NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061010/ap_on_re_us/michigan_science

Evolution wins out in Mich. curriculum

By TIM MARTIN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 2 minutes ago

LANSING, Mich. - The State Board of Education on Tuesday approved public school curriculum guidelines that support the teaching of evolution in science classes — but not intelligent design.

Intelligent design instruction could be left for other classes in Michigan schools, but it doesn't belong in science class, according to the unanimously adopted guidelines.

"The intent of the board needs to be very clear," said board member John Austin, an Ann Arbor Democrat. "Evolution is not under stress. It is not untested science."

Some science groups and the
American Civil Liberties Union had worried that state standards would not be strong enough to prevent the discussion of intelligent design as the course expectations developed over the summer.

Yay Michiganders!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061010/ap_on_re_us/michigan_science

Evolution wins out in Mich. curriculum

By TIM MARTIN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 2 minutes ago

LANSING, Mich. - The State Board of Education on Tuesday approved public school curriculum guidelines that support the teaching of evolution in science classes — but not intelligent design.

Intelligent design instruction could be left for other classes in Michigan schools, but it doesn't belong in science class, according to the unanimously adopted guidelines.

"The intent of the board needs to be very clear," said board member John Austin, an Ann Arbor Democrat. "Evolution is not under stress. It is not untested science."

Some science groups and the
American Civil Liberties Union had worried that state standards would not be strong enough to prevent the discussion of intelligent design as the course expectations developed over the summer.

Good for them! :cool:

Yay Michiganders!

Best state in the union baby!

I wish

Michigan is 100 years ahead of Oklahoma. Big surprise there.

Michigan is 100 years ahead of Oklahoma. Big surprise there.

And Kansas.

Well, I'm glad I'm in Minnesota. We're smart enough to tell the difference between Science and Non-Science(for the most part).

*bum-bum-bum*

Another one bites the dust...

Michigan is 100 years ahead of Oklahoma. Big surprise there.

so that puts Michigan at about 1950, yes?

so that puts Michigan at about 1950, yes?
That's about it.

so that puts Michigan at about 1950, yes?

nah, our economy isn't that good, think more around 1930s.

Good for y'all. Now why don't you come down here and help us beat it back in Florida, please?:D

LANSING, Mich. - The State Board of Education on Tuesday approved public school curriculum guidelines that support the teaching of evolution in science classes — but not intelligent design.

Damn. I WANT them to teach ID. And a few 100 other theories that rely on untestable assumptions like "there is a supreme being called Allah and He created the world", "there are several supreme beings called Zeus, Hera etc, all descended from Kaos" and even "the invisible leopards created us all with the magical rays they emit from their spots".

Truly teach the controversy. Teach that there are thousands, nay: millions, of competing theories, not just ID and evolution.
The reasons why the scientific community embraces evolution and not those others will soon become painfully obvious.

Good for them. Too bad other states aren't smart like them.

Damn. I WANT them to teach ID. And a few 100 other theories that rely on untestable assumptions like "there is a supreme being called Allah and He created the world", "there are several supreme beings called Zeus, Hera etc, all descended from Kaos" and even "the invisible leopards created us all with the magical rays they emit from their spots".

Truly teach the controversy. Teach that there are thousands, nay: millions, of competing theories, not just ID and evolution.
The reasons why the scientific community embraces evolution and not those others will soon become painfully obvious.

I favour the theory that the Universe was sneezed out by a floating turtle. We are therefore the remains of cosmic snot.

Damn. I WANT them to teach ID. And a few 100 other theories that rely on untestable assumptions like "there is a supreme being called Allah and He created the world", "there are several supreme beings called Zeus, Hera etc, all descended from Kaos" and even "the invisible leopards created us all with the magical rays they emit from their spots".

Truly teach the controversy. Teach that there are thousands, nay: millions, of competing theories, not just ID and evolution.
The reasons why the scientific community embraces evolution and not those others will soon become painfully obvious.

That is one of the best ideas I have heard in awhile. Go get yourself a cookie!

I favour the theory that the Universe was sneezed out by a floating turtle. We are therefore the remains of cosmic snot.

That's like the It theory. :p Stephen King figured it out!

Humma Kavula, Congregation: Let us pray. Oh mighty one, we raise our noses to you blocked and unblown, send the handkerchief O blessed one that we may be wiped clean.
Congregation: Atchoo!
Humma Kavula: Bless you.

Does anhone know how many states actually allow discussion of ID in science class? i know a couple of rural school boards out here in CA have tried and failed to get ID into the curriculum.

Does anhone know how many states actually allow discussion of ID in science class? i know a couple of rural school boards out here in CA have tried and failed to get ID into the curriculum.

I think it's fine to discuss it, so long as it doesn't veer off the actual curriculum.

I don't get why it'd be a big deal to say in the middle of class "So today we are talking about evolution, blah blah blah. However there are some that believe perhaps there is a higher being or beings that instead created the world as we know it" See? No harm done. No one was forced to convert or die. Most people wouldn't even think twice about it. Hell in m Earth History( a geologic and biogeologic class) class we talk about all kinds of theories. Honestly, isn't science supposed to be about the communication of plausible ideas? But i guess in this day and age it only applies to ideas some superior group has.

I don't get why it'd be a big deal to say in the middle of class "So today we are talking about evolution, blah blah blah. However there are some that believe perhaps there is a higher being or beings that instead created the world as we know it" See? No harm done. No one was forced to convert or die. Most people wouldn't even think twice about it. Hell in m Earth History( a geologic and biogeologic class) class we talk about all kinds of theories. Honestly, isn't science supposed to be about the communication of plausible ideas? But i guess in this day and age it only applies to ideas some superior group has.

As long as the idea that "a higher being or beings ... created the world as we know it" isn't presented as science, I have no trouble with that. The rest of that sentence should be "... and those beliefs will be covered in your comparative religions class."

Science is certainly about communicating plausible ideas. Intelligent Design is not plausible and it's not science. Please go read through the literal pages and pages posted in the "Irreducible Complexity" thread.

And, finally, it's not about one group being superior to another. If you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or an Animist, it makes no difference to me, but when you come to talk to me about science, talk science, do not drag your religion into it.

Thank you ever so much.

As long as the idea that "a higher being or beings ... created the world as we know it" isn't presented as science, I have no trouble with that. The rest of that sentence should be "... and those beliefs will be covered in your comparative religions class."

Science is certainly about communicating plausible ideas. Intelligent Design is not plausible and it's not science. Please go read through the literal pages and pages posted in the "Irreducible Complexity" thread.

And, finally, it's not about one group being superior to another. If you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or an Animist, it makes no difference to me, but when you come to talk to me about science, talk science, do not drag your religion into it.

Thank you ever so much.

But has science ever disproved a Creator/Creators? No, so then why can't it be accepted as a possibility? It seems hypocritical to think that we'd off an idea just because it could give further meaning to someone's faith, and that's what it really boils down to. Because if it is proves that xtians, jews, muslims, buddhists or who ever are correct, some one will be ticked off. So its best to some to disclude these ideas altogether, which i find abominable.

duh, ur all dumb, everyone knows the world was created when Alice Cooper fought Slash in an all out battle royal.

But has science ever disproved a Creator/Creators? No, so then why can't it be accepted as a possibility? It seems hypocritical to think that we'd off an idea just because it could give further meaning to someone's faith, and that's what it really boils down to. Because if it is proves that xtians, jews, muslims, buddhists or who ever are correct, some one will be ticked off. So its best to some to disclude these ideas altogether, which i find abominable.

I'm sure this was covered in excruciating detail in the other thread I referred to, but ... The purpose of science is to make sense of what we see in the world around us. Evolution explains how different species of organisms, plants and animals, came to be. The current theory says that they came to be by changing over time from simpler organisms. Give me an example of somethng in the natural world that is better explained by its having been created by God than it is by natural processes. There are some phenomena in nature that we cannot explain completely, but there are none that can only be explained through divine creation.

nah, our economy isn't that good, think more around 1930s.maybe 1925? Redo the Scopes Monkey Trial?

I don't get why it'd be a big deal to say in the middle of class "So today we are talking about evolution, blah blah blah. However there are some that believe perhaps there is a higher being or beings that instead created the world as we know it" See? No harm done. No one was forced to convert or die. Most people wouldn't even think twice about it. Hell in m Earth History( a geologic and biogeologic class) class we talk about all kinds of theories. Honestly, isn't science supposed to be about the communication of plausible ideas? But i guess in this day and age it only applies to ideas some superior group has.Because religion is not science, and has no place in a science class room.

But has science ever disproved a Creator/Creators? No, so then why can't it be accepted as a possibility? It seems hypocritical to think that we'd off an idea just because it could give further meaning to someone's faith, and that's what it really boils down to. Because if it is proves that xtians, jews, muslims, buddhists or who ever are correct, some one will be ticked off. So its best to some to disclude these ideas altogether, which i find abominable. Science cannot prove or disprove a creator. It never even attempts to. This is because a creator is in the realm of religion, not science.

If you want to learn creationism, ID, or what have you, go to a religion class. If you want to learn science, go to a science class.

The ideas of creationism are not a scientific theory. They are stated like one, but they are not. In order to be science, it must be falsifiable. Untill creationism can be tested and proven wrong or given evidence towards its validity (as evolution can be, and has been), it has no place in a science class.

But has science ever disproved a Creator/Creators? No, so then why can't it be accepted as a possibility? It seems hypocritical to think that we'd off an idea just because it could give further meaning to someone's faith, and that's what it really boils down to. Because if it is proves that xtians, jews, muslims, buddhists or who ever are correct, some one will be ticked off. So its best to some to disclude these ideas altogether, which i find abominable.

*sigh*
And we can also bring up the possibility of pink cows licking the world into shape.

I'm sure this was covered in excruciating detail in the other thread I referred to, but ... The purpose of science is to make sense of what we see in the world around us. Evolution explains how different species of organisms, plants and animals, came to be. The current theory says that they came to be by changing over time from simpler organisms. Give me an example of somethng in the natural world that is better explained by its having been created by God than it is by natural processes. There are some phenomena in nature that we cannot explain completely, but there are none that can only be explained through divine creation.

Well i'd like to point out the fact that perhaps had people in the past not considered all theories and ideas, then we'd still believe in spontaneous life, where life just comes out of no where. But alas, someone thought outside the box and those ideas are now accepted rather than the silly ones. As for trying to use a place where a creator(s) fit into place, I'd like someone to explain how life first came about on earth. I mean, just a primordial soup here, uninhabitable, and at the end of the precambrian, into the cambrian, we have a great explosion of life, just seemingly springing from no where. And don't get me started about how I think God created life here though various means like giving us a pefect position in the galaxy and solar system, giving us a pefect sun, a perfect moon, etc..

But has science ever disproved a Creator/Creators? No, so then why can't it be accepted as a possibility?

It can be accepted as a possibility. But so can everything that cannot be tested. The ID crowd likes to ignore that part.

Because if it is proves that xtians, jews, muslims, buddhists or who ever are correct, some one will be ticked off. So its best to some to disclude these ideas altogether, which i find abominable.

If ID actually provided a way to determine who was right it would be wonderful. Unfortunately it doesn't.

I'm sure this was covered in excruciating detail in the other thread I referred to, but ... The purpose of science is to make sense of what we see in the world around us. Evolution explains how different species of organisms, plants and animals, came to be. The current theory says that they came to be by changing over time from simpler organisms. Give me an example of somethng in the natural world that is better explained by its having been created by God than it is by natural processes. There are some phenomena in nature that we cannot explain completely, but there are none that can only be explained through divine creation.

Well i'd like to point out the fact that perhaps had people in the past not considered all theories and ideas, then we'd still believe in spontaneous life, where life just comes out of no where. But alas, someone thought outside the box and those ideas are now accepted rather than the silly ones. As for trying to use a place where a creator(s) fit into place, I'd like someone to explain how life first came about on earth. I mean, just a primordial soup here, uninhabitable, and at the end of the precambrian, into the cambrian, we have a great explosion of life, just seemingly springing from no where. And don't get me started about how I think God created life here though various means like giving us a pefect position in the galaxy and solar system, giving us a pefect sun, a perfect moon, etc..

Well i'd like to point out the fact that perhaps had people in the past not considered all theories and ideas, then we'd still believe in spontaneous life, where life just comes out of no where. But alas, someone thought outside the box and those ideas are now accepted rather than the silly ones. As for trying to use a place where a creator(s) fit into place, I'd like someone to explain how life first came about on earth. I mean, just a primordial soup here, uninhabitable, and at the end of the precambrian, into the cambrian, we have a great explosion of life, just seemingly springing from no where. And don't get me started about how I think God created life here though various means like giving us a pefect position in the galaxy and solar system, giving us a pefect sun, a perfect moon, etc..

Why would god even create a universe if we're the only ones in it? Just create the galaxy and you're fine.

Regardless, none of your points (silly as they may be) disprove science. Also, life didn't 'spring from nowhere', it was found to have most likely been created by lightning hitting water.

Why would god even create a universe if we're the only ones in it? Just create the galaxy and you're fine.

Regardless, none of your points (silly as they may be) disprove science. Also, life didn't 'spring from nowhere', it was found to have most likely been created by lightning hitting water.

Im not saying "science" is wrong, nor evolution or anything. I am saying we need to look at all avenues, and teach our kids to look at all views and make decisions for themselves. I personally believe God created the world and all that. But i also know that evolution takes place, the world is more than 6000 yrs old, yadda yadda. However, i'd like to see you take lightning, make it strike water, and make a whole variety of new creatures.

Im not saying "science" is wrong, nor evolution or anything. I am saying we need to look at all avenues, and teach our kids to look at all views and make decisions for themselves. I personally believe God created the world and all that. But i also know that evolution takes place, the world is more than 6000 yrs old, yadda yadda. However, i'd like to see you take lightning, make it strike water, and make a whole variety of new creatures.

So basically what you want is for a science class to teach every creation story from every religion or every belief? Even if they have no scientific basis?

So basically what you want is for a science class to teach every creation story from every religion or every belief? Even if they have no scientific basis?

It would be ridiculous to do that . However, what would be wrong with having a week of teaching the general idea? Or how about giving resources for various ideas?

It would be ridiculous to do that . However, what would be wrong with having a week of teaching the general idea? Or how about giving resources for various ideas?

Because there is no scientific basis for them and shouldn't be in a science class. Even if they did have valididty, If you don't present every one, you're violating the establishment clause.

It would be ridiculous to do that . However, what would be wrong with having a week of teaching the general idea? Or how about giving resources for various ideas?

The general idea of creationism, you mean? That's favoritism.

Also, they shouldn't teach such things in science because such things have no scientific evidence - they could teach it in elective religion classes, though, or maybe church.

It would be ridiculous to do that . However, what would be wrong with having a week of teaching the general idea? Or how about giving resources for various ideas?

Because those ideas are religious, not scientific. Science doesn't deal with every possibility for anything we can observe. It only deals with the things we can test or experiment upon, and any supernatural explanations fall outside of science simply by their nature.

I remember my science teacher in High School saying something along the lines of, "That is a matter of faith that you should talk to your priest about." One line. Covered everything. Class was allowed to go on.

Im not saying "science" is wrong, nor evolution or anything. I am saying we need to look at all avenues, and teach our kids to look at all views and make decisions for themselves. I personally believe God created the world and all that. But i also know that evolution takes place, the world is more than 6000 yrs old, yadda yadda. However, i'd like to see you take lightning, make it strike water, and make a whole variety of new creatures.

Yes, look at all avenues. But not in a science class. In a science class, you teach what has been proven effective with the scientific method, hence science.

Oh, and give me a couple million years and I'll have lightning strike the water enough times to change the molecules slightly, starting a chain reaction that will eventually create plants, and fish, and eventually humans.

It would be ridiculous to do that . However, what would be wrong with having a week of teaching the general idea? Or how about giving resources for various ideas?

Make it an elective, I don't care..

Hell.. I hated biology, so I don't even like the idea of tests on evolution, but really, I'd just love to see a test based on ID..

And wouldn't that just lead to where did God come from?

I don't know if there's a point in here.. sowwie.

Well i'd like to point out the fact that perhaps had people in the past not considered all theories and ideas, then we'd still believe in spontaneous life, where life just comes out of no where. But alas, someone thought outside the box and those ideas are now accepted rather than the silly ones. As for trying to use a place where a creator(s) fit into place, I'd like someone to explain how life first came about on earth. I mean, just a primordial soup here, uninhabitable, and at the end of the precambrian, into the cambrian, we have a great explosion of life, just seemingly springing from no where. And don't get me started about how I think God created life here though various means like giving us a pefect position in the galaxy and solar system, giving us a pefect sun, a perfect moon, etc..

There's a good deal of time between the mmm, mmm, primordial soup and the Cambrian Explosion. As for how life arose, we're still working on that one and there a number of ideas around about it. It's okay to say "I don't know." Really. Experiments have been done to show that a mix of chemicals such as we think the earth's atmosphere had back then form proteins and organic molecules when subjected to electric discharges and ultraviolet rays. We can experiment on this question. How would we experiment to decide if life was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being? And when we get right down to it, which omniscient, omnipotent being are we talking about? Remember, "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" - beings should not be unnecessarily multiplied, or the proposition that includes the least hypothetical beings is best.

As Sarkhaan said above, it is not science's purpose to prove or disprove the existence of a creator. Science explains, period. If you can find something in nature that can only be explained by "God did it," I will accept that and allow Creationism or Id or what have you into a science class.

Im not saying "science" is wrong, nor evolution or anything. I am saying we need to look at all avenues, and teach our kids to look at all views and make decisions for themselves. I personally believe God created the world and all that. But i also know that evolution takes place, the world is more than 6000 yrs old, yadda yadda. However, i'd like to see you take lightning, make it strike water, and make a whole variety of new creatures.

Got a few million years? :p

There's a good deal of time between the mmm, mmm, primordial soup and the Cambrian Explosion. As for how life arose, we're still working on that one and there a number of ideas around about it. It's okay to say "I don't know." Really. Experiments have been done to show that a mix of chemicals such as we think the earth's atmosphere had back then form proteins and organic molecules when subjected to electric discharges and ultraviolet rays. We can experiment on this question. How would we experiment to decide if life was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being? And when we get right down to it, which omniscient, omnipotent being are we talking about? Remember, "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" - beings should not be unnecessarily multiplied, or the proposition that includes the least hypothetical beings is best.

As Sarkhaan said above, it is not science's purpose to prove or disprove the existence of a creator. Science explains, period. If you can find something in nature that can only be explained by "God did it," I will accept that and allow Creationism or Id or what have you into a science class.

Though there will never be a 'something' like that, because there's no evidence of god existing at all. Even if there were a "god did it" type of thing, you'd have to figure out which god, as you said, had done it. Did Thor decide a platypus would look funny and therefore willed it into existence?

Though there will never be a 'something' like that, because there's no evidence of god existing at all. Even if there were a "god did it" type of thing, you'd have to figure out which god, as you said, had done it. Did Thor decide a platypus would look funny and therefore willed it into existence?

I didn't say it would be easy.

Because those ideas are religious, not scientific. Science doesn't deal with every possibility for anything we can observe. It only deals with the things we can test or experiment upon, and any supernatural explanations fall outside of science simply by their nature.

and who is to say that science cannot no be religious or vice versa? I think either one only fully make since when they are compliments of each other. Oh well, I guess i'd only be "right" if i agreed with you all. Heh,the founders of science would be horrified at the previous sentence.

It would be ridiculous to do that . However, what would be wrong with having a week of teaching the general idea? Or how about giving resources for various ideas?

You see, here's the thing. Science requires reasonable evidence for it to be considered Science.

Creation stories from religion can be taught in school, as long as they pertain to the curriculum of the class. As no Creation story pertains to Science Curriculum(As they ahve no scientific back, no evidence of support) they should not be taught in Science Class.

Phylosophy, History, Literature? Absolutely. Science? Absolutely not.

But has science ever disproved a Creator/Creators?

Of course not.

No, so then why can't it be accepted as a possibility?

It is. However, it is a possibility that cannot be investigated by science. Thus, science can take no position on it whatsoever. There might be a Creator or Creators. There might not. Science will be the same in either case, because the very discussion is outside its realm.

Your question is like asking, "Has science disproven the idea that purple is a prettier color than orange? No, so then why can't it be accepted as a possibility?" Science takes no position on what color is "prettier", so the possibility is as open as it can be. But science can't really investigate something so subjective as "pretty", either.

It seems hypocritical to think that we'd off an idea just because it could give further meaning to someone's faith, and that's what it really boils down to. Because if it is proves that xtians, jews, muslims, buddhists or who ever are correct, some one will be ticked off. So its best to some to disclude these ideas altogether, which i find abominable.

No one wants to "disclude these ideas altogether." We simply don't pretend that these ideas are science. They are theology, and should be discussed as such. Bringing them into a science class makes as much sense as discussing the succession of Roman emperors in a Chemistry class.

and who is to say that science cannot no be religious or vice versa? I think either one only fully make since when they are compliments of each other. Oh well, I guess i'd only be "right" if i agreed with you all. Heh,the founders of science would be horrified at the previous sentence.

No, no, no. Don't go martyr on us, now. You're talking about religion, not science. They're two different subjects. We've tried to explain why science doesn't admit supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Now I ask you to give us a case where it should. You can't accuse us of being close-minded when you won't provide us with evidence of your theory.

and who is to say that science cannot no be religious or vice versa? I think either one only fully make since when they are compliments of each other. Oh well, I guess i'd only be "right" if i agreed with you all. Heh,the founders of science would be horrified at the previous sentence.

Science cannot be religion because religion relies on faith. Faith is accepting something just because you want to accept it or have the urge to accept it, and that line of thinking is simply unacceptable in the scientific method. Simple as that.

Im not saying "science" is wrong, nor evolution or anything. I am saying we need to look at all avenues, and teach our kids to look at all views and make decisions for themselves. I personally believe God created the world and all that. But i also know that evolution takes place, the world is more than 6000 yrs old, yadda yadda. However, i'd like to see you take lightning, make it strike water, and make a whole variety of new creatures.

And telling kids that ID is not science doesn't tell them not to "look at all views and make decisions for themselves." The scientific method is one way of investigating the universe. There are various forms of philosophy that offer less empirical viewpoints and other methods. No one is suggesting that these types of things cannot be taught, just that they cannot be taught as if they are science.

We teach mathematics and history, but we don't pretend that history is mathematics. We teach literature and chemistry, but we don't pretend that literature is chemistry.

Children can learn about theology and science, but we do not need to pretend that theology is science.

and who is to say that science cannot no be religious or vice versa? I think either one only fully make since when they are compliments of each other. Oh well, I guess i'd only be "right" if i agreed with you all. Heh,the founders of science would be horrified at the previous sentence.

One can believe in science and religion. However, Science needs testable evidence for something to be considered Science.

Now, due to the fact that htere is no testable evidence for the supernatural, the supernatural is not considered science thus far. Science does not claim that the supernatural does not exist, it is just that so far, there is no evidence for the supernatural, thus it is not considered to be true. Thus, the supernatural is not Science, and by extinction Creationism is not Science.

Here's a question:

Would you allow spectral evidence in a courtroom? Why or why not?

and who is to say that science cannot no be religious or vice versa?

Science itself. Religion is, by its very nature, unfalsifiable. Science only deals with the empirical and the falsifiable.

I think either one only fully make since when they are compliments of each other. Oh well, I guess i'd only be "right" if i agreed with you all. Heh,the founders of science would be horrified at the previous sentence.

There are certainly things that you cannot investigate with theology (or any given form of philosophy) and things that you cannot investigate with science. If you want to answer *all* questions, you need different methods. But, once again, that doesn't mean you have to pretend that all of those methods are the same.

And telling kids that ID is not science doesn't tell them not to "look at all views and make decisions for themselves." The scientific method is one way of investigating the universe. There are various forms of philosophy that offer less empirical viewpoints and other methods. No one is suggesting that these types of things cannot be taught, just that they cannot be taught as if they are science.

We teach mathematics and history, but we don't pretend that history is mathematics. We teach literature and chemistry, but we don't pretend that literature is chemistry.

Children can learn about theology and science, but we do not need to pretend that theology is science.

Science itself. Religion is, by its very nature, unfalsifiable. Science only deals with the empirical and the falsifiable.



There are certainly things that you cannot investigate with theology (or any given form of philosophy) and things that you cannot investigate with science. If you want to answer *all* questions, you need different methods. But, once again, that doesn't mean you have to pretend that all of those methods are the same.

Hi, Dem! :)

One can believe in science and religion. However, Science needs testable evidence for something to be considered Science.

Now, due to the fact that htere is no testable evidence for the supernatural, the supernatural is not considered science thus far. Science does not claim that the supernatural does not exist, it is just that so far, there is no evidence for the supernatural, thus it is not considered to be true. Thus, the supernatural is not Science, and by extinction Creationism is not Science.

Indeed, we aren't even talking about "thus far." The supernatural, by definition, would be outside the rules and bounds of the universe. The methods of science, however, can only be used within that framework. When it comes right down to it, the scientific method can never be used to investigate the supernatural. Only that which is bound by the universe and its rules can actually be investigated empirically, and by science.

and who is to say that science cannot no be religious or vice versa? I think either one only fully make since when they are compliments of each other. Oh well, I guess i'd only be "right" if i agreed with you all. Heh,the founders of science would be horrified at the previous sentence.

Scientists can be religious if they like, and there are some religious theories that can be scientifically tested. The Shroud of Turin authentication comes to mind, but those sort of scientific inquiries are dealing with natural things that have been given a religious connotation. When you get into the realm of God, you just can't test for that unless the clouds magically part and He steps down to give a few samples. The scientific method, if you remember that from high school, is observe, hypothesize, predict, experiment, and check your hypothesis with your experiment results. You cannot test for God, you cannot experiment on God, and so science simply isn't equipped to answer a question about God. It isn't a matter of us agreeing, it's a matter of asking questions that the scientific method can answer, and God is one that it can't.

Creationism can be be tested scientifically looking at specific physical claims made by creationists. The age of the Earth, for example, the fossil record and whether we find a sudden appearance of every modern species at once in accordance with creation. Those propositions have been tested and discussed, all the way back to before Darwin, and many have been disproven. As creationism stands scientifically, it's disproven and won't be taught simply because it's bad science.

Indeed, we aren't even talking about "thus far." The supernatural, by definition, would be outside the rules and bounds of the universe. The methods of science, however, can only be used within that framework. When it comes right down to it, the scientific method can never be used to investigate the supernatural. Only that which is bound by the universe and its rules can actually be investigated empirically, and by science.

I dunno about that. Ever seen Ghost Hunters? They use quite a bit of technology to try to find out if a place is haunted. Fairly interesting stuff - not life-altering "zomg ghosts are real" kind of stuff, but close enough to be really interesting if you're into that sort of thing.

Scientists can be religious if they like, and there are some religious theories that can be scientifically tested. The Shroud of Turin authentication comes to mind, but those sort of scientific inquiries are dealing with natural things that have been given a religious connotation. When you get into the realm of God, you just can't test for that unless the clouds magically part and He steps down to give a few samples. The scientific method, if you remember that from high school, is observe, hypothesize, predict, experiment, and check your hypothesis with your experiment results. You cannot test for God, you cannot experiment on God, and so science simply isn't equipped to answer a question about God. It isn't a matter of us agreeing, it's a matter of asking questions that the scientific method can answer, and God is one that it can't.

Creationism can be be tested scientifically looking at specific physical claims made by creationists. The age of the Earth, for example, the fossil record and whether we find a sudden appearance of every modern species at once in accordance with creation. Those propositions have been tested and discussed, all the way back to before Darwin, and many have been disproven. As creationism stands scientifically, it's disproven and won't be taught simply because it's bad science.

<3 for the Hitchhiker's Guide reference in your "Location" thing. =)

I dunno about that. Ever seen Ghost Hunters? They use quite a bit of technology to try to find out if a place is haunted. Fairly interesting stuff - not life-altering "zomg ghosts are real" kind of stuff, but close enough to be really interesting if you're into that sort of thing.

:)

If they are detecting and recording ghosts, then ghosts are not supernatural. Their equipment is designed to record the natural.

<3 for the Hitchhiker's Guide reference in your "Location" thing. =)

:fluffle: for being the first person to get that reference.:)

Im not saying "science" is wrong, nor evolution or anything. I am saying we need to look at all avenues, and teach our kids to look at all views and make decisions for themselves. I personally believe God created the world and all that. But i also know that evolution takes place, the world is more than 6000 yrs old, yadda yadda. However, i'd like to see you take lightning, make it strike water, and make a whole variety of new creatures.

All you would have to create is a single strain of replicating DNA. The rest moves from there. And DNA is easily created from nucleic acids, which would be easily created from the atmosphere of pre-life earth.

It is fine to believe in God. But for the same reason that science doesn't belong in religion, religion doesn't belong in science. The two are different subjects.

Religion relies on faith. You cannot prove it, nor can you disprove it.
Science relies on evidence. You can provide evidence to it, and you can disprove it.

As for looking at other theories of life and its origins, those were falsified using the scientific method. No amount of tweaking allows Creationism to be tested using the scientific method, and therefore, it has no place in science. It is faith.

:)

If they are detecting and recording ghosts, then ghosts are not supernatural. Their equipment is designed to record the natural.

This is true. It's more correct to say they record the symptoms of the supernatural or the paranormal, rather than the supernatural and paranormal entities themselves.

:fluffle: for being the first person to get that reference.:)

Woot. One Szanth Token for you - you may redeem it at any 7-11 or brothel.

I dunno about that. Ever seen Ghost Hunters? They use quite a bit of technology to try to find out if a place is haunted. Fairly interesting stuff - not life-altering "zomg ghosts are real" kind of stuff, but close enough to be really interesting if you're into that sort of thing.

There is a reason that most such people have dropped the term "supernatural". They usually refer to it as "paranormal."

The reason for this is that they do not propose that ghosts/spirits/what-have-you are supernatural. They think that these things can be tested for and are bound by the rules of the universe - simply rules we do not yet understand.

Anything which is supernatural would not be bound by the universe or its rules, by definition. As such, if ghosts exist and are bound by the universe, they are not supernatural. They are simply an aspect of the natural that we do not yet understand.


All you would have to create is a single strain of replicating DNA. The rest moves from there. And DNA is easily created from amino acids, which would be easily created from the atmosphere of pre-life earth.

*ahem* nucleic acids. =)

*ahem* nucleic acids. =)

woops...:(

haha...none of them are the fun acids, anyway, so who cares?;)

woops...:(

haha...none of them are the fun acids, anyway, so who cares?;)

What are the fun acids?

What are the fun acids?

Lysergic acid diethylamide?

What are the fun acids?The one's that unzip your genes? No, wait, that was an enzyme, wasn't it? :confused:

The one's that unzip your genes? No, wait, that was an enzyme, wasn't it? :confused:

LOL!