about Creationism: I've never seen a rhinoceros pop into being in my front lawn.

Whatever happened to allowing kids to make up there own minds as to what they believe and what they don't believe in? Teaching Creationism allows this to happen.

Whatever happened to allowing kids to make up there own minds as to what they believe and what they don't believe in? Teaching Creationism allows this to happen.

Teaching Creationism is for Sunday School.

If it is in any publicly funded school it crosses the bound between church and state and then becomes unconstitutional.

Creationism should be taught in school until science can come up with an explanation for how things began.

Good luck, science.

Teaching Creationism is for Sunday School.

If it is in any publicly funded school it crosses the bound between church and state and then becomes unconstitutional.

Teaching christian creationism is for sunday school.

Teaching the possibility of intelligent design of cells that then evolved isn't.

I've always wondered how they teach *creation science*.

"Ok, class, today's lesson is creationism. Basically, the world may have been created by a supernatural force or deity. Quiz tomorrow."

Creationism should be taught in school until science can come up with an explanation for how things began.

Good luck, science.
We have a better explanation. Which one do you want? Diversity of life? Origin of life? Origin of the universe?

"Ok, class, today's lesson is creationism. Basically, the world may have been created by a supernatural force or deity. Quiz tomorrow."

That's pretty much it.

It makes me wonder why people are so against it being taught- it's not like it would add a whole lot to the cirriculum.

Teaching christian creationism is for sunday school.

Teaching the possibility of intelligent design of cells that then evolved isn't.
Sorry. ID isn't scienitific. It isn't falsifiable.

We have a better explanation. Which one do you want? Diversity of life? Origin of life? Origin of the universe?

I'm familiar with all of them. They are not "better", because they can't be compared (spiritual and scientific).

Diversity of life = evolution (ok, so God created animals, then they evolved into different species)

Origin of life = stuff like the endosymbiont theory (ok, so God provides the material and energy for life, then lets it happen.)

Origin of the universe = big bang? (I never felt that this theory had any credit. Where did the tiny speck of supercondensed matter and energy origionate, if not from a supernatural being?)

Sorry. ID isn't scienitific. It isn't falsifiable.

Then why do people try to falsify it?

Then why do people try to falsify it?
You have no fucking clue what "falsifiable" means in science, do you? It means that it could have all possible explanations shown to be false. However, ID can just invoke the "God...er...IntelligentDesignerdidit!" clause, which, as it invokes a supernatural entity, science doesn't deal with it.

Origin of the universe = big bang? (I never felt that this theory had any credit. Where did the tiny speck of supercondensed matter and energy origionate, if not from a supernatural being?)
Matter springs into existence all the time. Read up on it. Plus, the aftereffects of the Bang Bang has been observed on numerous occasions, so it is a fact that it happened. Just like it is a fact that evolution happened. How it happened is the theory part.

In a theoretical government, forced to deal with this issue, I would throw the creationists a bone and give it the "alternate theory" status as another poster indicated is currently happening in some public schools. That would get these people to stop complaining that their religious lifestyle is being infringed in a public school.

Just let them move on to other, more important issues.

Sorry. ID isn't scienitific. It isn't falsifiable.Certainly it is. It is more difficult to prove a negative, but it is not impossible.

Certainly it is. It is more difficult to prove a negative, but it is not impossible.
Most believers in creationism would fall back on to the ad hoc hypothesis God as the models they present (ie., anything approaching the Christian God,) are demolished by logic and by empirical evidence and so their ideas could never be properly tested.

The US seems to be going the wrong way.

Creationism to be taught in Wisconsin (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html)


Oh my lack of God! This is not good.

Why would you want your kid to believe that men
were created from dirt and women were created
from a man's rib?

Whatever happened to allowing kids to make up there own minds as to what they believe and what they don't believe in? Teaching Creationism allows this to happen.

Because creationism is yet another lie diseminated by religion, kind of like hate for infidels, homosexuals, etcetera?

Why would you want your kid to believe that men
were created from dirt and women were created
from a man's rib?
Because you're a Christian, and religion has a tendency to browbeat perfectly rational people into believing perfectly rediculous things with alarming conviction.

Creationism most definitely cannot be scientifically tested. Evolution can be inferred, however. We see it happening in the world around us (think antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticide-resistant bugs). Can't say the same about Creationism: I've never seen a rhinoceros pop into being in my front lawn.

Ok, I've been posting my opinion on many things today so I won't let you guys be un-touched!

I went to a Private Christian school, and being a homosexual teenager this was not fun - especially being one who was open about his sexuality to people who inquired. Now, obviously, they taught solely Creationism and used their position to try and bias me against evolution. But, since I have two sides of the arguments I can more reasonably make a judgement on this issue than others can.

I am not religious, and I don't want religious dogma to be preached to anyone who doesn't want to listen to it - but Creationism is a valid theory that should be included in the scientific studies of high schoolers and middle schoolers. The evidence for evolution fully supports the evidence for Creationism as well, which I find unfortunate but nevertheless will go with it.

The theory of Creatonism presents that after God created the Universe, the Earth had a Canopy provided by him to keep the climate desireable and the same throughout the world. But when man sinned, the canopy slowly started degrading and finally, when Noah's time came around, it fell. The theory of a canopy surounding the Earth, while some people think is preposterous, is actually quite valid. If a canopy did encase the Earth, similar effects to everything that has happened geographically to the planet would make sense. The pressurization would also account for the longer lifespans recorded in the Bible, as will the untouched, organic foods taken in by the people in the days of the Canopy.

We all know the story of Evolution, therefor I won't go into that - but each are valid theories and each should be included in the curriculum. And to please those who are adament on not learning about Creationism, as it does have to do with Religion (Although, I'm sure curriculum could be created to make it Universal to pretty much all religions) the students should be given the choice to opt-out of the class, with the parents consent required to do either.

I didn't personally attack anyone, and I would like it not to be attacked myself - it happens much to often on these forums. If you have an opposing viewpoint, please - I want you to share it so we can have a proper discussion instead of the bickering that goes on here :)

The theory of Creatonism presents that after God created the Universe, the Earth had a Canopy provided by him to keep the climate desireable and the same throughout the world. But when man sinned, the canopy slowly started degrading and finally, when Noah's time came around, it fell. The theory of a canopy surounding the Earth, while some people think is preposterous, is actually quite valid. If a canopy did encase the Earth, similar effects to everything that has happened geographically to the planet would make sense. The pressurization would also account for the longer lifespans recorded in the Bible, as will the untouched, organic foods taken in by the people in the days of the Canopy.

The math has been done and a water canopy would have pressure-cooked the entire fucking earth. Nothing would have survived. It isn't valid. It's quite the opposite.

This is all a problem that stems from the monopolisation by the state of schooling.

I have an issue with paying for schooling for other peoples children. The polluter should pay!

If you don't like this your money being used to teach creationism then you should be against state schooling.

Basically, let parents decide with their OWN money!

Because creationism is yet another lie diseminated by religion, kind of like hate for infidels, homosexuals, etcetera?

Care to prove that creationism is a lie?

This is all a problem that stems from the monopolisation by the state of schooling.

I have an issue with paying for schooling for other peoples children. The polluter should pay!

If you don't like this your money being used to teach creationism then you should be against state schooling.

Basically, let parents decide with their OWN money!
Miss the part of the Bill of Rights where it states that the state cannot force religion on others? Because creationism is religion. What about all the people who aren't creationists? What would you rather have being tought in school? The earth being a spheroid, or the earth being flat? It's the same here. One is true, and the other is total bullshit.

The math has been done and a water canopy would have pressure-cooked the entire fucking earth. Nothing would have survived. It isn't valid. It's quite the opposite.

After reading what he said and yours, I have to go with him. Just because there is a canopy, it doesn't mean it'll be a pressure cooker. Look around you! There are canopys everywhere. They don't heat things up but keep things the way they ought to be. Comfortable or stable or both.

Miss the part of the Bill of Rights where it states that the state cannot force religion on others?[quote]

Ok, I have to cry out bull here. Show me where in the Bill of Rights this? All it says in the 1st amendment of the Contstitution is that Congress shall make no law establishing religion NOR PROHIBITING the worship thereof! By NOT teaching this, they are, in essence, discriminating christians in the public schools thus it actually violates the law.

[quote]Because creationism is religion. What about all the people who aren't creationists? What would you rather have being tought in school? The earth being a spheroid, or the earth being flat? It's the same here. One is true, and the other is total bullshit.

Muslims believe that God started the planet as do Jews. All three make up more of the world's population than any other religion.

After reading what he said and yours, I have to go with him. Just because there is a canopy, it doesn't mean it'll be a pressure cooker. Look around you! There are canopys everywhere. They don't heat things up but keep things the way they ought to be. Comfortable or stable or both.
Jesus Fucking Christ. You haven't even taken basic Chemistry, have you? Water has a specific gravity of 1. This means that water is much, much denser than air. A water canopy would thus put massive amounts of pressure on the Earth's surface. Pressure creates heat. Look at Venus. It has a temperature of over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and it's atmosphere is nowhere near as dense as our atmosphere would be with a water canopy.

Muslims believe that God started the planet as do Jews. All three make up more of the world's population than any other religion.
They aren't creationists. There's a difference between believing that God created the universe (Not Earth) and believing that God created the Earth and everything on it 6000 years ago.

Muslims believe that God started the planet as do Jews. All three make up more of the world's population than any other religion.


Everyone religion has it's own silly mythological origin. I'll say it blatantly; none of them are true. Regardless of whether or not evolution is, creationalism certainly isn't. Those who fully support creationalism are unintentionally halting scientific progression. After all, it used to be crazy to think of the world as not being flat. Now it's scientifically (sp? :D) proven that the Earth is an orb that revolves around the sun...

I find both have as much proof to support them: None. Evolution, unlike Creationism, has evidence suggesting it, but is about as far from proven as the existance of wormholes. This would not be the first time science misinterpreted the evidence they had to suggest something it doesn't if evolution turns out to be wrong. But, the fact evolution has evidence behind it makes it scientific, while Creationism is not. So, don't teach Creationism as scientific until you can find evidence for it.

Jesus Fucking Christ. You haven't even taken basic Chemistry, have you? Water has a specific gravity of 1. This means that water is much, much denser than air. A water canopy would thus put massive amounts of pressure on the Earth's surface. Pressure creates heat. Look at Venus. It has a temperature of over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and it's atmosphere is nowhere near as dense as our atmosphere would be with a water canopy.

I do know what basic chemistry is! Venus is a totally different ball wax. Look at the makeup of ITS ATMOSPHERE!!!!!!!!!!! Did you have an Astronomy Class?

Everyone religion has it's own silly mythological origin. I'll say it blatantly; none of them are true. Regardless of whether or not evolution is, creationalism certainly isn't. Those who fully support creationalism are unintentionally halting scientific progression. After all, it used to be crazy to think of the world as not being flat. Now it's scientifically (sp? :D) proven that the Earth is an orb that revolves around the sun...

Do you have proof that it is myth and not an fact that a supernatural being created the universe and our planet that we live on?

I find both have as much proof to support them: None. Evolution, unlike Creationism, has evidence suggesting it, but is about as far from proven as the existance of wormholes. This would not be the first time science misinterpreted the evidence they had to suggest something it doesn't if evolution turns out to be wrong. But, the fact evolution has evidence behind it makes it scientific, while Creationism is not. So, don't teach Creationism as scientific until you can find evidence for it.

I like that approach, I lean towards believing in evolution, but I'm not so convinced as to think it's absolutetly correct.

I do know what basic chemistry is! Venus is a totally different ball wax. Look at the makeup of ITS ATMOSPHERE!!!!!!!!!!! Did you have an Astronomy Class?
It's atmosphere is less dense than ours would be with a water canopy. I pointed that out.

but is about as far from proven as the existance of wormholes. .
WORMHOLES?! Not only have they not been proven, (which is something science doesn't deal with), it has been shown that they cannot exist.

It's atmosphere is less dense than ours would be with a water canopy. I pointed that out.

And I don't remember him saying anything about a water canopy unless you saw something that I didn't!

Also, Venus's Atmosphere is also made up of Sulfer and other gases. Very little oxygen. Maybe you should go back to Astronomy Class and see what the make up of Venus's Atmosphere is before making assertions and comparing a canopy on Earth to that of Venus.

If they taught me creationism in science class I would raise my hand and say "Sir, that's a bunch of bullshit."

He would probably agree.

WORMHOLES?! Not only have they not been proven, (which is something science doesn't deal with), it has been shown that they cannot exist.

Care to provide the proof of this statement?

And I don't remember him saying anything about a water canopy unless you saw something that I didn't!

Also, Venus's Atmosphere is also made up of Sulfer and other gases. Very little oxygen. Maybe you should go back to Astronomy Class and see what the make up of Venus's Atmosphere is before making assertions and comparing a canopy on Earth to that of Venus.

Water will act as a "greenhouse gas" [sic] better than CO2 or any other gas will. A Planet with a water cannopy will be hotter than Venus. It's all in the density, not the chemical makeup.

Water will act as a "greenhouse gas" [sic] better than CO2 or any other gas will. A Planet with a water cannopy will be hotter than Venus. It's all in the density, not the chemical makeup.

And as stated, I don't believe he mentioned anything about a water canopy.

In a theoretical government, forced to deal with this issue, I would throw the creationists a bone and give it the "alternate theory" status as another poster indicated is currently happening in some public schools. That would get these people to stop complaining that their religious lifestyle is being infringed in a public school.

Just let them move on to other, more important issues.

Don't you realize the stink that Christians would raise if you labeled Creationism an "Alternate Theory". They would fight that as much as they fight for prayer in school. Christians are all about words and connotation and "alternate theory" would not fly. Look how intensely their fighting over the word "marriage".

Don't you realize the stink that Christians would raise if you labeled Creationism an "Alternate Theory". They would fight that as much as they fight for prayer in school. Christians are all about words and connotation and "alternate theory" would not fly. Look how intensely their fighting over the word "marriage".

I'm a Christian and I would accept it as this.

I'm a Christian and I would accept it as this.

So you would accept the Big Bang theory and evolution being taught, with creationism being optional and referred to as an "alternate theory"?

You are one of the few I would guess.

So you would accept the Big Bang theory and evolution being taught, with creationism being optional and referred to as an "alternate theory"?

You are one of the few I would guess.

I would accept all three being taught equally!

And as stated, I don't believe he mentioned anything about a water canopy.
The canopy he mentioned refers to a water canopy. It's a common idea among creationists.

The canopy he mentioned refers to a water canopy. It's a common idea among creationists.

Like to know something? This is the first I've heard of a canopy theory.

I haven't read any of the previous replies, but I have to just say that if CNN is accurate, we are taking steps backwards. The House has already voted to ban any federal judge from ruling on a case involving the Pledge and the phrase "under God". Which, mind you, was added during the Cold War to protect America form those "godless Commies". Are we seriously going to go back to pre-Scopes? I think that students should be told what Creationism is and all those other ridiculous theories, so they're aware, but never that they have any semblance of truth over Darwinism. Y'know, the Framers actually had something when they wanted a secular government. Sorry, had to get that out of my system. (I'm proud of myself...no vulgarities)

Care to provide the proof of this statement?
Science doesn't deal in proof. If you read the post, you'd know that. However, I can point out why wormholes cannot exist.

A wormhole is a hypothesized rip in the fabic of the universe that allows one to travel from one point in the universe to another point in less time than light would take to reach it. However, since space and time are the same thing, moving to another point in space would cause a shift in time corresponding to the shift in distance. Because of this, wormholes cannot exist.

Like to know something? This is the first I've heard of a canopy theory.
Then you learned something new. However, it is not generally a good idea to attempt to defend something you know nothing about.

Then you learned something new. However, it is not generally a good idea to attempt to defend something you know nothing about.

True but since it is a theory, it is something to look into. Maybe I'll look into it sometime.

Now on to Science! Science does deal in proof or haven't you heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics (started as a theory then went on from there), Newton's three laws of Motion (Same as Thermodynamics) and on and on of all scientific FACTS! They all started out as theories then became SCIENTIFIC LAW! So yes, Science does deal in proof. You have to prove that something is is or what is isn't.

I can't believe these people who walk around and who are like, "It's only a theory! Evolution is only a theory! You can't prove it!"
These people don't understand what a theory is in the scientific sense. The technology that allows you to stare at this screen right now is based off of some scientists' "theories." Sure, it's a theory. Sure, Einstein's work is sometimes just theoretical, but didn't it put us on the moon? It's given us something to work with even though we can never be absolutely sure it's right.
Such is the nature of History and Science.
Creationism is neither. Creationism and Intellgient Design is just that assclown in the back of the class who says, "You might be wrong!" There's no active evidence supporting him, unlike those who support Evolution. Virtually ALL people with terminal degrees in Biology agree with it.

Oh, and if you're about to go off about what God told you, in the United States it doesn't matter. Pushing that stuff into the schools on account of your religion is illegal. Sorry.

Because of this, wormholes cannot exist.
Actually, there is no way to say that wormholes do not exist. There is so much untold amounts of physics yet to be reasoned out, and to say that anything we do not fully understand does not exist is just silly. I personally do not think they exist, but I am far from saying they can not exist.

True but since it is a theory, it is something to look into. Maybe I'll look into it sometime.
IT'S NOT A FUCKING THEORY! He just put that label on to make it seem more credible.


Now on to Science! Science does deal in proof or haven't you heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics (started as a theory then went on from there), Newton's three laws of Motion (Same as Thermodynamics) and on and on of all scientific FACTS! They all started out as theories then became SCIENTIFIC LAW! So yes, Science does deal in proof. You have to prove that something is is or what is isn't.
Jesus Fucking Christ. A scientific fact is an observation of something that happened. It is not something that is proven. A scientific law is an outdated term for scientific fact. Theories never become facts. A fact is an observation. A theory is an explanation as to why that happens that has been supported by the available evidence. Learn the terminology, else you'll come across as an uneducated, arrogant prick.

Virtually ALL people with terminal degrees in Biology agree with it.
Sorry, I should have included this in my last post, but evolutionary theory (perhaps hyperthesis would be a better term? at least people wouldn't misinterpret "theory" so much) is the basis for all of modern biology. Creationism is against all of biology so soundly that I can not even begin to point out all of its flaws...though it does make a nice fairy tale.

It's atmosphere is less dense than ours would be with a water canopy. I pointed that out.
I feel compelled as a physics minor with a strong background in astronomy that Venus's temperature is created by the green house effect due to the high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The water in Venus's atmosphere, as well as other clouding chemicals actually stop venus's tempterature from being higher by creating a high albedo, around 80%.

Sorry, I should have included this in my last post, but evolutionary theory (perhaps hyperthesis would be a better term? at least people wouldn't misinterpret "theory" so much) is the basis for all of modern biology.
This is, I think, the important point. A biologist can use evolutionary theory during their work - creationism on the other hand is not *useful*. So there's no point in teaching it in science.

Speaking as a non-American, it seems very strange that creationism is being taught, but you can't pray in schools. Invoking a God you can't pray to? Wouldn't being allowed to pray but leaving science alone be a lot more respectful of everbody's rights?

I'd be interested in seeing a website or 3 on this 'canopy theory'. Also, does anyone know what has been happening ozone-wise over the last 20,000 years? Multiple societies from all over the world talk about having ancestors living for several centuries or even millennia, so it's worth looking into - if there was a particularly powrful ozone layer or whatever in the past, then we might be able to replicate it or at least harden our houses etc so as to bump our lifespans up a few decades.

If you want proof for the existence of god, call (508)767-4521.

WORMHOLES?! Not only have they not been proven, (which is something science doesn't deal with), it has been shown that they cannot exist.

Shown, but not proven. Also, some theories allow them, some do not. It has been shown they both can and cannot exist, depending on which theory you believe. And, yes, science does deal with wormholes, as the whole idea is based on scientific theories.

Little secret science doesn't want you to know: It's not unified. At all.

Creationism is not a Theory.

And people in Wisconsin are stupid.

Creationism is not a Theory.

And people in Wisconsin are stupid.

Does that mean creationism is a fact? Or do you have proof it is wrong?

Does that mean creationism is a fact? Or do you have proof it is wrong?

It's not fact, and it's not Theory, but it's probably wrong (just a hunch).

Scientifically speaking, something is a theory until it is proven wrong. As my hero Dr. Feineman once said "a vague theory is had to disprove."

Scientifically speaking, something is a theory until it is proven wrong. As my hero Dr. Feineman once said "a vague theory is had to disprove."
No. It's not. It's only a theory if it has been supported by the available evidence. Otherwise, it is, at best, a hypothesis.

Supernatural forces, such as hurricane and etc., should also not be studied in science class. Ok, that makes most if not all science unnecessary. Next topic, why have proper sentence struktures for reading and righting, and that includes speling. ;)

There is zero evidence that the earth and two people sprang into life fully formed all at once. To believe that is to be willfully blind.

Supernatural forces, such as hurricane and etc.How are you saying a hurricane is a supernatural force? It's not "beyond" nature, it is part of nature...

Also, does anyone know what has been happening ozone-wise over the last 20,000 years? Multiple societies from all over the world talk about having ancestors living for several centuries or even millennia, so it's worth looking into - if there was a particularly powrful ozone layer or whatever in the past, then we might be able to replicate it or at least harden our houses etc so as to bump our lifespans up a few decades.
Seeing as even trace amounts of ground-level ozone cause lung irritation, mucus membrane irritation, difficulty breathing, etc., I would not recommend filling one's home with it. That, and it'll oxidize everything at a sickeningly high rate. And Lack-of-God help you if a fire starts...
If the early Earth's atmosphere had contained lots of ground-level ozone, a tree being struck by lightning would have started an inferno the likes of which haven't been seen since Bikini Atoll.

True but since it is a theory, it is something to look into. Maybe I'll look into it sometime.

Now on to Science! Science does deal in proof or haven't you heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics (started as a theory then went on from there), Newton's three laws of Motion (Same as Thermodynamics) and on and on of all scientific FACTS! They all started out as theories then became SCIENTIFIC LAW! So yes, Science does deal in proof. You have to prove that something is is or what is isn't.

No, it doesn't.

Einstein 'disproved' Newton's 'laws.' He made the mistake of adding a cosmological constant to his equations, which he later corrected. (Interestingly, there are a few scientists who are looking into the idea of constant further given new theories about quantum mechanics.)

I don't know much about the history of Thermodynamics, but I know that a zeroth law was added to the triplet. I also think that theories in quantum mechanics defy or at least bend these laws.

My problem with Science v. Religion is that both have dogmatic fallbacks. Religion can always come up with a new model based around an omnipotent god or God. Science is based around theories changing; if one doesn't exist now, a scientist can say it will.

I find science's argument much more compelling, but I think this is worth pointing out.

Seeing as even trace amounts of ground-level ozone cause lung irritation, mucus membrane irritation, difficulty breathing, etc., I would not recommend filling one's home with it. That, and it'll oxidize everything at a sickeningly high rate. And Lack-of-God help you if a fire starts...
If the early Earth's atmosphere had contained lots of ground-level ozone, a tree being struck by lightning would have started an inferno the likes of which haven't been seen since Bikini Atoll.
This is very true. For those who don't know, ozone is O3, which is three oxygen atoms bound together, to put it simply. Ground-level ozone is not good for anyone, as good as it is in the stratosphere. Also, as a side note regarding oxygen molecules, breathable oxygen is O2, and unstable free O atoms are never found for long.

Teaching creationism isn't supporting any religion, therefore it is not unconsitutional.

They also are not teaching it as the sole theory, if I understand correctly, but as one of several alternative theories. It is a valid theory, as valid as anything else.

The evidence supporting creationism is the same that supports the theory of the Big Bang. Nothing just materializes, like that guy talking about the rhino in his lawn has said; therefore the universe must have been created by something, and that something formed a universe with the potential for the necessary chemicals to form cells, the origins of life. So the universe was created by something, and due to that life now exists.

Perhaps it's from a fear of religion that you are so outraged over this?

Teaching creationism isn't supporting any religion, therefore it is not unconsitutional.

Which type of Creationism? There are several. Also, it does support the religions that have Creationist myths (not all religions do).

They also are not teaching it as the sole theory, if I understand correctly, but as one of several alternative theories. It is a valid theory, as valid as anything else.

It has no evidence. That makes it invalid as a scientific theory. The prime directive of science when it comes to theories is "they must have evidence to support them".

The evidence supporting creationism is the same that supports the theory of the Big Bang. Nothing just materializes, like that guy talking about the rhino in his lawn has said; therefore the universe must have been created by something, and that something formed a universe with the potential for the necessary chemicals to form cells, the origins of life. So the universe was created by something, and due to that life now exists.

Actually, there's a scientific theory about that. One of several I have seen has a universe forming from gas clouds created by the death of one or the collision of two or more universes. So, tomorrow, the universe could come to an end. But that's one theory. You'll find science is good at the hows but sucks at the whys.

Perhaps it's from a fear of religion that you are so outraged over this?

Nope. I'm religious myself. It's facing reality and realizing this has no place in science. That's why it's called religion.

I'm not so positive that creationism can really be sepearated from religion.
I'm not against creationism, as long as they also teach the Source of All Being, the creator goddess Ishtar, the Japanese goddess Amerasu(?), the Indian teaching of the how the earth and universe was created... etc. That could actually be a very interesting elective. I'd like to take that course.

Does that mean creationism is a fact? Or do you have proof it is wrong?

no, it means that it is not a scientifically useful explanatory framework for the facts of the universe as we know them and does not make true predictions about evidence we have not yet looked at.

and yes, we have proof that it is wrong. lots and lots of it. the only way it could be a true explanation for the facts of the universe is for our entire body of knowledge about the universe to be a hallucination.

in the words of lewis black,

fossils. fossils, fossils, fossils. i win.

Perhaps it's from a fear of religion that you are so outraged over this?
I won't deny it, I am scared of religion. I'm scared to death of it, and what it can do to people.

Religion used to have a place in the world of Homo sapiens, but most religions, such as Chirstianity, are outdated. There is so much about it that goes against all common sense it one actually thinks about it. Back when people didn't understand why it rained and why the earth cracked at times and what the sun is, sure, come up with myths and legends explaining it. I, personally, am a fan of Celtic mythology. I read Plato. But all of this no longer is applicable as it once was. Hydrology explains the movement of H2O molecules, seismology earthquakes, and we know know about solar systems and galaxies, go consult an astronomer if you want. It is all susperstitous bull****. I just really want to make you Creationists think. This is a skill I strive for and haven't developed well as of yet. It is so silly if you actually look at things from a logical and analytical perspective, not from an emotional and "spiritual" one.

P.S. The Japanese sun goddess is Amaterasu Oukami

God created Evolution.
One of my conceptualizations of "God" is Love.
Love Conquers Fear.
The rest is academic.

Peace

It's not fact, and it's not Theory, but it's probably wrong (just a hunch).

Proof of it please?

No. It's not. It's only a theory if it has been supported by the available evidence. Otherwise, it is, at best, a hypothesis.

Dude, incase you missed it, he is getting a minor in Physics! I think you shouldn't argue with him on science points.

There is zero evidence that the earth and two people sprang into life fully formed all at once. To believe that is to be willfully blind.

There is also no evidence that we derived from Primates or Primordial Ooze! To believe that is to be willfully blind.

How are you saying a hurricane is a supernatural force? It's not "beyond" nature, it is part of nature...

On this, at least we can agree on.

This whole place is going to hell in a handbasket. Most notably the South, but apparently the Great Lakes too: see CNN article:
Creationism to be taught in Wisconsin (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html)

The district's superintendent said that science curricula "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory." What the district is failing to realize is that Creationism is, by definition, not a scientific theory. Hence, it SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM!!!

Am I the only one who sees the idiocy of this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!

Oh God forbid another point of view should be taught in the classrom! Macro-evolution is hardly scientific either - it's speculation, and most of all, theoretical. If evolution is such a strong theory, why are you afraid of someone possibly teaching that something intelligent crafted the universe?

No, it doesn't.

Einstein 'disproved' Newton's 'laws.' He made the mistake of adding a cosmological constant to his equations, which he later corrected. (Interestingly, there are a few scientists who are looking into the idea of constant further given new theories about quantum mechanics.)

If he did then why have I learned Einstein's theory as well as Newton's 3 laws as well as all the other Scientific laws in Middle and High School Physics?

I don't know much about the history of Thermodynamics, but I know that a zeroth law was added to the triplet. I also think that theories in quantum mechanics defy or at least bend these laws.

And we are just now exploring these. However, Thermodynamics are still useful and since they are laws.... they are proven fact and will remain as such.

My problem with Science v. Religion is that both have dogmatic fallbacks. Religion can always come up with a new model based around an omnipotent god or God. Science is based around theories changing; if one doesn't exist now, a scientist can say it will.

Best answer I've heard all night.

I find science's argument much more compelling, but I think this is worth pointing out.

And I can actually get behind it.

If he did then why have I learned Einstein's theory as well as Newton's 3 lays as well as all the other Scientific laws in Middle and High School Physics?

because high school science is typically dumbed down and taught by non-scientists. and because newtonian physics is "good enough" in many cases - it is wrong, but close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.

Oh God forbid another point of view should be taught in the classrom! Macro-evolution is hardly scientific either - it's speculation, and most of all, theoretical. If evolution is such a strong theory, why are you afraid of someone possibly teaching that something intelligent crafted the universe?

macro-evolution has been directly observed. try again.

and the reason to not want people teaching creationism is because in so far as it is scientific it is false, and in so far as it can't be shown to be false it isn't scientific. it's exactly the same as demanding that science classes also cover the "geocentric theory of the universe" or "magical gnome thoery of disease". so teaching it as anything other than an utterly disproven and discredited pre-scientific account is ridiculous on the face of it - and tantamount to child abuse if you ask me.

and if you change the terms of the debate to claim that creationism is merely the assertion that god started the whole thing, then what is the point? you already concede that science is right to try to explain things materially. you just want to add an extra non-scientific bit on to the end of the story.

because high school science is typically dumbed down and taught by non-scientists. and because newtonian physics is "good enough" in many cases - it is wrong, but close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.

Here's another thing then! I took a college Physics class that I had to drop and guess what? I had to learn Newton's 3 laws there. I'm also in an Organization called Civil Air Patrol! We have to learn about the Laws of Thermodynamics as well as Newton's three laws since we deal with Flight as in Airplanes.

So again, do you have proof that what Einstein's theory overides Newton's three laws? I doubt it highly since it is taught in Middle, High, and in College.

Why don't we teach that the world rides on the back of a giant turtle while we're at it?

Just to get in other scientific theories...

Why don't we teach that the world rides on the back of a giant turtle while we're at it?

Just to get in other scientific theories...
Hawking did say that was unlikely but not impossible.

There is also no evidence that we derived from Primates or Primordial Ooze! To believe that is to be willfully blind.

other than the fact that we were classified as primates before the existence of the theory of evolution because of the undeniable physical similarities between various animals. and all those fossils we have of things that are at different stages of being more human-like vs more ancestral ape-like. and our genetic similarities. etc, etc.

So again, do you have proof that what Einstein's theory overides Newton's three laws? I doubt it highly since it is taught in Middle, High, and in College.

newtonian gravitation fails to explain the orbit of mercury and it also fails to accurately predict the gravitational deflection of light, amongst other things. as i said; good enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, but wrong.

Einstein did not 'disprove' Newton's Laws.

A scientific theory is an attempt to explain the current facts and predict new ones. A theory is considered "true" if it explains the current facts and predicts results that are then confirmed.

Newton's Laws were, when they were created, almost perfect explanations for the way objects moved. They predicted trajectories and orbits very well. They were even used to predict the existence of a planet based on deviations in the orbit of another.

There were slight discrepancies - mercury's orbit was slightly different than what was predicted, but it was a small error and not enough to doubt the validity of the laws.

Then Einstein, operating on the assumption that the speed of light was the same in all frames and that an accelerating reference frame was indistinguishable from one in a gravitational field, derived more complicated equations to predict how objects would do.

The predictions were generally similar to those of Newton's laws - at low speeds, the two would be virtually indistinguishable. There were slight differences - Einsteinean general relativity did explain mercury's orbit better, for example. And, of course, it was applicable for speeds near that of light, while Newton's laws weren't.

However, Newton's Laws are still a valid approximation for most situations, which is why they are still taught.

I don't think physicists believe that Einstein's theories are perfect either. They work very well for large distances and large masses, but at small distances they are incompatible with Quantum Mechanics and give ridiculous results. Either QM or General Relativity will have to be modified, eventually, when someone can come up with a better theory. That better theory will give almost the same results as General Relativity for large distances, and will give almost the same results as QM for small masses.

And that's how science works. Newer theories expand on the previous ones. Newton's Laws are an approximation of General Relativity, and are quite valid for most things. And hence they are still taught, because they are still useful and still "true" under most circumstances. There is no reason to teach General Relativity if you need to shoot missiles - the correction would be negligible, and the calculations would be a whole lot more difficult.

To all you people saying "Creatonism is wrong? Well then prove it!", you know perfectly well that that is impossible to do. The whole assertation of a supreme being is structured that way.

Can't explain something? God did it. Find a rational explaination that doesn't involve God? God set up the original conditions for that rational sequence of events to result in the previously inexplicable event. Since we will never know absolutely everything there is to know about the universe, the proposition of God is inherently impossible to disprove. Of course it's also inherently impossible to prove, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Evolutionary theory is based entirely off of empirically observed processes and data. Creationism is not. Evolution does not advocate the existance or nonexistance of supernatural forces. Creationism demands their presence. That is why it is both scientifically and constitutionally unacceptable to teach creationism in the public school system. End of controversy.

And that's how science works. Newer theories expand on the previous ones.

at least sometimes...

Almost no theories in science are "100% right."

Newton's laws are correct for most instances, but not all - they spectacularly break down at near-light speeds.

General Relativity is correct for most instances, but not all - it breaks down spectacularly when combined with Quantum Mechanics, which is itself a very successful theory that has given very wacky predictions which have been validated a dozen times over.

The laws of thermodynamics are correct on a macroscopic scale - but the second law of thermodynamics isn't going to tell you what will happen if you have only two molecules interacting.

Evolution only applies to when there are living, replicating things - it cannot be used to explain how life originated, only what happened after it did.

Proof of Noah's Flood (sorta)

http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/floodgen/e_noah.htm

It's my opinion that both the Garden of Eden and Noah's Flood are just stories made for very good reasons. It's also my opinion that these stories that Christians tout as fact are indeed ironically blasphemous.

Think of how early society might have had to deal with these problems:

First, everyone in society is fascinated with the idea of how everything started (we still are!). Back then there may have been heated discussions, even fights or maybe even WARS over the matter. Some wise soul decided to lay down a story that was also a moral lesson (of sorts) to explain it all away. Therefore ending conflict, and since it is an interesting story with morals and such, everyone didn't mind it being said as fact (although I believe the Christian version is lifted from the Sumerian version and God only knows where they got their version, but I digress...)

Now Noah's flood, as the above link hints, may have been based on a real event. Now if you survived this catastrophe, wouldn't you want the whole mess to be explained away so panicking people would be at ease. Up steps a storyteller with his tale of Noah and how God did it to rinse the world of evil and then promise to not do that again. People are placated and they move on knowing it will never happen again cuz God said.

Now as for the blasphemy:

God knows all. He is perfect. Past and future, he knows it. Then why would he be surprised that Adam and Eve would disobey him? Why didn't he know that flooding the Earth would not end wickedness in men and that he would be remorseful after he flooded the place. These stories treat God as a human with flaws. A very blasphemous statement for sure. Ergo, the stories are made by man and are not real. They are nice stories though, very emotional and they display human foibles nicely to the point they influence a lot of literature to this day. But that's what they are, only stories.

Technically, you could look at Genesis as God knowing that he would be eventually disobeyed and Adam and Eve would be forced to leave Eden. I mean YOU have to leave you mother's basement someday and Adam and Eve had to leave their Father's Garden someday. Maybe it was a good thing we were booted out. The problem is that this makes Satan (or whomever was playing the serpent at the time) look like a good guy, like the guy who got you a good job so you could actually leave home, which is against traditional Christian beliefs since they and Satan don't get along (but not against Jewish beliefs if I'm not mistaken since they don't believe in Hell. That's right isn't it?).

OH! and it isn't someone's duty to prove that Creationism is FALSE. The burden lies with the Creationist that it is TRUE by presenting PROOF. Like all theories, the burden lies with the person presenting the theory that it is true. So until I see the fossilized remains of two people without bellybuttons, consider me a believer in Evolution. :)

I, for one, am ECSTATIC to see them finally being open to teaching more than one theory than just evolution. I am sick of kids being brought up assuming evolution is irrefutable fact. That is FAR from true.

It takes A LOT more faith to believe that the vast complexness of the universe and the perfectly harmonized balance of life that exists on our planet was spontaneously generated than intelligently designed.

Almost no theories in science are "100% right."

Newton's laws are correct for most instances, but not all - they spectacularly break down at near-light speeds.

General Relativity is correct for most instances, but not all - it breaks down spectacularly when combined with Quantum Mechanics, which is itself a very successful theory that has given very wacky predictions which have been validated a dozen times over.

The laws of thermodynamics are correct on a macroscopic scale - but the second law of thermodynamics isn't going to tell you what will happen if you have only two molecules interacting.

Evolution only applies to when there are living, replicating things - it cannot be used to explain how life originated, only what happened after it did.

This is pretty much why 'laws' are a very abstract definition since there are always exceptions to the law. 'Law' sounds definite, but it really isn't. Its more like 'things tend to go this way most of the time under normal conditions depending on what those conditions are as described in the law."

And they have been able to re-create condition on Earth some 5 billion years ago in a lab and have noticed the spontaneous construction of nucleic acids and peptides through basic chemical reaction. All that heat and pressure on early Earth was all it took, and the chemical components where there naturally.

Scientists have also put forth the idea that the first living things may have been created in mist droplets in order to get all those chemicals in close proximity enough to begin forming life.

The theories keep coming! As long as the proof does as well then they can theorize all they want. They may be right.

I, for one, am ECSTATIC to see them finally being open to teaching more than one theory than just evolution. I am sick of kids being brought up assuming evolution is irrefutable fact. That is FAR from true.

It takes A LOT more faith to believe that the vast complexness of the universe and the perfectly harmonized balance of life that exists on our planet was spontaneously generated than intelligently designed.

Sorry, wrong. Opposite is true. We have proof that Evolution occurs (as well as the occurance of the Big Bang). You don't have any proof to back up Creationism. Belief in the absense of proof is FAITH. Evolution is closer to truth that Creationism is from that alone.

And isn't the sudden appearance of everything due to God a better definition of 'spontaneously generated' than evolution? Evolution is the result of billions of years for God's sake! I mean all the chemical components were there and the conditions existed for the chemical reactions to take place that created organic molecules. Physicists have also figured out how atoms can form from an event like the Big Bang (they are just sketchy on what caused the Big Bang even if there are numerous theories). In your version everything just APPEARED.

Check yourself before you mess yourself.

I, for one, am ECSTATIC to see them finally being open to teaching more than one theory than just evolution. I am sick of kids being brought up assuming evolution is irrefutable fact. That is FAR from true.

It takes A LOT more faith to believe that the vast complexness of the universe and the perfectly harmonized balance of life that exists on our planet was spontaneously generated than intelligently designed.

Creationism is NOT a theory. It does not make any verifiable predictions.

Whichever one takes more faith to believe is irrelevant - what matters is which one is supported by the evidence. The evidence shows that - surprise surprise - some species that were alive before are extinct now, some species that exist now did not exist before, that current species can change over time and that can sometimes split up into two different species.

Yes, Evolution is a fact. There are competing theories of evolution, but that does not change the facts.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

newtonian gravitation fails to explain the orbit of mercury and it also fails to accurately predict the gravitational deflection of light, amongst other things. as i said; good enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, but wrong.

I wouldn't say 'wrong', I'd say 'incomplete'. It does explain a few things and would have laid the groundwork for guys like Einstein to fill in the holes he left behind.

Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is a great example of this as well. He didn't get it all right. In fact he still thought God had a hand in it and his opinions were at times racist. But his basic theory of life changing over time was correct and its up to scientists later on to fill in the holes.

Sorry, wrong. Opposite is true. We have proof that Evolution occurs (as well as the occurance of the Big Bang). You don't have any proof to back up Creationism. Belief in the absense of proof is FAITH. Evolution is closer to truth that Creationism is from that alone.

And isn't the sudden appearance of everything due to God a better definition of 'spontaneously generated' than evolution? Evolution is the result of billions of years for God's sake! I mean all the chemical components were there and the conditions existed for the chemical reactions to take place that created organic molecules. Physicists have also figured out how atoms can form from an event like the Big Bang (they are just sketchy on what caused the Big Bang even if there are numerous theories). In your version everything just APPEARED.

Check yourself before you mess yourself.

There is no proof of evolution or creation.

They are scientifically impossible to test.

There is no proof of evolution or creation.

They are scientifically impossible to test.

Evolution is testable, and has been.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ is an in-depth article about it.

There is no proof of evolution or creation.

They are scientifically impossible to test.

Wrong. Well in regards to evolution anyway.

That's like saying you can't convict a murderer using evidence of a past crime.

There is concrete evidence that organisms have changed over millions of years. The footprints are left plainly in our DNA and the fossil record. We can observe it right now as bacteria grow immune to antibiotics. The only down side is that it is a long process and we aren't completely sure what to look for as changes happen in real time and we aren't all too clear on the actual mechanisms of evolution.

Are animals merely adapting behaviourally as a temporary move or do adaptations eventually change DNA in order to pass the new behaviours onto the young and if these changes in DNA occur exactly WHEN are they incorporated?

The list of questions go on and answers will be found through observation and the creation of new hypotheses.

Evolution is testable, and has been.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ is an in-depth article about it.

I remember Part 4 well in my genetics classes :D

Wrong. Well in regards to evolution anyway.

That's like saying you can't convict a murderer using evidence of a past crime.

There is concrete evidence that organisms have changed over millions of years. The footprints are left plainly in our DNA and the fossil record. We can observe it right now as bacteria grow immune to antibiotics. The only down side is that it is a long process and we aren't completely sure what to look for as changes happen in real time and we aren't all too clear on the actual mechanisms of evolution.

Are animals merely adapting behaviourally as a temporary move or do adaptations eventually change DNA in order to pass the new behaviours onto the young and if these changes in DNA occur exactly WHEN are they incorporated?

The list of questions go on and answers will be found through observation and the creation of new hypotheses.

I haven't seen ANY evolutionary proof that wasn't either explainable by something else or a hoax. And I don't have time to read that long link the guy before you posted. Maybe tomorrow.

I wouldn't say 'wrong', I'd say 'incomplete'. It does explain a few things and would have laid the groundwork for guys like Einstein to fill in the holes he left behind.

nah, general relativity does more than complete the holes in newtonian physics. newton's universe was flat, and gravity was an actual force in that universe. but according to einstein, the universe is curved and gravity is really the observed effect of the bending of space-time. in a very real sense, these theories describe two completely different universes.

nah, general relativity does more than complete the holes in newtonian physics. newton's universe was flat, and gravity was an actual force in that universe. but according to einstein, the universe is curved and gravity is really the observed effect of the bending of space-time. in a very real sense, these theories describe two completely different universes.

Well, I'd include the flat/curves thing as a hole that had to be filled. Einstein would have to disprove Newton before he could tout is own theories. Pointing out errors and explaining why they are wrong are the same as filling in a hole in my book.

Has Einstein ever been proven to be wrong yet?

I haven't seen ANY evolutionary proof that wasn't either explainable by something else or a hoax. And I don't have time to read that long link the guy before you posted. Maybe tomorrow.

I would absolutely love to hear about these explanations (marsh gas? :D ) and hoaxes some other day (by hoaxes I think you mean things like Java Man. Java Man being a fake does not disprove evolution. Plenty of REAL hominids have been found, well their bones and tools anyway.)

I too have no time to read it or talk any more tonight since its 4 am and tomorrow is Monday and I am obviously an idiot for being up this late.

Night night.

Oh, so I GIVE you evidence and you say that you don't have time to read it. Well, guess what. I can't give you a quick catch-phrase and say "there, that's proof." Because proof in science is not contained in quick catch-phrases, it's contained in detailed examination of the evidence.

Byt if you want a quick summary, I'll give you some of the evidence. This isn't all of it.

If you want more, read that site.

Evidence #1: All organisms use the same genetic code, the same sequence of nucleic acids corresponds to the same protein. This suggests that the organisms descended from a common ancestor, since there is no particular reason to favor this encoding over another. There are also plenty of other molecular pathways that could work in a completely different way, and yet all species share them.
Falsifiability: If one species is discovered to use completely different metabolic pathways for processing molecules.

Evidence #2: Hierarchical classification. Species can be classified into groups that share some characteristics, which are split up into subgroups, which are split up into sub-subgroups.
Falsifiability: if we find species that have characteristics of multiple categories. Example - mammals with feathers for insulation, or amphibians with differentiated or cusped teeth.
Falsifiability: if the evolutionary tree that we come up with by different means is different. If by looking at the DNA of different animals we come up with a different tree than we do by looking at other characteristics.

Evidence #3: Vestigal organs. Fish that live in complete darkness still have eyes, ostriches that never fly still have wings. Moreover, these eyes/wings still have most of the characteristics of what they evolved from, even though they aren't useful anymore.
Falsifiability: If we find an animal with a vestigal organ that could not have evolved from a functional one.

Evidence #4: Anatomical analogy. Biological structures that are used for the same purpose by different classes of animals are not related in structure. The wings of hummingbirds are closer in structure to the arms of humans than to the wings of insects. American and Saharan desert plants use different mechanisms for surviving, even though the conditions are similar. Cephalopod eyes and mammal eyes have different structures, even though they serve the same purpose. (Actually, the cephalopod eye is superior in that it doesn't have a blind spot - blood vessels and nerves come to the eye from behind and don't block any light, as they do in mammals).
Falsifiability: For example, we would not expect newly discovered species of dolphins, whales, penguins, or any close mammalian relatives to have gills, even though it would be very advantageous for them.

And there are more, I just picked and chose some that I could easily summarize without going into the details.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - more evidence than you could possibly want.

Well, I'd include the flat/curves thing as a hole that had to be filled. Einstein would have to disprove Newton before he could tout is own theories. Pointing out errors and explaining why they are wrong are the same as filling in a hole in my book.

Has Einstein ever been proven to be wrong yet?


Well, not quite true, strictly speaking. Einstein never pointed out holes in Newton's theories. He didn't need to.

He simply presented his own theory, which explained the facts better than Newton's theories did.

The holes in Newton's theories are that they didn't correspond to the experimental data as well as Einstein's did.

Newton had come up with equations that predict how things would act, and explanations for them; Einstein came up with different equations and different explanations which just predicted things better, and so replaced the previous theory. He did not need to go through and point out WHY Newton's theories didn't give predictions as accurate at his theories did; the experimental results are proof enough.

Hawking did say that was unlikely but not impossible.
So, you would support teaching it in Science class because it isn't impossible?

So, you would support teaching it in Science class because it isn't impossible?
I would support presenting to student a variety of options and explaining the supporting evidence to each. To not teach one simple because it doesn't fit with one group of scientists views is the truly backwards step. Until a theory is fact then all theories should be taught to some degree.
The big bang - Theory
Evolution - Theory
Before the big bang theory there were many others, that are now not even touched on.
Yes, teach creationism. All those that sneer are as ignorant as narrow minded as it is possible to be. Science has again and again had to turn what it thinks on it's head. Hawkins for example had a hard time with his thoeries because there were 'this is the way it is!' types sneering from the sidlines, those same people were the ones who never had an original thought in thier lives!
As Einstien said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge.'

Rant now ends....

Evidence #2: Hierarchical classification. Species can be classified into groups that share some characteristics, which are split up into subgroups, which are split up into sub-subgroups.
Falsifiability: if we find species that have characteristics of multiple categories. Example - mammals with feathers for insulation, or amphibians with differentiated or cusped teeth.

Platypus
Tuna
Mackerel Sharks

I would support presenting to student a variety of options and explaining the supporting evidence to each. To not teach one simple because it doesn't fit with one group of scientists views is the truly backwards step. Until a theory is fact then all theories should be taught to some degree.
The big bang - Theory
Evolution - Theory
Before the big bang theory there were many others, that are now not even touched on.
Yes, teach creationism. All those that sneer are as ignorant as narrow minded as it is possible to be. Science has again and again had to turn what it thinks on it's head. Hawkins for example had a hard time with his thoeries because there were 'this is the way it is!' types sneering from the sidlines, those same people were the ones who never had an original thought in thier lives!
As Einstien said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge.'

Rant now ends....

Ok...so we teach students that the world rides on the back of a giant turtle.

Ok, I have to cry out bull here. Show me where in the Bill of Rights this? All it says in the 1st amendment of the Contstitution is that Congress shall make no law establishing religion NOR PROHIBITING the worship thereof! By NOT teaching this, they are, in essence, discriminating christians in the public schools thus it actually violates the law.

Do you know why they are public schools? So the kids don't have religon shoved down their throat. If you want to learn about it, there are plenty of religous schools. Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore has no place in a science classroom. On the other hand, I have no problem with it being taught in an elective class.

Ok...so we teach students that the world rides on the back of a giant turtle.

Why not? It's how the world was thought to be by Aztec (or Mayan, not sure) religon.

Until a theory is fact then all theories should be taught to some degree.

theory can never be fact, because they are distinct concepts. theories are explanations of facts, the why and how of the what. the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution (amongst other things), in exactly the way the newtonian theory of gravity attempted to explain the fact of gravity. we cannot see gravity, all we can see are it's effects. the fact of seeing things fall at consistent rate tells us nothing about why they do so. for that we need a theory.

as far as teaching goes, more important than teaching any particular theory is teaching the values and methods of science and critical thinking and how to spot and deal with the various fallacies and shoddy thinking that we often fall into. beyond that, teach the evidence as much as possible and the theory we have to explain it.

Do you know why they are public schools? So the kids don't have religon shoved down their throat. If you want to learn about it, there are plenty of religous schools. Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore has no place in a science classroom. On the other hand, I have no problem with it being taught in an elective class.



Why not? It's how the world was thought to be by Aztec (or Mayan, not sure) religon.
Not quite right... they are public schools because they are funded with "public" money.

It could be argued that teaching evolution exclusively is a violation of the first amendment.

It could be argued that teaching evolution exclusively is a violation of the first amendment.
And teaching creationism is not a violation of the first amendment?

It could be argued that teaching evolution exclusively is a violation of the first amendment.

well, absolutely anything could be argued. the question is whether the argument in question would even be valid, let alone sound.

And teaching creationism is not a violation of the first amendment?
well, absolutely anything could be argued. the question is whether the argument in question would even be valid, let alone sound.
Teaching creationism exclusively would be a violation yes, teaching it along with evolution would not.

The argument would be that the first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The teaching of evolution exclusively violates a families "free exercise" of their religion if they believe in a strict interpretation of the bible and genisis in particular. Therein lies the violation of the amendment.

And people in Wisconsin are stupid.

Most of us aren't...just the backwards tiny-town Republicans. Look on a map of where this town is (and be glad you don't have to go to school there).

Teaching creationism exclusively would be a violation yes, teaching it along with evolution would not.

The argument would be that the first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The teaching of evolution exclusively violates a families "free exercise" of their religion if they believe in a strict interpretation of the bible and genisis in particular. Therein lies the violation of the amendment.

well that depends on whether or not 'free exercise' requires us to teach factually incorrect things in a publicly funded science class. i'm leaning towards no.

Most of us aren't...just the backwards tiny-town Republicans. Look on a map of where this town is (and be glad you don't have to go to school there).

yeah, wisconsin isn't all bad. though historically it was a lot more left-leaning than it's become recently.

theory can never be fact, because they are distinct concepts. theories are explanations of facts, the why and how of the what. the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution (amongst other things), in exactly the way the newtonian theory of gravity attempted to explain the fact of gravity. we cannot see gravity, all we can see are it's effects. the fact of seeing things fall at consistent rate tells us nothing about why they do so. for that we need a theory.

as far as teaching goes, more important than teaching any particular theory is teaching the values and methods of science and critical thinking and how to spot and deal with the various fallacies and shoddy thinking that we often fall into. beyond that, teach the evidence as much as possible and the theory we have to explain it.
Well said.
I can never unterstand why Science zelots get all hot under the collar about certain thoeries. If you accept as you say that we know very little but are happy with our understanding of things, then why do people feel so threatened by others that do not agree, surely that's what science is all about!

And teaching creationism is not a violation of the first amendment?
No even as an Englishman I know that it is not. The first amendment does no preclude the teaching of religion etc it simply makes the distinction that the Church (any church) does not have any control or direct involvement with the state. It does not for example stop a president stating he stands as a christian or muslim and supports all the teachings of that religion. What it stops is the church taking part in government.

well that depends on whether or not 'free exercise' requires us to teach factually incorrect things in a publicly funded science class. i'm leaning towards no.
So you out of all the scientist in the world know without doubt that one theory is correct and another is not. Or do you just have faith in science as others have faith in religion?

The original question was what the hell is going on in this country? Answer, division and intolerance. The left hates the right, the right hates the left, and Wal-mart opens another superstore.

I'm all for teaching creationism in public school as long as every religion's creation theory is been put before the students without prejudice towards one or another. However, creation theory shouldn't be taught in a science class but in a religious studies class. Then again, maybe we should be focusing first on improving the basics like reading, writing, math and history. Better yet, lets first focus on rebuilding and updating ALL of our public schools and creating a safe environment where students can ask questions and express themselves without being persecuted by the faculty or their fellow students.

The majority of students in grades K-12 are a lot more concerned with fitting in and being liked by the other students, the spread of acne over their faces (for those who have hit puberty - not as important from K-5th/6th grade), and if their parents are going to be satisfied with their grades. Creationism vs. evolution isn't something most of us worry about until we get into college - if at all, and most adults are more concerned with paying the bills than worrying about how we got here.

By the way, how do any of us know the answers to any of these questions? FAITH! There are two truths: I think therefore I am, and life is suffering. The rest is all bullshit and FAITH! :headbang: (love this icon)

Hail Eris!
(or not)

It doesn't seem like all that big of a deal. So someone wants to present information that they believe would indicate that Darwin was on crack, and it looks more like life was planned than accidental. Evolution is still a theory, and will remain so until someone can recreate it. If it's a good theory, it will stand up to scrutiny. If Darwin was, indeed, on crack, then it won't hang together and we need to consider some other options.

If it's a waste of time, then so is the questioning of any other line of thinking. Not a very scientific way of handling the issue, is it?

newtonian gravitation fails to explain the orbit of mercury and it also fails to accurately predict the gravitational deflection of light, amongst other things. as i said; good enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, but wrong.

That means crap and you know it.

Evolution is testable, and has been.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ is an in-depth article about it.

And most of what they found disproves Evolution.

And most of what they found disproves Evolution.

Please enlighten us as to what disproves the theory of evolution. Then maybe you can go on to prove that the sun goes round the earth and that there is no life on any other planets.

Do you know why they are public schools? So the kids don't have religon shoved down their throat. If you want to learn about it, there are plenty of religous schools. Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore has no place in a science classroom. On the other hand, I have no problem with it being taught in an elective class.

Did you know that religion and prayer were allowed in public schools? The founding fathers and the early Congresses didn't seem to mind this. So tell me why then that JFK had a problem with it? It was an Athiest that got it out. No one bothered with it because no one deemed it important enough. As for teaching Creationism, Teach it along side Evolution and the Big Bang. My mother taught me that when I was homeschooled. she taught me all three of them; Creationism, big bang, and Evolution.

Not quite right... they are public schools because they are funded with "public" money.

It could be argued that teaching evolution exclusively is a violation of the first amendment.

Here here TheOneRule!

Maybe I should take up this cause and fight for the 1st Amendment

Did you know that religion and prayer were allowed in public schools? The founding fathers and the early Congresses didn't seem to mind this. So tell me why then that JFK had a problem with it? It was an Athiest that got it out. No one bothered with it because no one deemed it important enough. As for teaching Creationism, Teach it along side Evolution and the Big Bang. My mother taught me that when I was homeschooled. she taught me all three of them; Creationism, big bang, and Evolution.

JFK had a problem with it because he was constantly trying to prove that he was not too religious.

well that depends on whether or not 'free exercise' requires us to teach factually incorrect things in a publicly funded science class. i'm leaning towards no.

The Bible has never been disproven as false dude.

JFK had a problem with it because he was constantly trying to prove that he was not too religious.

Nice cover up!

The Bible has never been disproven as false dude.

Yes, it has been...consistently proven as false?

Nice cover up!

What?

The Bible has never been disproven as false dude.

You can prove that the bible isn't true by reading it. It contains contradictions. So it can't be true.

You can prove that the bible isn't true by reading it. It contains contradictions. So it can't be true.

In order to understand the Bible, you have to read all of it and not selected verses.

Well said.
I can never unterstand why Science zelots get all hot under the collar about certain thoeries. If you accept as you say that we know very little but are happy with our understanding of things, then why do people feel so threatened by others that do not agree, surely that's what science is all about!

typically because the only people who ever want to give 'equal time' or whatever, actually want to undermine the entire project of science and replace it with the recieved 'knowledge' of tradition and authority. and when they get their nonsense included in science classes it gives these modes of thinking an air of legitimacy they very much do not deserve when it comes to learning about the material world as we know it. nobody complains about mentioning other theories when there are legitimate disagreements over which one better fits the universe - see all discussions about the exact shape of spacetime or whether the universe will continue to expand forever or end in a big crunch, etc.

but when creationists come in saying that it is vitally important that we tell kids with the authority of the state and the eductational system factually untrue information - that the earth is 6000 years old, that the various strata were layed down in the flood, that fossils were also deposited in the flood based on which species of plant could run fastest into the hills/were placed there by satan to trick us (choose the approriate one for the group of creationists in question), that the universe has to be less than 10,000 light years across/light speed was in a constant state of decay until exactly the time that we learned to measure it/stars were placed there by satan to trick us, etc - it is past time to tell them to fuck off and learn to think. their attempted explanation fails on so many levels that the fact that we are still even talking about it is a great testament to humanity's weakness in critical thinking and to the effectiveness of shitty schools and fundamentalist religion at keeping people dumb and under control.

Whatever happened to allowing kids to make up there own minds as to what they believe and what they don't believe in? Teaching Creationism allows this to happen.
Letting kids make up their own minds went out the window with education.

That means crap and you know it.

no, the universe that newtonian mechanics explains quite literally does not exist. the reason it utterly fails at certain velocities and at certain scales is because the universe isn't setup the way he thought it was. that's a pretty big failed scientific prediction if you ask me.

JFK had a problem with it because he was constantly trying to prove that he was not too religious.
That's pretty funny in retrospect, people were afraid of a Catholic as president, well now, we got a born-again Evangelical as president!!!

BAN CONDOMS! :D

In order to understand the Bible, you have to read all of it and not selected verses.

And learn about its background and the authors.Also since it claims to describe the lives of real people you must research the actors.This is the case with any text.Reading a text does not mean you fully understand it.You need background and you need to be able to delve into the authors psyche and know his methods.For this reason anyone who claims to understand the bible is likely to have a 1st class honours degree in bullshittery.

I still say, if you are going to teach Christian creationism in science you must also teach various other myths, legends, and creation stories from around the world.

And the world riding on the back of a giant turtle scientific theory...

No even as an Englishman I know that it is not. The first amendment does no preclude the teaching of religion etc it simply makes the distinction that the Church (any church) does not have any control or direct involvement with the state. It does not for example stop a president stating he stands as a christian or muslim and supports all the teachings of that religion. What it stops is the church taking part in government.

actually the supreme court has ruled that the teaching of creationism is unconstitutional on multiple occassions.

And most of what they found disproves Evolution.

got a specific example you'd like to talk about? or would you like me to choose one for us? we could have a little one on one discussion of a particular aspect of the known evidence. come on, it'd be fun - you'd get to show the filthy non-believers what's what.

I still say, if you are going to teach Christian creationism in science you must also teach various other myths, legends, and creation stories from around the world.

And the world riding on the back of a giant turtle scientific theory...

provided they don't do it in science class. i'd be all for teaching religious studies in schools before college though. and while we're at it, they should also have critical thinking lessons starting in grade school too. get 'em young, i say.

That means crap and you know it.
I am going go ahead and disagree with you on this one. The perihelion of mercury is not adequatley predicted by Newtonian physics. That said, Newton was amazingly brilliant and Einstein and Hawking would be nothing were it not for him as his laws provide the basis for modern physics.

I think classes should teach 'The World Is Flat' as an alternate scientific theory also.

I think classes should teach 'The World Is Flat' as an alternate scientific theory also.

"...and that, my liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped"

I think classes should teach 'The World Is Flat' as an alternate scientific theory also.

However, its been proven that the world is round thus it makes the Earth being round fact.

However, its been proven that the world is round thus it makes the Earth being round fact.

nothing has been proven. all we have are a number of lines of evidence that all point to the idea that either the earth really is roughly spherical or we are incapable of percieving the external world 'correctly'. in order to not be insane we go with the first option. however, when it comes to evolution (and physics and chemistry and geology, etc) creationists choose the second one.

there is no proof here, merely an inductive argument that seems so strong that it would be lunacy to deny it. but it still could turn out that we are somehow wrong about the shape of the earth - i just wouldn't bet on it.

However, its been proven that the world is round thus it makes the Earth being round fact.
But the world may still ride on the back of a giant invisible turtle!!!

Hasn't been proven wrong.

However, its been proven that the world is round thus it makes the Earth being round fact.
And so has the creationism of the bible been dis-proved.
C-14 dis-proves it, but you proably don't beleive in that... Plain logics, if the world is 5000-7000 years old, how did the aborigines get to Australia?

I don't see why it shouldn't be teached in science class, as long as you inform the pupils that this is a non-proven hypothese which relies on that God is almighty and thus modern science is wrong and that believing it is something they in a global and secular world will have nothing but discrimination and taunting for.

However, its been proven that the world is round thus it makes the Earth being round fact.

'Proven'? That's an awfully strong word.

It's also been 'proven' that fossils exist that are hundreds of millions of years old. Yet these are disputed.

The spherical nature of Earth could be nothing more than an optical illusion caused by the same geomagnetic lines of force that causes us to curve as we travel, thus seeming to generate the illusion we are 'circumnavigating the globe'.

'Proven'? That's an awfully strong word.

It's also been 'proven' that fossils exist that are hundreds of millions of years old. Yet these are disputed.

The spherical nature of Earth could be nothing more than an optical illusion caused by the same geomagnetic lines of force that causes us to curve as we travel, thus seeming to generate the illusion we are 'circumnavigating the globe'.
How would you else explain time-zones?

How would you else explain time-zones?

Arbitrary geographical sectioning to give portions of Earth a 'morning' without interfering with another geographic section's concept of 'afternoon'. It's nothing more than an attempt to define time as a linear concept.

And so has the creationism of the bible been dis-proved.

Actually this has not been proven or disproven! Try again!

'Proven'? That's an awfully strong word.

Ok then I guess the Coreolis effect is non existent? I guess the fact that satelites have shown the world to be round and not flat is lost on you?

Creationism should be taught in school until science can come up with an explanation for how things began.

Good luck, science.
Why people assume "things began" is really beyond me.Have tou ever seen anything begin???(I dont mean changes,I mean stuff coming out from nowhere)

'Proven'? That's an awfully strong word.

It's also been 'proven' that fossils exist that are hundreds of millions of years old. Yet these are disputed.

The spherical nature of Earth could be nothing more than an optical illusion caused by the same geomagnetic lines of force that causes us to curve as we travel, thus seeming to generate the illusion we are 'circumnavigating the globe'.
But if this is true, and we can't get out of this frame of reference, and if it doesn't make any difference whatsoever, then we can say that for all effects and purposes the Earth is round and goes around the Sun.

Of course, it may not be round, just like the entire Universe may simply be an illusion in our minds, or in the mind of the only living being who in turn imagines us.

But since we can only measure what we perceive and we can't perceive beyond our frame of reference and science is only about what we can measure; then we can say that the Earth being round has been scientifically proven, just like evolution, and that creationism has no place in a scientific discussion.

Now, if you want to make it a philosophical discussion, that's another matter entirely.

People please, this is a simple black and white argument. Creationism, at least from what I've been taught, is essentially the belief that God, (or any other deity), formed the world and everything on it out of nothing. Certainly, this may be possible, however there is virtually NO means by which to scientifically study the supernatural, in this case, the Divine. That is like saying, "Today I'm gonna catch some air in my hand and study it," it simply isn't feasible. So while I'm not saying Creationism is impossible, what I AM saying is that it is pointless and futile to teach it in a science atmosphere, (e.g. the classroom).

yes this should definitly not be taught in the science class room. During the European middle ages, medicine went under serious regression where we started thinking that we could guess everything from urine, and that neptune had something to do with your penis struggling to erect. We don't really want this to happen again by teaching alternative theories which will not help scientific development in any way.

Science may have things wrong, but a lot of the things it has done, (sewers, medicine, being able to post this forum post) seems to be working, and having significant effect, trying to change the direction of science at a time of massive progression seems insane.

But creationism would be suitable as a seperate study or part of a religious and spiritual category,

But if this is true, and we can't get out of this frame of reference, and if it doesn't make any difference whatsoever, then we can say that for all effects and purposes the Earth is round and goes around the Sun.

Of course, it may not be round, just like the entire Universe may simply be an illusion in our minds, or in the mind of the only living being who in turn imagines us.

But since we can only measure what we perceive and we can't perceive beyond our frame of reference and science is only about what we can measure; then we can say that the Earth being round has been scientifically proven, just like evolution, and that creationism has no place in a scientific discussion.

Now, if you want to make it a philosophical discussion, that's another matter entirely.
Never did I suggest otherwise. I was comparing teaching creationism in schools to teaching 'Flat Earth' in schools. There is no scientific 'Why' involved. There is no need nor point to teaching creationism vs. evolution because there is no difference between them in the eyes of any sane un-brainwased person. The Earth is NOT 20,000 years old. We did NOT descend from one man and one woman. The physics that brought about the creation of the Solar System and the biology of evolution are NOT to be disputed. THough some minor details are still up for grabs.

What matters in Creationism vs. Evolution in the minds of any sane unbrainwashed person is this: 'Is there a Plan to all this, and if so, Whose plan?' This is NOT a scientific question, and has no business in a science classroom.

As far as a scientific definition of fact, it is simply a thing which a majority of observers agree to be true. Facts change. As Ronald Reagan said "Facts are stupid things." Nothing in science has ever been proven to be true, only false.

What matters in Creationism vs. Evolution in the minds of any sane unbrainwashed person is this: 'Is there a Plan to all this, and if so, Whose plan?' This is NOT a scientific question, and has no business in a science classroom.
Oh, okay. This is what happens when you arrive late to a discussion :)

As far as a scientific definition of fact, it is simply a thing which a majority of observers agree to be true. Facts change. As Ronald Reagan said "Facts are stupid things." Nothing in science has ever been proven to be true, only false.


I'd like to say that science has proven the sun is hot. And that the body has two lung. You know, things like that.

You know, what I find funny about all this is that I was taught all about the Big Bang, the different ideas about what the universe is doing (staying still, expanding into infinity, Big Crunch), multiple creation theories, evolution, etc... in Grade 10 History class.

I'd like to say that science has proven the sun is hot. And that the body has two lung. You know, things like that.

nah. not proven. we all agree (or at least almost all - some people's perceptions do not work the same as others') that we observe that the sun produces an effect on other things that we call heat and that when we cut people open we observe that they typically have two things we call lungs. but that isn't proof of anything. those are merely the agreed upon facts - the observational data that almost nobody would be willing to dispute. but just because we all more or less agree that we observe certain things in no way proves that those things really exist, let alone that any particular explanation for those observations is ultimately true. proof is for math and 'pure' philosophy. without a way to know with absolute certainty that our basic assumptions about the universe (such as 'our senses don't systematically deceive us' and 'inductive reasoning works' and 'the universe is fundamentally understandable by human intellect') are true, we are left with the good enough reasoning of science and the agreed to conventions of what is and isn't provisionally true.

This is so ridiculous. I suppose, if science is so theoretical, that atoms may or may not exist? If that's true, then there's no nucleus to non-existant atoms. And there may be no fission of said nuclei. So nuclear f***ing bombs are impossible, because we can't prove that we're made up of inconcievably small "building blocks". As convincing as this argument is, the people of Hiroshima beg to differ.

It has been said many, many times before, but I think it just needs to be stated out loud, plain and simple for creationists:

EVOLUTION IS NO A GODDAMNED THEORY IN YOUR SENSE OF THE F***ING WORD

Clear? Good.

By the by, secular government means that the church may not rule the state, but the state may also not be affiliated with the church. And no, I couldn't stop from expletives this time, because I am getting so pissed at godforsaken religious fanatics.

As far as a scientific definition of fact, it is simply a thing which a majority of observers agree to be true. Facts change. As Ronald Reagan said "Facts are stupid things." Nothing in science has ever been proven to be true, only false.

Oh, so do you mean that NO science should be taught because none of it has been "proven" true?

...well, guess what, science doesn't work that way. We have jet airplanes and cars and nukes and rockets and instant messaging and cell phones - and you know, none of the basic principles behind them have been "proven" to work. But hey, they DO. We can't "prove" that electrons behave a certain way - but we can have EVIDENCE to show that they do, and then we use that to build computers and cell phones and whatnot. And all the devices WORK.

General relativity has not been "proven" true. It merely predicts observations better than any other theory.

Evolution is at about the same level as the theory of relativity and the theory that DNA is a double helix - no, it's not "proven," but it gives better explanations and predictions than any other competing theory.

Evolution is at about the same level as the theory of relativity and the theory that DNA is a double helix - no, it's not "proven," but it gives better explanations and predictions than any other competing theory.Erg, the double helix has been proven to be true unless you go to a wierd defintion of "true".


Some things have be demonstrated to be true and have progressed from theories to facts, usually however these are limited cases instead of universal rules. But DNA is a double helix, and this is in the same category of fact as ducks. Ducks do exist, and have been proven to exist, and if one bothers to, one can prove to oneself that ducks exist, the existance of ducks has moved from the region of scientific theory to the region of scientific fact. At one point in time the double helix was only a theory, as was the existance of ducks, but no longer.

Erg, the double helix has been proven to be true unless you go to a wierd defintion of "true".


Some things have be demonstrated to be true and have progressed from theories to facts, usually however these are limited cases instead of universal rules. But DNA is a double helix, and this is in the same category of fact as ducks. Ducks do exist, and have been proven to exist, and if one bothers to, one can prove to oneself that ducks exist, the existance of ducks has moved from the region of scientific theory to the region of scientific fact. At one point in time the double helix was only a theory, as was the existance of ducks, but no longer.

Okay, I'll grant that the doublehelix was a bad example on my part. It's observable, so is a fact.

Well, what about something like Newton's Laws? Quantum Electrodynamics? Or Einstein's theory of Relativity? ...those aren't facts. The facts are the measurements - objects fall at such and such a velocity, the light from a star is deflected by such and such an angle when viewed around a solar eclipse, mercury's orbit changes over time in such and such a way. The theories are the interpretations of those facts, that generalize them and make predictions. The fact that they are not "facts" does not make them any less valid - they're simply a different thing. You can't "observe" space curving or time dilating, but you can observe mercury and observe particles in accelerators and make the conclusion that yes, the theory is valid because the particles/planets behave as predicted.

Evolution is an observed fact. We (meaning, scientists) have observed species changing. We have observed species splitting into two. We have observed mutations in DNA that are responsible for these changes.

From the fossil record, we know that some animals that existed before are now extinct. Some animals that exist now did not exist before. Some animals that existed in the past exist now in a different form. Also, we know that, under current conditions, living things only come from other living things.

This why evolution is treated as a fact - we know that animals change ("evolve") over time.

The theory of common descent, the fact that animals evolved from a common ancestor, is supported by the phylogenetic tree, among other things.

There are also theories OF evolution - debating details of how how it happened. Darwin thought that the primary mechanism was gradual natural selection, from what I know the most recent theory is one of "punctuated equilibrium." I think. Not sure about that.

But the existence of different theories of evolution did not change the fact that yes, we evolve.

Also, we know that, under current conditions, living things only come from other living things.
Almost, almost. There are theories on how life first began when there wasn't any. In fact, I think scientists have actually been able to do it in labs on occasion, simulating conditions similar to those when life did indeed begin. (or arrive...freakin' E.T. hypotheses...)

From Dr. Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, WH Freeman and Company, NY, 1997, Pgs 137-153. <-(thats a reference!)

I will post the questions and answers five at a time. The bold text is Creationists' questions or claims, and the plain text Dr Shermer's. I have left out some text at the ellipses (...)


Philosophically based arguments and answers

1. Creation-science is scientific and therefore should be taught in public schools.

Creation-science is scientific in name only. It is a thinly disguised religious position rather than a theory to be tested using scientific methods, and is therefore not appropriate for public school science courses, just as calling something Muslim-Science or Buddha-science...

2. Science only deals with the here-and-now and thus cannot answer historical questions about the creation of the universe and the origins of life and the human species.

Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archaeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science.

3. Education is a process of learning all sides of an issue, so it is appropriate for creationism and evolution to be taught side-by-side in public school science courses. Not to do so is a violation of the principles of eduction and the civil liberties of creationists. We have a right to be heard, and besides, what is the harm in hearing both sides?

Exposure to many facets of an issue is indeed a part of the general educational process, and it might be appropriate to discuss creationism in courses on religion, history, or even philosophy but certainly not science, similarly, biology courses should not include lectures on American Indian creation myths. There is considerable harm in teaching creation-science because of the consequent blurring of the line between religion and science means that students will not understand what the scientific paradigm is and how to apply it properly...

4. There is an amazing amount of correlation between the facts of nature and the acts of the Bible. It is therefore appropriate to use creation-science books and the Bible as reference tools in publice school science courses and to study the Bible as a book of sciences alongside the book of nature.

There is an amazing amount of correlation between acts in the Bible for which there are no facts in nature and between facts in nature for which there are no acts in the Bible. (Shermer adds an analogy to Shakespeare's plays)

5. The theory of natural selection is tautological...

Sometimes tautologies are the beginning of science, but they are never the end. Gravity can be tautological, but its inference is justified by the way theis theory allows scientists to accurately predict physical effects and phenomena. Likewise natural selection and the theory of evolution are testable and falsifiable by looking at their predictive power....

If you would like me to post more, just ask :) It's a lot to post in one go.
Better yet, go pick up his book and learn something.

Hmm, I think at least one of Chisalpia's points needs to be clarified more, he didn't provide support...

"1. Creation-science is scientific and therefore should be taught in public schools.

Creation-science is scientific in name only. It is a thinly disguised religious position rather than a theory to be tested using scientific methods, and is therefore not appropriate for public school science courses, just as calling something Muslim-Science or Buddha-science..."

I'll add to that an explanation, because you left it out. Creation-science is not scientific because it is not a theory - it doesn't make testable predictions. It steps outside the usual scientific framework of "observation -> theory -> prediction -> observations to test predictions" because it does not have those last two steps. Hence, it is not science, and should not be taught in a science classroom.

Actually, speaking of creationism being taught in schools... what is it that would be taught?

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html :

To anyone who advocates teaching creationism, give at least a brief summary of some of the points that we ask of a legitimate theory...

"What is creationism?

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

* Exposition of creationism.
* Definitions of terms.
* Evidence for creationism.
* Rules of evidence.
* Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
* Evidence which modifies creationism.
"

Any takers?

this is just nuts. . .

I'll add to that an explanation, because you left it out. Creation-science is not scientific because it is not a theory - it doesn't make testable predictions. It steps outside the usual scientific framework of "observation -> theory -> prediction -> observations to test predictions" because it does not have those last two steps. Hence, it is not science, and should not be taught in a science classroom.

even worse - there are some obvious predictions to be made based upon the content of the biblical creation myth, it just happens that every single one of them has spectacularly failed. for example, creationism quite plainly claims that the universe (or the earth at the very least) is 6000 to 8000 years old. thus a creation scientist must predict that
1) all methods for arriving at the age of the earth should show this as the age
2) there should be no things on the earth that date before this time
3) we should only see stars and galaxies and such that are less than 8000 light years away

the only way creationists even attempt to deal with the fact that their every prediction fails miserably is through ad hoc special pleading - which itself almost never actually helps their case, because they just fundamentally don't understand what we know about the universe. but mostly they just ignore it and repeat the same disproved statements over and over again until they get tired and go home to pray for the unbelievers.

Hi all,
I leave in France and didn't know what was the "creationism theory".
When i rode this thread i understanded the problem. :headbang:
In France the only theory taught in public and privates (religious) schools is the evolutionism.
I'm sorry for you my fellows americans. :D

even worse - there are some obvious predictions to be made based upon the content of the biblical creation myth, it just happens that every single one of them has spectacularly failed. for example, creationism quite plainly claims that the universe (or the earth at the very least) is 6000 to 8000 years old. thus a creation scientist must predict that
1) all methods for arriving at the age of the earth should show this as the age
2) there should be no things on the earth that date before this time
3) we should only see stars and galaxies and such that are less than 8000 light years away

the only way creationists even attempt to deal with the fact that their every prediction fails miserably is through ad hoc special pleading - which itself almost never actually helps their case, because they just fundamentally don't understand what we know about the universe. but mostly they just ignore it and repeat the same disproved statements over and over again until they get tired and go home to pray for the unbelievers.
Sigh! I don't know how many times I've had that argument with fundmentalists over the age of the earth. I keep trying to explain that it was first stated by Usher, a monk, during the Middle Ages. He took all the biblical geneologies from the Old Testament, added them all together compensating for any overlap, and came up with the age of the world.

Given what they knew at the time Usher wrote his chronology, it's perfectly understandable why they believed it represented the actual age of the earth, but you would think that anyone with half an ounce of sense and a modicum of intellectual honesty would know by now that it was a specious construction based on oral history.

It's a matter of considerable distress to me that so-called "Creation Scientists" try every way they can to "disprove" carbon-dating as an acceptable method of determining the age of fossils. Fossils, by the way, were obviously placed where they are by God to lead foolish man astray. GROAN! :(

The math has been done and a water canopy would have pressure-cooked the entire fucking earth. Nothing would have survived. It isn't valid. It's quite the opposite.

I disagree, you show me your math - because I've been over this with several Professors at the local University (Illinois State) as I was curious. A good friend of mine (who is agnostic, just in case you want to claim bias) talked to several other Professors and from what they found, it would have worked.

I disagree, you show me your math - because I've been over this with several Professors at the local University (Illinois State) as I was curious. A good friend of mine (who is agnostic, just in case you want to claim bias) talked to several other Professors and from what they found, it would have worked.

Well, we might be able to show you the math if you told us what the theory was! Canopy - what type? Out of what material/substance? What thickness?

Also, what would this explanation predict?

We can't refute it if we have no idea what you're talking about, as I currently don't.

I disagree, you show me your math - because I've been over this with several Professors at the local University (Illinois State) as I was curious. A good friend of mine (who is agnostic, just in case you want to claim bias) talked to several other Professors and from what they found, it would have worked.
I was not the person who did the math. It was someone else. I'll try to find it.

However, use some common sense. Think about how much pressure enough water to cover the Earth to a depth of several hundred feet would put on the Earth if it was in the atmosphere.

I was not the person who did the math. It was someone else. I'll try to find it.

However, use some common sense. Think about how much pressure enough water to cover the Earth to a depth of several hundred feet would put on the Earth if it was in the atmosphere.

If Doujin said it'll work, then I will believe him. Apparently he asked people who could perform this and if they say it could've worked, then I'll accept it as a theory. A good one at that. Maybe someone should do research into this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html

The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water
By Paul Farrar

In this short and, I hope, simple note I will discuss the physical implications of the often proposed "vapor canopy" explanation for the source of water for Noah's Flood as recorded in "Genesis".

Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed.

The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went.

First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point.

Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today.

How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible?

The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water
By Bill Hyde

Someone writes:

"Radiocarbon" does not form from cosmic rays, the carbon-14 drops in from the sky itself.

C-14 forms in the reaction:

N-14 + neutron --> C-14 + H

where the free neutrons are generally produced by cosmic rays. So the canopy-promoting Jehovah's Witnesses are correct that such a canopy would foul up C-14 dating. However, it would also have many other effects, none of which are observed. I would add:

* Such a canopy would have a serious effect on solar and thermal radiation. Just exactly how this would affect the climate depends on the canopy's thickness, but it is unlikely to have no effect. No such effect is evident in the paleoclimatic record.

* As well as dendrochronology, thermoluminescence dating, fission track dating, amino-acid dating, and uranium/thorium dating confirm C-14 dates for humans at the last ice age (i.e. about 21000 years ago for the glacial maximum) within 20%. If the canopy had existed up to 4000 years ago this would not be the case since all of the above, with the possible exception of thermoluminescence dating, are unaffected by the presence or absence of cosmic rays.

* If there was very little C-14 production before 4000 B.P. and normal production since, no objects would carbon date between 4000 and about 20000 years old. This is not what is observed.

-----------------------

That's what they say. Does someone have a counterargument?

Exactly. The temperatures required for such a huge amount of water to be in the air would be far above human tolerance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
*snip*
Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

Jesus Fucking Christ. You haven't even taken basic Chemistry, have you? Water has a specific gravity of 1. This means that water is much, much denser than air. A water canopy would thus put massive amounts of pressure on the Earth's surface. Pressure creates heat. Look at Venus. It has a temperature of over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and it's atmosphere is nowhere near as dense as our atmosphere would be with a water canopy.

When there was a water canopy surounding the Earth, temperatures were tropical throughout the world. Or so they say. I don't know about anyone else, but no I have not taken Chemistry. But I have cross-checked with Professors at ISU who support the possibility of a water canopy.

Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

Interesting, I'll see what the people at ISU have to say. *shrug*

Jesus Fucking Christ. You haven't even taken basic Chemistry, have you? Water has a specific gravity of 1. This means that water is much, much denser than air. A water canopy would thus put massive amounts of pressure on the Earth's surface. Pressure creates heat. Look at Venus. It has a temperature of over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and it's atmosphere is nowhere near as dense as our atmosphere would be with a water canopy.
First of all, you mean density. Water, approximately, has a density of 1 (it varies), though it's much less in vapour form. Temperature and state of matter both affect density.

Second of all, Venus isn't really comparable to Earth, because its atmospheric conditions are only what Earth would be if there were some serious environmental f*** ups. (*cough*)

First of all, you mean density. Water, approximately, has a density of 1 (it varies), though it's much less in vapour form. Temperature and state of matter both affect density.

I mean specific gravity. If I meant density I'd say 1 g/mL. Which I probbaly should have said. My point still stands. That much water would cause a lot of pressure.

I mean specific gravity. If I meant density I'd say 1 g/mL. Which I probbaly should have said. My point still stands. That much water would cause a lot of pressure.
I definitely won't argue with that...