NationStates Jolt Archive

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

Hell no. creationism = religion =/= science.

Oh, and you're posting this in the wrong forum. this should be in general.

Posts relating to real-life belong in the General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227) subforum.

That said, creationism may be taught in school, but not in science classes, except maybe in the same sense the Plum Pudding Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model) is sometimes presented to students in order to give them a sense of how the current model of the atom developed.

I think Creationism should be taught in school. If you give two points of view it will force kids to think and form an opinion. I think that that is the most important part of school, the chance to form your own opinions. I am not against Evolution per-say, but believe in a middle ground.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

Schools are about learning. Not learning "different" ideas. If we allow teaching creationism, we might as well allow people to teach alternate history in history classes. Who cares if it's not factual...we need to expose children to it, right?

If you want to learn about religion, read up on it during your own time or go to a private school. But public schools should be teaching science during science class, not fanciful fairy-tales.

Schools are about learning. Not learning "different" ideas. If we allow teaching creationism, we might as well allow people to teach alternate history in history classes. Who cares if it's not factual...we need to expose children to it, right?
They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

Actually there is evidence of Evolution, at least I think there is.

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

There's no "proof" of gravity, either. Just strong, observational evidence empirically gained through experimentation and incorporated into a theoretical framework for explaining related phenomena. We call these things "theories" and we teach them in science classes because that's as good as it gets. Nothing in science is ever "proven," one can only provide evidence for and against a theory, and the strength and weight of this evidence results in a theory being kept, discarded, or altered to incorporate the new evidence.

I seriously don't see why this is so hard for people to understand.

YES! And while we're at it, I say we bring Woodworking to Gym class!

Absolutely. When 85% of the world is religious, it makes no sense to neglect to mention something so vitally important to Human culture, society, works of art, literature, wars, bloodshed, and other stuff.

That said, keep it out of Science class. It belongs strictly in the history or social cultures class or whatever. Creationism is NOT scientific.

I dislike the Kansas Board of Education. >_>

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

Sigh... we are back to this point in the NSG cycle again? Well, I guess it is time... we have done homosexuality and politics to death lately.

There is a great deal of scientific proof for evolution. There is absolutely no scientific proof for creationism. Creationism is not science, it is religion. THAT is why I don't support creationism being taught in science class, but I do support science being taught in science class.

No need to apologize, it is a mistake people often make, and I forgive you. :)

Schools are about learning. Not learning "different" ideas. If we allow teaching creationism, we might as well allow people to teach alternate history in history classes. Who cares if it's not factual...we need to expose children to it, right?

Seconded.

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

There is no proof for ANYTHING in science. As far as the scientific method is concerned, it is impossible to prove something true. However, there are mounds and mounds and mounds and mounds of evidence for evolution - and zero evidence contradicting it. Creationism, on the other hand, not only has no evidence to support it, but furthermore is inherently unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. It would make as much sense to teach kids, "The theory of universal gravitation (and yes, that is a theory) suggests that if I drop this rock, it will fall towards the earth. Every time anyone has ever dropped a rock, it has fallen towards the earth. But, in the interest of presenting alternate viewpoints, you should consider the possibility that rocks don't actually fall towards the earth, but actually do little tapdances in midair while whistling 'Yankee Doodle.'"

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.
Uh.... There's quite a bit of support for ToE, mountains of the stuff.

Blatant lies aren't scientific. There is a reason why delusions should never be taught.

Ergo, creationism needs to be banned from public schooling systems. Private? Maybe. I'd ban it there too, but if it was at least public it would be a good start.

Uh.... There's quite a bit of support for ToE, mountains of the stuff.

Literal mountains, in many cases, featuring strata which would make no sense were evolution untrue. :p

Absolutely. When 85% of the world is religious, it makes no sense to neglect to mention something so vitally important to Human culture, society, works of art, literature, wars, bloodshed, and other stuff.

That said, keep it out of Science class. It belongs strictly in the history or social cultures class or whatever. Creationism is NOT scientific.

I dislike the Kansas Board of Education. >_>

^----This.

School curriculums are more than welcome to incorporate religious studies, including information on creation accounts of various different religions, as an elective course, particularly at the high school level.
However, suggestiong one teach Creationism as part of a Biology curriculum is akin to suggesting one teach how to spot demonic possession in a behavioral psychology class.

All school studies must be informed first and foremost by the inscrutable decree of Providence. Simple enough, but some people just don't *get* it. :(

Of course. We should also teach the idea that invisible sky faeries push stuff down in physics, and that Hitler was a Mexican Jew Lizard in history, and that one plus one equals eleven in mathematics.

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

There is proof. Organisms react over time to changes. Ever wonder how drug resistant viruses become drug-resistant? Evolution. Ever wonder how you become immune to strains of the flu? Evolution.

I propose we form a new class called "World Religion", it will teach kids about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Celtic Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Indigenous Australian Mythology and Native American Mythology. Yep... I can see tons of kids wanting to take that.

Of course. We should also teach the idea that invisible sky faeries push stuff down in physics, and that Hitler was a Mexican Jew Lizard in history, and that one plus one equals eleven in mathematics.

No, we should be teaching them that 1 + 11 = 100.

I propose we form a new class called "World Religion", it will teach kids about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Celtic Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Indigenous Australian Mythology and Native American Mythology. Yep... I can see tons of kids wanting to take that.

That's obviously an abomination to god, we must only teach Christianity...as fact!!!;)

I forget... are we talking about Intelligent Design which has NOTHING to do with Creationism or are we talking about Creationism? My argument against each is the same but still, it is always nice to know.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

Ohmygodnotthistopicagain!

I have no problem with optional religion classes being in public schools but I expect it to stay out of my science. Religion is based on faith, belief without proof. Science is based soley on proof. Science is the answer to how, not the answer to why. Why is a matter of philosophy and faith.

I forget... are we talking about Intelligent Design which has NOTHING to do with Creationism or are we talking about Creationism? My argument against each is the same but still, it is always nice to know.

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Creationism? Who told you that? And why did you listen?

yes.

at the appropriate time in science lessons, teachers should definitely say that lots and lots of people mistakenly believe all sorts of silly nonsense that is demonstrably false, and that we shouldn't blame them too much as they probably never had a good science class like this one will be and instead were lied to by pompous retards and slick snakeoil salesmen in churches. for example, lots of those people believe that the earth is 6000 years old. this is, of course, laughable for the following reasons, etc.

what else would teaching creationism entail, other than pointing out the various ways it is laughably wrong?

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Creationism? Who told you that? And why did you listen?

Matt Damon told me that and I listened because he gave me a candied apple.

To be fair, they should teach creationism. It would only take about 10 seconds, though: "Either God created the universe or not. If not, let's explore the other theories for the rest of the semester."

I forget... are we talking about Intelligent Design which has NOTHING to do with Creationism or are we talking about Creationism? My argument against each is the same but still, it is always nice to know.

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Creationism? Who told you that? And why did you listen?

Indeed, ID is basically Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

Now if I could only remember where I read that! It amuses me, and I'd like to give due credit...

And to answer the question... no. As for why, this will suffice for now, at least until some idiot tries to present evidence copied and pasted from Hovind/Behe et al.

http://photos-698.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v153/18/14/4947698/n4947698_39689603_9983.jpg

Though, I do suppose it'd be fine to teach about it the same way we do geocentricism, as a part of the history of science.
"People used to think (and some idiots still do) that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, but now we know this is false, and here's why..."

If you teach creationism, then you must also teach equally valid theories such as FSMism, IPUism, and Xenuism (or whatever scientologists call it). And, frankly, I'd rather not have students waste 80% of their time on what I consider delusional rubbish.

I propose we form a new class called "World Religion", it will teach kids about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Celtic Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Indigenous Australian Mythology and Native American Mythology. Yep... I can see tons of kids wanting to take that.

Don't forget Pastafarianism :)

Don't forget Pastafarianism :)

And then the teachers would have to wear full pirate regalia! RAmen!

http://photos-698.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v153/18/14/4947698/n4947698_39689603_9983.jpg


Made of win. Saved to hard drive for later use.

Indeed, ID is basically Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

Now if I could only remember where I read that! It amuses me, and I'd like to give due credit...

And to answer the question... no. As for why, this will suffice for now, at least until some idiot tries to present evidence copied and pasted from Hovind/Behe et al.

http://photos-698.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v153/18/14/4947698/n4947698_39689603_9983.jpg

Though, I do suppose it'd be fine to teach about it the same way we do geocentricism, as a part of the history of science.
"People used to think (and some idiots still do) that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, but now we know this is false, and here's why..."
I remember my science teacher said it very quickly and succinctly, "Some people believe in alternate theories to evolution and while we shouldn't disrespect their beliefs, evolution is what is focused on in the science classroom." No debate. X marks for saying, "God did it".

Creationism isn't science so it belongs in the spirituality/religion class under modern Christian/evangelical revisionism, not in the science class.

Matt Damon told me that and I listened because he gave me a candied apple.

All good reasons! But unless you brought enough to share with the whole class (enough of both Matt and the candied apple of course) then we will have to move on to the real science now. :D

Indeed, ID is basically Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

No you've got it all wrong. ID is Creationism in an oversized lab-coat and glasses... also ID shaves.

No you've got it all wrong. ID is Creationism in an oversized lab-coat and glasses... also ID shaves.

But to be fair, ID does wear the cheap tuxedo when it goes to self congratulatory awards banquets thrown by conservative religious organizations. And to movie openings. Although it avoided the opening of "An Inconvenient Truth" for obvious reasons.

I think Creationism should be taught in school. If you give two points of view it will force kids to think and form an opinion. I think that that is the most important part of school, the chance to form your own opinions. I am not against Evolution per-say, but believe in a middle ground.

While we are at it we need to teach the FSM theory as well. It has as much support as ID.

While we are at it we need to teach the FSM theory as well. It has as much support as ID.

Plus it has the advantage of being a course that could easily be combined with lunch, if necessary.

I think Creationism should be taught in school. If you give two points of view it will force kids to think and form an opinion. I think that that is the most important part of school, the chance to form your own opinions. I am not against Evolution per-say, but believe in a middle ground.

Small problem: scientifically speaking the ToE is so far above creationism that attempting to compare them is laughable.

To illustrate this, let us compare a random heap of fly poo and Mount Everest. A creationist or ID proponent would claim that since they are both are a sort of hill saying that one is more likely to be the biggest hill on the planet is wrong, discriminating and not teaching the controversy. They will continue by mocking mount everest and making false claims about it, without ever adressing the question why their heap of poo is even a serious contender.

That is NOT teaching children to think for themselves.

I think Creationism should be taught in school. If you give two points of view it will force kids to think and form an opinion. I think that that is the most important part of school, the chance to form your own opinions. I am not against Evolution per-say, but believe in a middle ground.Creationism is not a point of view. It's a point of faith, which does not depend on viewing and reviewing things but on gut feelings.

Schools are about learning. Not learning "different" ideas. If we allow teaching creationism, we might as well allow people to teach alternate history in history classes. Who cares if it's not factual...we need to expose children to it, right?Yep, alternate history would be fine. About Eru creating the world an all....

no, that would be like teaching l33t in English class.

science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

obviously creationism isn't based on the scientific method, or on research. So it doesn't belong in science class. (ID) Creationism maybe belong in creative writing classes or perhaps in religion classes, but not in science classes.

YES! And while we're at it, I say we bring Woodworking to Gym class!

And Latin literature to chemistry classes. :)

What exactly would teaching ID contain? What teachable knowledge can be conveyed?

Creationism is schools? What's next? Teaching the flat-earth theory and geocentrism along side contemporary science in order to obtain a cosy middle-ground between discernable reality and absurd superstition?

Has the world gone mad?

Has the world gone mad?

a minority of people.

Teaching the flat-earth theory and geocentrism along side contemporary science in order to obtain a cosy middle-ground between discernable reality and absurd superstition?

We can prove that Earth is round and not the centre of the universe, creationism not so much.

I like the system we have here. Kids are taught about evolution in biology and creationism in religious education.

We can prove that Earth is round and not the centre of the universe, creationism not so much.

Actually, yes, we have disproved creationism and quite thoroughly I might add. Darwinism demonstrates tacitly how a designer is ludicrous, in the same way the Copernican and Galileo models debunked geocentrism.

No.

Because creationism has no verifiable evidence. It is not a testable theory or even hypothesis. Therefore, it is not science.

Now, you could teach it in a comparative religion class, in which you'd also teach about the creation myths of the Ancient Greeks, the Norse pagan views on the origins of the world, what it says in Hindu mythology about such, and so on.

I like the system we have here. Kids are taught about evolution in biology and creationism in religious education.
Y'know, that "here" in your post is kind of useless, since you don't have a location listed in your profile :p

While I'm at it, "in your pants, LOL!11!" and other supposed witticisms are sort of stupid things to list as locations, too. Given that many of the topics discussed on here are very much location-dependent, or at the least concern things that can have very different interpretations across the globe, it would be very helpful if people would actually use the means they've been given to let the rest of us know where they're speaking from.

/whine

sure we can teach creationism in school, even in science class.

as long as we dont teach that its TRUE.

There is proof. Organisms react over time to changes. Ever wonder how drug resistant viruses become drug-resistant? Evolution.

Correct.

Ever wonder how you become immune to strains of the flu? Evolution.

Not so correct. Evolution cannot improve an organism's genes during its lifetime. Immunization is caused by the antibodies that remain in your bloodstream even after the disease has been cured.


To the original question: Teaching these "alternative theories" is stupid. It wouldn't be a big waste of resources, seeing as most of it can be covered in a few seconds before moving on to evolution, but it's unnecessary and detrimental to confuse the kids by "letting them decide" like that. I don't know how old kids we're talking about here, but most likely they're not yet capable of making the correct decision for the correct reasons yet. Furthermore, this is not really something that someone can 'decide' anyway; truth doesn't depend on opinions.

I support having a separate class for religion. We have it in my country, and here's how it works. One hour per week in elementary and middle schools, one mandatory and several optional classes in high school. All students are entitled to the teaching of their own religion (as long as there's at least three students of that religion in the school), while atheists study ethics or whatever it's called. For the first few years, it focuses on learning more about one's own religion and its teachings, but later expands to other religions to see how other people think and believe. In the end, it was mostly non-denominational ethics teaching.

Unfortunately, there is no proof that either evolution or creationism is true since no one was around to see it. There is evidence but all evidence that is that old is going to be extremely circumstantial. Also, just because I think something is kind of stupid doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be taught. As of right now, neither theory is provable. Evolutionists, you still haven't explained away the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Creationists, you have yet to answer all the allegations put forward by the evolutionists, also, you have yet to agree on one theory or put forward a scientific model that most of you can agree on. That said, there is quite a bit of evidence that seems to support the evolutionists, however, the creationists are very good at casting doubt on that evidence. Frankly, I don't think it can be proven short of a time machine or God coming down and telling us about it. It happened too long ago, so stop yelling about it.

Evolutionists, you still haven't explained away the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Yes, we have. It says that in a closed system, things inevitably degenerate towards entropy, right? But the Earth is not a closed system. It gets huge amounts of energy from the Sun as a constant stream. Entropy increases in the solar system as a whole, but that doesn't mean that it can't decrease locally due to energy transference.

Evolutionists, you still haven't explained away the Second Law of Thermodynamics...
Oh please!

There have been hundreds of refutations of the supposed problem that the Second Law poses for evolution. Some are lengthy, some are short and to the point, but it's been shot down so many times that I didn't think even the most naive of Creationists still tried to use it as an 'argument'.

One more time, then (and I apologise to any purists who dislike such things being simplified). Entropy always increases, in any closed system, i.e. in any system where no new energy is being introduced. Biological evolution takes place in a system where energy (from the sun, from geothermal sources, from radioactive materials in the Earth, etc etc) is constantly being added. Problem, over.

Evolutionists, you still haven't explained away the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

read this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html)
(at first glance it looks quite good, I haven't read it completely due to a lack of time mostly)
"Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun."


the creationists are very good at casting doubt on that evidence

really?

Ok, from now on we teach Creationism in Science classes.
We shall also teach Magic in History, Rain Dances in Maths, Voodoo in English and Snake Charming in Art.
Honestly, Creationism isn't a science, it's religion. You know where that means it has to have it's ridiculous ideas forced on students? R.E. Lessons.

Evolutionists, you still haven't explained away the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!

Good ol' MC Hawking.

Ok, from now on we teach Creationism in Science classes.
We shall also teach Magic in History, Rain Dances in Maths, Voodoo in English and Snake Charming in Art.
Honestly, Creationism isn't a science, it's religion. You know where that means it has to have it's ridiculous ideas forced on students? R.E. Lessons.

Snaking Charming in Art would be awesome, I would not give up Art just for that.

Unfortunately, there is no proof that either evolution or creationism is true since no one was around to see it. There is evidence but all evidence that is that old is going to be extremely circumstantial. Also, just because I think something is kind of stupid doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be taught. As of right now, neither theory is provable. Evolutionists, you still haven't explained away the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Creationists, you have yet to answer all the allegations put forward by the evolutionists, also, you have yet to agree on one theory or put forward a scientific model that most of you can agree on. That said, there is quite a bit of evidence that seems to support the evolutionists, however, the creationists are very good at casting doubt on that evidence. Frankly, I don't think it can be proven short of a time machine or God coming down and telling us about it. It happened too long ago, so stop yelling about it.

What does circumstantial mean?

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

Private religious schools can teach it. Schools funded by the state in the United States cannot because of the separation between church and state.

No one religious view can be taught as being superior to any other.

All school studies must be informed first and foremost by the inscrutable decree of Providence. Simple enough, but some people just don't *get* it. :(

How provident that the founding fathers provided for not having the state tout any form of religion as "the" religion of the people.

I propose we form a new class called "World Religion", it will teach kids about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Celtic Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Indigenous Australian Mythology and Native American Mythology. Yep... I can see tons of kids wanting to take that.

We have that, at least in NYC. It's called World History and it's taught to freshmen. It teaches the religions of the cultures studied.

Private religious schools can teach it.

aren't there certain requirements of what is taught in private schools? (for instance the alphabet, simple sums etc to the first grade etc) Or can they simply choose to teach whatever they want?

No one religious view can be taught as being superior to any other.

I don't see what evolution has to do with religion? Isn't science secular?

no, that would be like teaching l33t in English class.

*hisses at Isidoor and makes a cross out of her fingers to ward off the evil*

Huh...

I thought this idea was dead and buried by now.

aren't there certain requirements of what is taught in private schools? (for instance the alphabet, simple sums etc to the first grade etc) Or can they simply choose to teach whatever they want?



I don't see what evolution has to do with religion? Isn't science secular?

Yes, there are state requirements, but they can teach religious instruction on top of it.

Science is secular, that's the point. Teaching a religious view like that it's the way it is because Cthulhu wills it is inappropriate.

We have that, at least in NYC. It's called World History and it's taught to freshmen. It teaches the religions of the cultures studied.

We go over the religions of the cultures we study in World History in 10th grade and then there's another class called World Religions that students can take as an academic elective for a semester, paired with Sociology, in either their junior or senior year.

Just what connection is evolution to have with thermodynamics? that they are both sciences?

Might as well tell people that Christianity has not explained Scientology.

They argue that order can't form from disorder using entropy (life can't originate from nothing). This is false though, the earth isn't a closed system, the sun continuously adds energy, so the overall entropy of the earth increases (due to the sun) while there is a little bit order created (life)

Schools are about learning. Not learning "different" ideas. If we allow teaching creationism, we might as well allow people to teach alternate history in history classes. Who cares if it's not factual...we need to expose children to it, right?

Creationism isn't based on falsehoods. Its an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.

I am an ardent creationist, but I voted no in this poll. Public schools teaching creationism is not what we need to happen. Here's why.

1. Teachers shouldn't be forced to teach creationism as science. Nobody should be opening the Bible to Genesis in science class. Many teachers would refuse since they aren't creationists, or they might just teach creationism in an extremely biased manner, pointing out all kinds of supposed objections ect.

2. What should be taught are the scientific problems with macroevolution, such as there not being nearly as many "missing links" in the fossil record as there should be, a lack of laboratory observation of the process actually happening(I'm referring to major changes here - I know that small changes within a species, aka Darwin's finches, have been scientifically documented), irreducible complexity, the anthropic principle, information theory, genetics, convergent evolution, abiogenesis ect. All the many scientific objections to evolution should be presented along with the evidence in favor of the theory, such as bacteria evolving, natural selection, the few supposed "missing links" that have been found, ect.

Creationism isn't based on falsehoods. Its an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.

:confused: so you're saying that the persons that wrote genesis (or what was the part about the earth being created a few thousand years ago) took a look at all the fossils, genetic evidence, geology and came to the conclusion God did it? Even when that evidence wasn't even present when he wrote it?

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.
In world religions class? Yes, if different religions' stories of creation are taught. In science class? No, because it's not science. Yes, schools are about learning different ideas, but science is supposed to be about learning what is the closest conclusion about the truth; you don't see them teaching that "maybe the world is flat, maybe the world is round"; they teach that the world is round. The same should be applied to creationism.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

Creationism is not science.

Creationism isn't based on falsehoods. Its an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.
Really?

I had it down as more of a statement that "God did it", thus allowing everything else - including any evidence which might show such a position up to be the indefensible nonsense that I believe it to be - to fit in with it.

I wasn't aware that any part of Creationism was based on available evidence.

Actually, Creationism's evidence is based on it's conclusion. ;)
Ahh, of course, my bad :p

Really?

I had it down as more of a statement that "God did it", thus allowing everything else - including any evidence which might show such a position up to be the indefensible nonsense that I believe it to be - to fit in with it.

I wasn't aware that any part of Creationism was based on available evidence.

Actually, Creationism's evidence is based on it's conclusion. ;)

Creationism isn't based on falsehoods. Its an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.

Oh. So then people can fly without any mechanical aid, because I saw it for myself on TV and in the movies.

It's an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.

On old earth/old universe creationism: There is no difference between the science and the faith. Nor is there any way to tell the difference. Until another universe appears either randomly or by design, we have too small a pool of universes to study to make a conclusion on whether universes can happen randomly or if they have to be the creations of supreme beings.

You want to prove to me that the universe can only be created by an intelligent being? Prove it. Make one. You want to prove that universes happen randomly? We'll have to wait for one to happen. :)

On young earth/young universe creationism *points up* STARS! (http://www.jonathanminard.com/EarthSpace/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg)

On young earth/old universe creationism Conceited bastards, aren't you? :p

On old earth/old universe creationism: There is no difference between the science and the faith. Nor is there any way to tell the difference. Until another universe appears either randomly or by design, we have too small a pool of universes to study to make a conclusion on whether universes can happen randomly or if they have to be the creations of supreme beings.

You want to prove to me that the universe can only be created by an intelligent being? Prove it. Make one. You want to prove that universes happen randomly? We'll have to wait for one to happen. :)

On young earth/young universe creationism *points up* STARS! (http://www.jonathanminard.com/EarthSpace/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg)

On young earth/old universe creationism Conceited bastards, aren't you? :p

This wouldn't actually prove that a universe can only be created by an intelligent being, merely that it is possible for an intelligent being to create a universe.

Just clarifying. :)

however, the creationists are very good at casting doubt on that evidence.

No, the creationists are good at sticking their fingers in their ears and humming. That's not quite the same.

This wouldn't actually prove that a universe can only be created by an intelligent being, merely that it is possible for an intelligent being to create a universe.

Just clarifying. :)

True enough, but if one were either created or appeared randomly, it would certainly lend a bit of weight to one theory or the other. At least until a few more pop up. *nod*

No, the creationists are good at sticking their fingers in their ears and humming. That's not quite the same.

Indeed. Their "doubts" are almost always based in a near-total misconception about what the theory and the evidence is.

For example, a common Creationist argument is, "Dogs never give birth to cats, so Evolution must be wrong!!!!!!!!" Never mind that the theory of evolution does not claim that dogs should give birth to cats.

I am an ardent creationist, but I voted no in this poll. Public schools teaching creationism is not what we need to happen. Here's why.

1. Teachers shouldn't be forced to teach creationism as science. Nobody should be opening the Bible to Genesis in science class. 1. Many teachers would refuse since they aren't creationists, or they might just teach creationism in an extremely biased manner, pointing out all kinds of supposed objections ect.

2. What should be taught are the scientific problems with macroevolution, such as there not being nearly as many "missing links" in the fossil record as there should be, a lack of laboratory observation of the process actually happening2. (I'm referring to major changes here - I know that small changes within a species, aka Darwin's finches, have been scientifically documented), 3. irreducible complexity, 4. the anthropic principle, 5. information theory, genetics, convergent evolution, 6. abiogenesis ect. All the many scientific objections to evolution should be presented along with the evidence in favor of the theory, such as bacteria evolving, natural selection, the few supposed "missing links" that have been found, ect.

1. So the problem with teaching it isn't Separation of Church and State, the fact that Creationism is non-scientific, and the fact that the teaching of a single religious tradition belonging to a single subset of religions is heavily biased in favor of that particular subset of religions? The major problem with teaching it is that the teachers involved would refuse to teach it, or be heavily biased against it? Did you forget to finish that paragraph as you'd have liked, or do you honestly believe that the personal feelings and teaching methodology of high school biology teachers is a bigger concern than the pushing of one religion over all others?

2. It has been shown, through experimentation by several independent researchers observing two separated cultures of Drosophila fruit flies, that when separated for a large number of generations (which, to correct the general misinformation on the subject, are what count, not time in particular. Therefore a fruit fly, with a two-week generation span will evolve at a significantly faster rate [and therefore, significantly easier to observe time span] than a human or other large animal) will result in two separate groups of fruit fly that are no longer capable of breeding with one another when mixed back together.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples does a good job of listing and explaining the reduction of many of the supposedly irreducible systems put forward by Michael Behe and his cohorts.

4. The Anthropic Principle is an untestable philosophical argument, not a valid scientific theory, nor a valid line of scientific research.

5. I don't see how any of these could be called "flaws" in macroevolution, given their relation to the theory in the first place.

6. Evolution as a theory does not discuss, nor is it concerned with, the original emergence of living organic structures from inorganic matter. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate lines of scientific research.

True enough, but if one were either created or appeared randomly, it would certainly lend a bit of weight to one theory or the other. At least until a few more pop up. *nod*

Yes and no, and I suppose it's based on the angle of approach you want to take. If your argument is that the universe could not be created by an intelligent designer, then yes, the observable creation of a new universe by a known intelligent designer would be strong evidence to discard the original position. Similarly, if the argument is that the universe could not have come about randomly, than the observed creation of a new universe with no discernable external impetus would be strong evidence to discard the original position. However in both cases, the observation of the opposite (the creation of a new universe without an external impetus in the first case, and the creation of a new universe by an intelligent hand in the second) wouldn't really be evidence for or against the original premises.

Incidentally, how did you do in Quantum Mechanics when you took it as an undergrad? Because it's seriously kicking my ass.

Gravity is just a concept created by know it all scientists with an evil agenda designed to deceive. We all know its not Gravity, its Intelligent Falling.

I voted no, but only because the question is worded that way. I believe creationism should be taught in schools, but not in science lessons. Religion should be explored only in religious education lessons, and science should be kept to the science rooms, it would be unfair to mark down good scientists just because they don't believe in creationism. Of course the point is that creationists should not be marked down because of their beliefs, the point here is that science isn't taught as the absolute truth, but rather is the study of evidence and theories. The difference between big bang theory and the theory of evolution is that it is backed up with evidence and therefore belongs in a science lesson, whether or not it is actually true

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples does a good job of listing and explaining the reduction of many of the supposedly irreducible systems put forward by Michael Behe and his cohorts.

Not to mention the origin of the position itself. The idea is essentially, "I can't explain this, so I'm going to stop trying and just say God did it." Even if we truly couldn't explain these systems, that line of thinking would be far from scientific.

Now why would we do something as silly as teach religion in a science class?

creationism would be a good thing for schools to learn, provided they taught variuos creation theorys from all or most other religions. if they are preaching just one, then thats not going to be good. also, you cannot teach religion in a science class, that would be like teaching particle physics in spanish 101.

creationism from all religions would be an acceptable course as its own course. not as a scientific theory, wich creationism has nothing to do with.

Gravity is just a concept created by know it all scientists with an evil agenda designed to deceive. We all know its not Gravity, its Intelligent Falling.

I think you'll find that it is in fact the weight of our sins that keeps everything from floating away.:rolleyes:

Tchah, fundamental schoolboy error you made there and now you've just made yourself look silly:p

Actually, Creationism's evidence is based on it's conclusion. ;)its

Creationism isn't based on falsehoods. Its an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.Do you have evidence for that?

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

why cant they?
chruch
______ <-------- suposed to be separated

state


as long as they arent preaching any one religion, and it is seperate from any science coures, then i guess it would be alright.....

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.No, it is not. It is about conveying knowledge. Ideas that have already been tested, you know.

stop talking about evidence!!!
creationsim, plate tetonics, evolution, and relativity are all theorys.

you cannot HAVE enough evidence to support any of them, so do not base your opinion on how much evidence can support a theory.

Incidentally, how did you do in Quantum Mechanics when you took it as an undergrad? Because it's seriously kicking my ass.

Quantum mechanics is completely bonkers. I took to it like a duck to water. :)

I don't know if this helps, but quantum mechanics works a lot like the way I order food in a restaurant. I can never make up my mind. I never actually decide. I just narrow the choices down as best I can until the waitress asks me what I want. Then I order. From the perspective of my friends and family, it might appear that I chose one of them randomly, but in reality, I chose based on factors that I couldn't quantify at the time. Nevertheless, they all know that I'll never order the liver and onions. :p

Is that any help?

its

Yes. Sorry. You know, I pride myself on being good at getting that right. I must be tired. :p

4. The Anthropic Principle is an untestable philosophical argument, not a valid scientific theory, nor a valid line of scientific research.

nah, its got to be taken into account when doing all sorts of science, and, in fact provides a good way for understanding certain aspects of our universe that might otherwise seem odd. and it has lead to fruitful hypotheses about cosmology and physics. it just doesn't lead where silly creationists think it leads.

stop talking about evidence!!!
creationsim, plate tetonics, evolution, and relativity are all theorys.

you cannot HAVE enough evidence to support any of them, so do not base your opinion on how much evidence can support a theory.There is abundance of evidence,. That's why these except creationism are theories and not ideas.

stop talking about evidence!!!
creationsim, plate tetonics, evolution, and relativity are all theorys.
Creationism is a hypothesis, and a very very bad one at that. Plate tectonics is an area of geology. Evolution and relativity are theories. If you want 'God did it' to be a part of science then you're going to have to play by the same rules as everything else in science.

you cannot HAVE enough evidence to support any of them, so do not base your opinion on how much evidence can support a theory.

It takes a lot of evidence for it to ever become a theory. Really, just stop posting. Your ignorance of science is showing.

stop talking about evidence!!!
creationsim, plate tetonics, evolution, and relativity are all theorys.

you cannot HAVE enough evidence to support any of them, so do not base your opinion on how much evidence can support a theory.

what should we base belief on if not the question "how well does this idea map onto the world, and does it allow us to understand the way the world will be in the future?"

Quantum mechanics is completely bonkers. I took to it like a duck to water. :)

I don't know if this helps, but quantum mechanics works a lot like the way I order food in a restaurant. I can never make up my mind. I never actually decide. I just narrow the choices down as best I can until the waitress asks me what I want. Then I order. From the perspective of my friends and family, it might appear that I chose one of them randomly, but in reality, I chose based on factors that I couldn't quantify at the time. Nevertheless, they all know that I'll never order the liver and onions. :p

Is that any help?

It is, interestingly enough. Thanks :)

Yes. Sorry. You know, I pride myself on being good at getting that right. I must be tired. :pI do not know that.

Creationism is a hypothesis, and a very very bad one at that.

it used to be more or less ok though - a perfectly legitimate hypothesis to hold given a certain level of collective knowledge. it was only when we started learning stuff that it found itself completely and devastatingly utterly falsified over and over and over and over again. too bad for the creationists that this process has been over and done with even before darwin got on the scene.

stop talking about evidence!!!
creationsim, plate tetonics, evolution, and relativity are all theorys.

you cannot HAVE enough evidence to support any of them, so do not base your opinion on how much evidence can support a theory.

Evidence for creationism: one book
Evidence for the rest: hundreds of years and thousands of scientific studies and scientists


Put it this way, who are you most likely to believe: one kid with chocolate cake all over his face who denies the evidence, or the other 20 pointing at him saying, "But HE ate the cake! Look at the frosting on his face!"?

stop talking about evidence!!!
creationsim, plate tetonics, evolution, and relativity are all theorys.

you cannot HAVE enough evidence to support any of them, so do not base your opinion on how much evidence can support a theory.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

first of all, creationism isn't a theory, it's faith. And why can't you have enough evidence to support any of them? And why not base your opinion on evidence?

Quantum mechanics is completely bonkers. I took to it like a duck to water. :)

I don't know if this helps, but quantum mechanics works a lot like the way I order food in a restaurant. I can never make up my mind. I never actually decide. I just narrow the choices down as best I can until the waitress asks me what I want. Then I order. From the perspective of my friends and family, it might appear that I chose one of them randomly, but in reality, I chose based on factors that I couldn't quantify at the time. Nevertheless, they all know that I'll never order the liver and onions. :p

Is that any help?

this leads to the further question of your restaurant indeterminism - are the unquantified factors merely unquantified currently, or are they unquantifiable in principle? also, did your collapsing of the menu-function lead to the creation of multiple universes and therefore was everything ordered in some sort of hyper-restaurant?

me, i'm more of a restaurant determinist myself.

this leads to the further question of your restaurant indeterminism - are the unquantified factors merely unquantified currently, or are they unquantifiable in principle? also, did your collapsing of the menu-function lead to the creation of multiple universes and therefore was everything ordered in some sort of hyper-restaurant?

Imagine being the accountant for that restaurant........

Evidence for creationism: one book

overly generous. even if the book unequivocally had to be interpreted in a creationist fashion (it really sort of does, but we let the religious make up all sorts of silly nonsense, and i don't see a way to make them stop short of fixing the underlying problem), a book cannot itself count as evidence about how the world is. it can only report evidence. since the bible fails to do this, there is no evidence at all.

I am an ardent creationist, but I voted no in this poll. Public schools teaching creationism is not what we need to happen. Here's why.

1. Teachers shouldn't be forced to teach creationism as science. Nobody should be opening the Bible to Genesis in science class. Many teachers would refuse since they aren't creationists, or they might just teach creationism in an extremely biased manner, pointing out all kinds of supposed objections ect.

2. What should be taught are the scientific problems with macroevolution, such as there not being nearly as many "missing links" in the fossil record as there should be, a lack of laboratory observation of the process actually happening(I'm referring to major changes here - I know that small changes within a species, aka Darwin's finches, have been scientifically documented), irreducible complexity, the anthropic principle, information theory, genetics, convergent evolution, abiogenesis ect. All the many scientific objections to evolution should be presented along with the evidence in favor of the theory, such as bacteria evolving, natural selection, the few supposed "missing links" that have been found, ect.

So what you want taught (irreducible complexity and so on) is Intelligent Design.

Which is Creationism. So no thanks.

I am an ardent creationist, but I voted no in this poll. Public schools teaching creationism is not what we need to happen. Here's why.

1. Teachers shouldn't be forced to teach creationism as science. Nobody should be opening the Bible to Genesis in science class. Many teachers would refuse since they aren't creationists, or they might just teach creationism in an extremely biased manner, pointing out all kinds of supposed objections ect.

2. What should be taught are the scientific problems with macroevolution, such as there not being nearly as many "missing links" in the fossil record as there should be, a lack of laboratory observation of the process actually happening(I'm referring to major changes here - I know that small changes within a species, aka Darwin's finches, have been scientifically documented), irreducible complexity, the anthropic principle, information theory, genetics, convergent evolution, abiogenesis ect. All the many scientific objections to evolution should be presented along with the evidence in favor of the theory, such as bacteria evolving, natural selection, the few supposed "missing links" that have been found, ect.

1. There are no scientific problems with macroevolution.

2. et cetera = etc. not ect.

2. What should be taught are the scientific problems with macroevolution, such as there not being nearly as many "missing links" in the fossil record as there should be, a lack of laboratory observation of the process actually happening(I'm referring to major changes here - I know that small changes within a species, aka Darwin's finches, have been scientifically documented), irreducible complexity, the anthropic principle, information theory, genetics, convergent evolution, abiogenesis ect. All the many scientific objections to evolution should be presented along with the evidence in favor of the theory, such as bacteria evolving, natural selection, the few supposed "missing links" that have been found, ect.

Going down the list:

1. Every single fossil ever found is a "missing link." Every living creature is a "missing link." YOU are a "missing link" - except, of course, none of these things is actually missing. You are not genetically identical to your parents, and your offspring will not be genetically identical to you. You are, therefore, the "link" which connects your parents to your offspring. So is every organism (well, every sexually reproducing organism, solely because "parents" and "offspring" are sloppy terms when referring to asexual reproduction) that has ever existed. This objection has never made any sense.

2. Darwin's finches were not observed in a laboratory, and those were furthermore some pretty freaking major changes. Further, we have seen major changes in laboratory settings when using species that reproduce extremely quickly - fruit flies, for example - but most anti-evolutionists seem to want to pretend that doesn't count.

3. Irreducible complexity is a load of crap. I mean, I'm sorry, but it is. It essentially boils down to "I, personally, cannot understand how an eye could evolve, so it couldn't have done so," which is so inherently and ridiculously flawed that it shouldn't even need refutation. There are logical pathways for the evolution of every item ID-ers have claimed "irreducibly complex." Go read them.

4. The anthropic principle has nothing particularly to do with evolution.

5. I'm not well enough acquainted with information theory to have any idea what you think it has to do with evolution.

6. How on earth are "genetics" and "convergent evolution" problems with evolutionary theory?

7. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

stop talking about evidence!!!
creationsim, plate tetonics, evolution, and relativity are all theorys.

you cannot HAVE enough evidence to support any of them, so do not base your opinion on how much evidence can support a theory.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "Stop talking about evidence!!! I don't have any to base my theory on, so stop using yours!!!"

The whole point being made through the whole thread is that there IS substantial evidence to back up evolution, but none to back up creationism, the fact that you do not understand the definition of "scientific theory" not withstanding.

overly generous. even if the book unequivocally had to be interpreted in a creationist fashion (it really sort of does, but we let the religious make up all sorts of silly nonsense, and i don't see a way to make them stop short of fixing the underlying problem), a book cannot itself count as evidence about how the world is. it can only report evidence. since the bible fails to do this, there is no evidence at all.

Well, I have to give them SOMETHING.

There are logical pathways for the evolution of every item ID-ers have claimed "irreducibly complex." Go read them.


Or watch this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html), it's quite interesting (probably more than a text)

Posts relating to real-life belong in the General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227) subforum.

That said, creationism may be taught in school, but not in science classes, except maybe in the same sense the Plum Pudding Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model) is sometimes presented to students in order to give them a sense of how the current model of the atom developed.

This is actually a pretty good idea. I remember when we learned about evolution, we talked a little about different creation myths as well, not because they were scientifically valid, but because the teacher wanted us to understand that while these ideas were not science, they weren't stupid. Then we learned real evolution, and were taught that there was no doubt it was scientifically the only true theory.

I propose we form a new class called "World Religion", it will teach kids about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Celtic Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Indigenous Australian Mythology and Native American Mythology. Yep... I can see tons of kids wanting to take that.

I did take that class last year...

I accidently clicked NO but , Yes, I do beleive that the concept of creationism should be discussed. If evolution is being discussed so should creationism. Both topics come up in science and philosophy classes all the time and usually coincide. Although there are alot of people now days that Don't beleive in God I still think that more people DO and think they should be able to exercise that right.

If you want to learn about religion, read up on it during your own time or go to a private school. But public schools should be teaching science during science class, not fanciful fairy-tales.

So your saying Teach Neither... since neither Evolution nor Creation can be 100% proven, and Evolution requires a greater deal of faith in even more unseen unprovable ideas?

For example, there's not just one missing link, there would have to be 5,000 changes at least between an aquatic creature and a land dweller... so that would be 5,000 missing links, scale it down to burst evolutions, and that's still 500 missing links.... and that's just for one step of the chain...

I.D. does not teach religion, it teaches that looking at the scope of things and saying there must have been something that started all of this, some intelligence to arrive at the point we have, even if evolution were true, we would have had to have a start somewhere out there at some point where the original life force material came from, because something does not come from nothing.

I for one am a Creationist....

As far as should it be taught in schools? Only as long as Evolution is taught also, if Evolution is removed from the teaching materials, then teach nothing on the origins of life, and remove Creationism has been around since well the Creation of the World, Evolution, only since 1859.... if we kept evolving and changing over time wouldn't we retain that information?

If you want to learn about religion, read up on it during your own time or go to a private school. But public schools should be teaching science during science class, not fanciful fairy-tales.

So your saying Teach Neither... since neither Evolution nor Creation can be 100% proven, and Evolution requires a greater deal of faith in even more unseen unprovable ideas?

For example, there's not just one missing link, there would have to be 5,000 changes at least between an aquatic creature and a land dweller... so that would be 5,000 missing links, scale it down to burst evolutions, and that's still 500 missing links.... and that's just for one step of the chain...

I.D. does not teach religion, it teaches that looking at the scope of things and saying there must have been something that started all of this, some intelligence to arrive at the point we have, even if evolution were true, we would have had to have a start somewhere out there at some point where the original life force material came from, because something does not come from nothing.

I for one am a Creationist....

As far as should it be taught in schools? Only as long as Evolution is taught also, if Evolution is removed from the teaching materials, then teach nothing on the origins of life, and remove Creationism has been around since well the Creation of the World, Evolution, only since 1859.... if we kept evolving and changing over time wouldn't we retain that information?

Obviously you haven't been reading the thread.

There is evidence for Evolution therefore it is science.
There is no evidence for Biblical Creationism therefore it is not science.
By your own admission "Intelligent Design" involves making unsupported assumptions to reach conclusions therefore it is not science.

And try and remember, even if you disprove one element of the TOE does not mean it's support for BC.

This means teaching a particular religious view of the creation of the world and universe in a science class.

Science and religion are not the same thing.

Or they are and we should eliminate funding for science in those states.

There is extensive evidence for the age of the universe, the planet and the life on it as having evolved, and still is evolving. It is the same science that powers your light bulb and this computer. The same math and the same theories.

But next time you need light, just pray.

all i can say is:

only in america ... aka jesusland

Not quite:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/2981663.stm

http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/285440/cs/1/

all i can say is:

only in america ... aka jesusland

For example, there's not just one missing link, there would have to be 5,000 changes at least between an aquatic creature and a land dweller... so that would be 5,000 missing links, scale it down to burst evolutions, and that's still 500 missing links.... and that's just for one step of the chain...

and we have all sorts of found links already. for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

check this shit out:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/tiktaalik_limb_lg.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/tiktaalik_phylo.jpg

and we have all sorts of found links already. for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

check this shit out:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/tiktaalik_limb_lg.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/tiktaalik_phylo.jpg

{sarcasm}But, but, where are the "missing links" in between those? Ha, ha evolution is false. {sarcasm off}

So your saying Teach Neither... since neither Evolution nor Creation can be 100% proven, and Evolution requires a greater deal of faith in even more unseen unprovable ideas?

I already answered this precise point.

For example, there's not just one missing link, there would have to be 5,000 changes at least between an aquatic creature and a land dweller... so that would be 5,000 missing links, scale it down to burst evolutions, and that's still 500 missing links.... and that's just for one step of the chain...

I already answered this precise point, too. Some people like to read threads before they post in them, but apparently you're not one of them.

I.D. does not teach religion, it teaches that looking at the scope of things and saying there must have been something that started all of this, some intelligence to arrive at the point we have, even if evolution were true, we would have had to have a start somewhere out there at some point where the original life force material came from, because something does not come from nothing.

....which would, in fact, be a religious belief, seeing as there is no scientific evidence for this "intelligence."

I for one am a Creationist....

Yeah, we gathered that.

As far as should it be taught in schools? Only as long as Evolution is taught also, if Evolution is removed from the teaching materials, then teach nothing on the origins of life, and remove Creationism has been around since well the Creation of the World, Evolution, only since 1859.... if we kept evolving and changing over time wouldn't we retain that information?

This may be the funniest argument I have ever read. Creationism is more accurate than evolutionary theory because creationism is older? Seriously? While we're at it, let's teach that feathers still fall more slowly than bowling balls in a vacuum, that the sun revolves around the Earth, and that mental illness is caused by demonic possession! Those ideas are all older than silly nonsense like "gravity" and "heliocentrism" and "neuroscience" - y'know, things supported by actual research and evidence.

{sarcasm}But, but, where are the "missing links" in between those? Ha, ha evolution is false. {sarcasm off}

to quote pz myers, "It's a Sisyphean job, working as an evolutionist."

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

No, schools are about teaching subject matter. There is no creationism in science, just like there is no auto-body work in social studies, and no wine-tasting in math.

Yes, it's good for people to learn about these things, but they should know them for what they are. Creationism isn't science, and should not be taught as though it is.

This is actually a pretty good idea. I remember when we learned about evolution, we talked a little about different creation myths as well, not because they were scientifically valid, but because the teacher wanted us to understand that while these ideas were not science, they weren't stupid. Then we learned real evolution, and were taught that there was no doubt it was scientifically the only true theory.

it seems to me to be entirely appropriate to talk about creationism (not that creationism existed before the development of evolutionary theory), the theory of acquired characteristics, and any other discredited theory of how the species came to be, in just this context.

in general science or a basic introduction to biology its good to know where ideas came from and what other theories there were.

as long as the teacher is not required to give creationism any credence, its fine in this limited way. any other use of creationism in the science classroom is a waste of time.

There's no "proof" of gravity, either. Just strong, observational evidence empirically gained through experimentation and incorporated into a theoretical framework for explaining related phenomena. We call these things "theories" and we teach them in science classes because that's as good as it gets. Nothing in science is ever "proven," one can only provide evidence for and against a theory, and the strength and weight of this evidence results in a theory being kept, discarded, or altered to incorporate the new evidence.

I seriously don't see why this is so hard for people to understand.

Maybe he wants to emplace the Intelligent Falling as well...

Well, golly gee, it looks like the OP posted and ran. What a surprise.

it seems to me to be entirely appropriate to talk about creationism (not that creationism existed before the development of evolutionary theory), the theory of acquired characteristics, and any other discredited theory of how the species came to be, in just this context.

in general science or a basic introduction to biology its good to know where ideas came from and what other theories there were.

as long as the teacher is not required to give creationism any credence, its fine in this limited way. any other use of creationism in the science classroom is a waste of time.

yeah, that seems right, the teacher also mentioned it to us in high school, together with lamarckism.

This is actually a pretty good idea. I remember when we learned about evolution, we talked a little about different creation myths as well, not because they were scientifically valid, but because the teacher wanted us to understand that while these ideas were not science, they weren't stupid. Then we learned real evolution, and were taught that there was no doubt it was scientifically the only true theory.
I disagree, I think such ideas are stupid. It's stupid to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, because mountains of evidence contradict this claim. It's stupid to believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together until the flood, because mountains of evidence contradict this claim. I could continue, but I think you get the point.

I accidently clicked NO but , Yes, I do beleive that the concept of creationism should be discussed. If evolution is being discussed so should creationism. Both topics come up in science and philosophy classes all the time and usually coincide. Although there are alot of people now days that Don't beleive in God I still think that more people DO and think they should be able to exercise that right.
:rolleyes: Yeah, teach both sides, just like we teach Alchemy in chemistry classes as an alternative to the periodic table, we teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy, and we teach magic as an alternative to physics, right?

If you want to learn about religion, read up on it during your own time or go to a private school. But public schools should be teaching science during science class, not fanciful fairy-tales.

So your saying Teach Neither... since neither Evolution nor Creation can be 100% proven, and Evolution requires a greater deal of faith in even more unseen unprovable ideas?

1) Evolution does not require faith. Evolution has massive amounts of evidence in support. Seriously, go study from a source other than AIG for once.
2) As for your claim that we can't "100% prove evolution:"
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9877/morboscienceol2.jpg

Science does not prove things: even gravity isn't 100% proven. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. So no, evolution isn't proven. Evolution does, however, have a great deal of evidence for it. Indeed, it's quite possibly the most well-supported scientific theory we have-- or it's at least one of them. It doesn't have a huge split down the middle, as does gravity, but has near universal consensus from scientists. Creationism is based on such bad "science" it really is amazing that anybody can buy that shit. I mean, really, if the best you guys can do is Kent Hovind, or AIG, or Michael Behe... that says something about your credibility.


For example, there's not just one missing link, there would have to be 5,000 changes at least between an aquatic creature and a land dweller... so that would be 5,000 missing links, scale it down to burst evolutions, and that's still 500 missing links.... and that's just for one step of the chain...

Yeah. And every time a scientist finds a fossil that fills in the middle of a gap, there's suddenly twice as many gaps there as before! Brilliant!


I.D. does not teach religion, it teaches that looking at the scope of things and saying there must have been something that started all of this, some intelligence to arrive at the point we have, even if evolution were true, we would have had to have a start somewhere out there at some point where the original life force material came from, because something does not come from nothing.

What evidence does it provide for this? All I can see is declaration by fiat. If it has such compelling evidence, why does it not publish any peer reviewed papers? Why does it not present its evidence, if it's so abundant?


I for one am a Creationist....

Why? Why do you believe something that flatly contradicts the evidence?


As far as should it be taught in schools? Only as long as Evolution is taught also, if Evolution is removed from the teaching materials, then teach nothing on the origins of life, and remove Creationism has been around since well the Creation of the World, Evolution, only since 1859.... if we kept evolving and changing over time wouldn't we retain that information?
I assume you'd be for teaching Alchemy in chemistry classes, then? After all, it's been around for a longer time, and Alchemy has about as much evidence in favor as does Creationism.

I disagree, I think such ideas are stupid.
What? How so?
It's stupid to believe that the world is 6,000 years old, because mountains of evidence contradict this claim. It's stupid to believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together until the flood, because mountains of evidence contradict this claim. I could continue, but I think you get the point.

Ah, I see. That's not really what I meant. It is silly to believe the world was created in 6,000 years, or is on a giant turtle, or is the wife of the sky when you have evidence to the contrary. But there's nothing stupid about a group of people coming up with a creation myth when they don't have this evidence.
The point was, we shouldn't look at these myths and say, "Boy, what losers. Thank goodness 'modern man' isn't that idiotic!" Instead, we should respect them for what they are, myths, and not assume their creators (or even people who still believe them) are imbeciles.

As far as should it be taught in schools? Only as long as Evolution is taught also, if Evolution is removed from the teaching materials, then teach nothing on the origins of life, and remove Creationism has been around since well the Creation of the World, Evolution, only since 1859.... if we kept evolving and changing over time wouldn't we retain that information?
The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origin of life.

If Creationism shouldn't be allowed in school, then so shouldn't Evolution. Neither theory, in a scientific sense, has more proof than the other. Even if you don't want Creationism taught, you can hardly support how the Government publicly funds the teaching of evolution, an unproven idea that has absolutely no discernible evidence beyond wild and conflicting theories.

Personally, I support the teaching of Creationism. Christianity and the state should not be separated - it is not called for anywhere in the American Constitution. I don't want a theocracy, but to quote America's founding father George Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

If Creationism shouldn't be allowed in school, then so shouldn't Evolution. Neither theory, in a scientific sense, has more proof than the other. Even if you don't want Creationism taught, you can hardly support how the Government publicly funds the teaching of evolution, an unproven idea that has absolutely no discernible evidence beyond wild and conflicting theories.

Personally, I support the teaching of Creationism. Christianity and the state should not be separated - it is not called for anywhere in the American Constitution. I don't want a theocracy, but to quote America's founding father George Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

And where pray tell is the proof for creationism? And are you at at ll familiar with The Theory of Evolution? I'm guessing not by your statements.

If Creationism shouldn't be allowed in school, then so shouldn't Evolution. Neither theory, in a scientific sense, has more proof than the other. Even if you don't want Creationism taught, you can hardly support how the Government publicly funds the teaching of evolution, an unproven idea that has absolutely no discernible evidence beyond wild and conflicting theories.

hah!

hey, let's play a game. to start, you tell me, in your own words, what the theory of evolution is.

And where pray tell is the proof for creationism? And are you at at ll familiar with The Theory of Evolution? I'm guessing not by your statements.
And pray tell is the proof for evolution? You say it yourself - evolution is not but a theory. Prove it to me it is true and I'd be willing to believe it.

I never said there was anymore scientific proof for Creationism. However, there is more evidence against evolution than there is against creationism.

And pray tell is the proof for evolution? You say it yourself - evolution is not but a theory. Prove it to me it is true and I'd be willing to believe it.

I never said there was anymore scientific proof for Creationism. However, there is more evidence against evolution than there is against creationism.

OK, where is the proof against The Theory of Evolution? And where is there any proof at all of creationism?

And I didn't say that you said there was more, I was wondering if you could supply any

hah!

hey, let's play a game. to start, you tell me, in your own words, what the theory of evolution is.

Evolution theorizes all life coming from a complex soup of material, evolving into a single celled organism, evolving then into subsequent other creatures from insects to fish to mammals. It is a bastardization of natural selection and genetic heredity, exploiting mutation as supposed proof of the ability of a rock to become a human being.

From Wikipedia (not the most reliable source I know, but it's quick and easy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because organisms with advantageous traits pass on more copies of these heritable traits to the next generation.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3] In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift arises from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce.

One definition of a species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another and produce fertile offspring. However, when a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the selection of novel traits cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species.[4] The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.[1]

The theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed at about the same time by both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, and was set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.[5] It encountered initial resistance from religious authorities who believed humans were divinely set apart from the animal kingdom. In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[6] in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[7]

If Creationism shouldn't be allowed in school, then so shouldn't Evolution. Neither theory, in a scientific sense, has more proof than the other. Even if you don't want Creationism taught, you can hardly support how the Government publicly funds the teaching of evolution, an unproven idea that has absolutely no discernible evidence beyond wild and conflicting theories.

Personally, I support the teaching of Creationism. Christianity and the state should not be separated - it is not called for anywhere in the American Constitution. I don't want a theocracy, but to quote America's founding father George Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

How does evolution NOT qualify as a scientific theory?

If Creationism shouldn't be allowed in school, then so shouldn't Evolution. Neither theory, in a scientific sense, has more proof than the other. Even if you don't want Creationism taught, you can hardly support how the Government publicly funds the teaching of evolution, an unproven idea that has absolutely no discernible evidence beyond wild and conflicting theories.

Personally, I support the teaching of Creationism. Christianity and the state should not be separated - it is not called for anywhere in the American Constitution. I don't want a theocracy, but to quote America's founding father George Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

How does evolution NOT qualify as a scientific theory?

Probably based on the fact that none of the proof comes from the bible

Evolution theorizes all life coming from a complex soup of material, evolving into a single celled organism, evolving then into subsequent other creatures from insects to fish to mammals.

ignoring the actual origin point itself, what about this lacks evidence? do you propose that there are fossils of mammals in the oldest life-bearing strata? do you think that children are identical to their parents? do you think that all variations in organisms are equally successful? do you think that life forms don't resemble each other in a way that naturally draws itself like a branching bush? do you think tiktaalik doesn't have features that resemble earlier fish-like creatures and features that resemble those of later amphibious ones? what?

OK, where is the proof against The Theory of Evolution? And where is there any proof at all of creationism?

And I didn't say that you said there was more, I was wondering if you could supply any
Supporters of evolution cite mutation as proof, when that proves nothing. Mutation proves the ability of (for example) a dog to become another species of dog. Evolution calls for a rock to evolve over billions of years to become a dog, which is impossible to examine scientifically.

There are little to no fossil evidence showing transitional stages from (for example) a fish becoming an amphibian.

Most of the "missing links" from ape-to-human are recognized hoaxes.

If life can derive from non-life in the past, why hasn't it happened more than once? Why don't we still observe that happening now?

ignoring the actual origin point itself, what about this lacks evidence? do you propose that there are fossils of mammals in the oldest life-bearing strata? do you think that children are identical to their parents? do you think that all variations in organisms are equally successful? do you think that life forms don't resemble each other in a way that naturally draws itself like a branching bush? do you think tiktaalik doesn't have features that resemble earlier fish-like creatures and features that resemble those of later amphibious ones? what?
All of your examples are that of mutation. Not even the most die-hard Christian could deny mutation. However, you have no evidence toward actual evolution, of life springing from nothing, of an order of animal evolving into a higher order.

What? How so?

Ah, I see. That's not really what I meant. It is silly to believe the world was created in 6,000 years, or is on a giant turtle, or is the wife of the sky when you have evidence to the contrary. But there's nothing stupid about a group of people coming up with a creation myth when they don't have this evidence.
The point was, we shouldn't look at these myths and say, "Boy, what losers. Thank goodness 'modern man' isn't that idiotic!" Instead, we should respect them for what they are, myths, and not assume their creators (or even people who still believe them) are imbeciles.
Oh, certainly. It used to be that there was nothing at all unintelligent about believing in Creationism. But times change, and now that it's been so thoroughly refuted, any educated person who believes in Creationism is stupid.
If Creationism shouldn't be allowed in school, then so shouldn't Evolution. Neither theory, in a scientific sense, has more proof than the other. Even if you don't want Creationism taught, you can hardly support how the Government publicly funds the teaching of evolution, an unproven idea that has absolutely no discernible evidence beyond wild and conflicting theories.

Personally, I support the teaching of Creationism. Christianity and the state should not be separated - it is not called for anywhere in the American Constitution. I don't want a theocracy, but to quote America's founding father George Washington: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
Except the Theory of Evolution has evidence in favor.
And pray tell is the proof for evolution? You say it yourself - evolution is not but a theory. Prove it to me it is true and I'd be willing to believe it.

I never said there was anymore scientific proof for Creationism. However, there is more evidence against evolution than there is against creationism.
Do you... seriously not know what a theory is, in the scientific context? Wow. Go back to high school. When you've taken a freshman science class, then you can come back and debate with us.
Evolution theorizes all life coming from a complex soup of material, evolving into a single celled organism, evolving then into subsequent other creatures from insects to fish to mammals. It is a bastardization of natural selection and genetic heredity, exploiting mutation as supposed proof of the ability of a rock to become a human being.
Fail.
Abiogenesis != evolution.

Seriously. I'm a HISTORY major, and I know more science than you do. It's pathetic.

All of your examples are that of mutation. Not even the most die-hard Christian could deny mutation. However, you have no evidence toward actual evolution, of life springing from nothing, of an order of animal evolving into a higher order.

Say it with me. TOE /= Abiogenesis. Try and keep up.

Do you... seriously not know what a theory is, in the scientific context?
A theory is a projection of something that is not yet adequately proven through observation of experimentation.

Abiogenesis =/= evolution.
How can one be an evolutionist and not believe in an origin of life? That's literally saying, "I believe life can become other life, but not that non-life can become life." In other words, you're a creationist.

so you don't deny any of what i said?
Mutation in species is common sense. It can be observed among animals and even human beings. What I'm arguing against is evolution.

That's not what evolution is. Evolution is about differentiation of species. How living things have come to have the qualities that they have.
Differentiation of species is mutation, not evolution. No one here has proven anything to me yet.

All of your examples are that of mutation. Not even the most die-hard Christian could deny mutation. However, you have no evidence toward actual evolution, of life springing from nothing, of an order of animal evolving into a higher order.

so you don't deny any of what i said?

All of your examples are that of mutation. Not even the most die-hard Christian could deny mutation. However, you have no evidence toward actual evolution, of life springing from nothing, of an order of animal evolving into a higher order.

That's not what evolution is. Evolution is about differentiation of species. How living things have come to have the qualities that they have.

If you want to argue about the merits of a subject, please learn what it is.

Supporters of evolution cite mutation as proof, when that proves nothing. Mutation proves the ability of (for example) a 1. dog to become another species of dog. 2. Evolution calls for a rock to evolve over billions of years to become a dog, which is impossible to examine scientifically.

There are little to no fossil evidence showing transitional stages from (for example) a fish becoming an amphibian.

Most of the "missing links" from ape-to-human are recognized hoaxes.

3. If life can derive from non-life in the past, why hasn't it happened more than once? Why don't we still observe that happening now?

1. That's the actual scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution.

2. That's the definition of the Theory of Evolution generally only believed by creationism supports and the mentally disabled.

3. Because the conditions by which this happened over a billion years ago do not exist now? Just fucking possibly? I mean, seriously, do some research before you say stupid shit.

A theory is a projection of something that is not yet adequately proven through observation of experimentation.

No, a theory is a hypothesis supported by the preponderance of evidence including observation and experimentation. You're trying to use the lamens version of "theory", not the Scientific definition.

Go back to high school.


How can one be an evolutionist and not believe in an origin of life? That's literally saying, "I believe life can become other life, but not that non-life can become life." In other words, you're a creationist.

Um, no, you're trying to combine theories. Nothing was said about the belief or non-belief on the origins of life, but about evolution. You also need to educate yourself on the different varieties of "creationists" that are out there.

1. That's the actual scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution.
That's actual scientific evidence proving Mutation, not Evolution.

2. That's the definition of the Theory of Evolution generally only believed by creationism supports and the mentally disabled.
It's also the same definition I've gotten from every online, video, book, or school teacher I've ever read or listened to.

3. Because the conditions by which this happened over a billion years ago do not exist now? Just fucking possibly? I mean, seriously, do some research before you say stupid shit.
Just because you don't have an actual answer doesn't mean you have to get angsty on me.

...a dog to become another species of dog. ...Well, wolves have been bred into very different breeds of dogs. If the mechanisms of evolution did not exist such breeding would be impossible.

Mutation in species is common sense. It can be observed among animals and even human beings. What I'm arguing against is evolution.

so you acknowledge that, for example, tiktaalik and archaeopteryx exist? and that there are no mammals in the oldest strata of fossil bearing rocks?

would you agree that mutation is the method by which variation arises?
Variation in the sense of a dog becoming another type of dog, not in a fish "evolving" into a dog.

Differentiation of species is mutation, not evolution.If a mutation happens to cause a disadvantage or advantage in procreation for the respective individual and its offspring, then that's called evolution.

Differentiation of species is mutation, not evolution.

would you agree that mutation is the method by which variation arises?

Well, wolves have been bred into very different breeds of dogs. If the mechanisms of evolution did not exist such breeding would be impossible.
That's MUTATION.

Snip

You gave some arguments against evolution, but non in favour of creationism.
Please do.
Then explain why you believe creationism is better, despite there being vastly less evidence in favour of it.

...

shhh, you're going to scare him off. move slowly so as not to startle him.

If a mutation happens to cause a disadvantage or advantage in procreation for the respective individual, then that's called evolution.
No, it's still mutation. Evolution speaks of one order of animal becoming another, like a lizard becoming a bird or mammal, not just a lizard becoming a better adapted lizard.

If you people attest that Evolution is the same as mutation, then the real argument is that people shouldn't be taught in school that life evolved via abiogenesis.

Variation in the sense of a dog becoming another type of dog, not in a fish "evolving" into a dog.I see discussing with you is pointless. Please go back into your church and remain inside for good.

Variation in the sense of a dog becoming another type of dog, not in a fish "evolving" into a dog.

but mutations (and the differential sorting of them) are what cause there to be dogs that look different, yeah?

No, it's still mutation. Evolution speaks of one order of animal becoming another, like a lizard becoming a bird or mammal, not just a lizard becoming a better adapted lizard.

If you people attest that Evolution is the same as mutation, then the real argument is that people shouldn't be taught in school that life evolved via abiogenesis.Evolution is when a mutation becomes permanent. That's all. And now go play in traffic.

You gave some arguments against evolution, but non in favour of creationism.
Please do.
Then explain why you believe creationism is better, despite there being vastly less evidence in favour of it.
There is no evidence in favor of creationism, and there is no evidence in favor of evolution. However, there is not evidence against creationism, but plenty (including the few I mentioned) against evolution.

That's actual scientific evidence proving Mutation, not Evolution.

That's a pretty stupid line of reasoning, given that Mutation doesn't need evidence. Mutation is something that can be directly observed. I.e. mutation is to evolution was falling is to the Theory of Gravity.


It's also the same definition I've gotten from every online, video, book, or school teacher I've ever read or listened to.

Yes, but we're talking about actual sources, not Answers in Genesis and Bible School teachers.


Just because you don't have an actual answer doesn't mean you have to get angsty on me.

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean you have to act smugly self-righteous. Get off your cross, then we'll talk.

No, it's still mutation. Evolution speaks of one order of animal becoming another, like a lizard becoming a bird or mammal, not just a lizard becoming a better adapted lizard.

If you people attest that Evolution is the same as mutation, then the real argument is that people shouldn't be taught in school that life evolved via abiogenesis.

They're not. That's your misunderstanding of the two. Life evolved due to natural processes.

That's a pretty stupid line of reasoning, given that Mutation doesn't need evidence. Mutation is something that can be directly observed. I.e. mutation is to evolution was falling is to the Theory of Gravity.
So you're saying it's stupid to accept that mutation happens because it actually has evidence? To me, that's a pretty stupid line of reason.

Yes, but we're talking about actual sources, not Answers in Genesis and Bible School teachers.
Gain some maturity and try coming back here again.

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean you have to act smugly self-righteous. Get off your cross, then we'll talk.
See above.

They're not. That's your misunderstanding of the two. Life evolved due to natural processes.
So life evolving naturally by abiogenesis is different than life evolving naturally by something other than abiogenesis. If that is the case, where the life in the latter theory come from?

There is no evidence in favor of creationism,

That's true.

and there is no evidence in favor of evolution.

Except for the decades of research and tens of thousands of papers on it.

http://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks.html



However, there is not evidence against creationism,

Except for the fields of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, etc.


but plenty (including the few I mentioned) against evolution.

That you completely mischaracterized and obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

So you're saying it's stupid to accept that mutation happens because it actually has evidence? To me, that's a pretty stupid line of reason.
No, he is saying that the fact of mutation can be observed.

No, it's still mutation. Evolution speaks of one order of animal becoming another, like a lizard becoming a bird or mammal, not just a lizard becoming a better adapted lizard.

well certainly no single lizard became a bird or a mammal. but would you agree that it is possible in principle that becoming a better adapted 'lizard' could involve a mutation that resulted in having a downy feather-like covering becoming fixed in a population of 'lizards'?

So life evolving naturally by abiogenesis is different than life evolving naturally by something other than abiogenesis. If that is the case, where the life in the latter theory come from?

Here, do some reading on the topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

well certainly no single lizard became a bird or a mammal. but would you agree that it is possible in principle that becoming a better adapted 'lizard' could involve a mutation that resulted in having a downy feather-like covering becoming fixed in a population of 'lizards'?
Things like velociraptors had feathers. Does that make them birds? No, not at all. Saying it does is like saying a arthropod with hair-like material makes it a mammal.

no, the point is that the precise origins of life are not directly relevant to the theory of evolution. if the theory of evolution works, then future life would evolve in branching lineages of common descent from lifeforms that were specially created by god today.
So, you're a creationist.

There is no evidence in favor of creationism, and there is no evidence in favor of evolution. However, there is not evidence against creationism, but plenty (including the few I mentioned) against evolution.

There is no evidence against creationism ?
You seriously believe that fruit bearing trees existing before the sun fits e.g. astrophysics ? You know, which states the sun is much older than the earth, let alone fruit bearing trees ?

And that is only one of millions of examples...

Here, do some reading on the topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
So you say that life didn't evolve from nothing, it evolved from simple life that miraculously appeared out of nowhere.

So life evolving naturally by abiogenesis is different than life evolving naturally by something other than abiogenesis. If that is the case, where the life in the latter theory come from?

no, the point is that the precise origins of life are not directly relevant to the theory of evolution. if the theory of evolution works, then future life would evolve in branching lineages of common descent from lifeforms that were specially created by god today.

So, you're a creationist.

Once again, you need to educate yourself on the different species of creationist. NEC, OEC, etc.

So you say that life didn't evolve from nothing, it evolved from simple life that miraculously appeared out of nowhere.

Are you drunk? Did you even bother to read any of the links?

Is english not your first language? I explained the situation very clearly to you, and yet you seem to be responding to something entirely different.

I recommend http://dictionary.com as a great place to refresh yourself on how to discuss this with us.



Likewise, child.Dear Apple God, you are wasting your precious lifetime here.

So you're saying it's stupid to accept that mutation happens because it actually has evidence? To me, that's a pretty stupid line of reason.

Is english not your first language? I explained the situation very clearly to you, and yet you seem to be responding to something entirely different.

I recommend http://dictionary.com as a great place to refresh yourself on how to discuss this with us.

Gain some maturity and try coming back here again.


See above.

Likewise, child.

Things like velociraptors had feathers. Does that make them birds? No, not at all. Saying it does is like saying a arthropod with hair-like material makes it a mammal.

ok good, so it is possible in principle for a lineage of things that we would classify as reptiles to have mutations which result in their descendants having feathers. now, would you agree that it is possible in principle that a group of these feathered descendants could have mutations that could allow them to take up climbing trees?

Is english not your first language? I explained the situation very clearly to you, and yet you seem to be responding to something entirely different.

You said the following:

That's a pretty stupid line of reasoning, given that Mutation doesn't need evidence. Mutation is something that can be directly observed. I.e. mutation is to evolution was falling is to the Theory of Gravity.

To summarize:
1. Mutation doesn't need evidence, because mutation can be directly observed.
2. Mutation proves evolution because evolution is based on mutation, even though evolution cannot be directly observed.

You're saying I should believe in something unproven because of something proven.

A theory is a projection of something that is not yet adequately proven through observation of experimentation.

Complete and utter failure.
You know absolutely nothing about science. Go back to high school (or Jr. High/Middle School, really; you should know basic science by then...) and learn how science actually works.


How can one be an evolutionist and not believe in an origin of life? That's literally saying, "I believe life can become other life, but not that non-life can become life." In other words, you're a creationist.

Nope. I just said that abiogenesis is not the same as the Theory of Evolution. It's a seperate issue. Certainly one worth discussing, but it's not a part of the ToE.

You also don't seem to understand what mutation is. A mutation is (forgive me if I don't go into much detail, or get a few details wrong. As I said, I am a History major, not a science major. I'm simply very interested in science.) an error in copying the genetic sequence in DNA. That's all it is. It just so happens that mutations are one of the major driving forces of evolution. The way that mutation factors into evolution (in multi-cellular organisms anyway, I mean, it's fairly obvious for unicellular organisms, no?) is that sometimes, this mutation occurs in a sex cell. And sometimes, that cell is one of the two used to create a new organism, which is then built entirely using the mutated DNA.

If this DNA codes for a trait that is beneficial, it is likely to help the organism survive and reproduce, and it will work its way into the general populace.

Now, if you add up enough of these mutations, eventually, you'll get an organism that's a completely different species from it's ancestor a thousand years ago! (Or however long, depending on multiple factors, but especially how fast the species reproduces.)


The term you're looking for when you say "mutation" is "micro-evolution," which is just a silly idea in and of itself-- there is no true distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The only people who make such a distinction are fools like Kent Hovind.

Seriously. Learn a bit of science from people other than Kent Hovind or Michael Behe. Then come back and debate us.

Complete and utter failure.
You know absolutely nothing about science. Go back to high school (or Jr. High/Middle School, really; you should know basic science by then...) and learn how science actually works.



Nope. I just said that abiogenesis is not the same as the Theory of Evolution. It's a seperate issue. Certainly one worth discussing, but it's not a part of the ToE.

You also don't seem to understand what mutation is. A mutation is (forgive me if I don't go into much detail, or get a few details wrong. As I said, I am a History major, not a science major. I'm simply very interested in science.) an error in copying the genetic sequence in DNA. That's all it is. It just so happens that mutations are one of the major driving forces of evolution. The way that mutation factors into evolution (in multi-cellular organisms anyway, I mean, it's fairly obvious for unicellular organisms, no?) is that sometimes, this mutation occurs in a sex cell. And sometimes, that cell is one of the two used to create a new organism, which is then built entirely using the mutated DNA.

If this DNA codes for a trait that is beneficial, it is likely to help the organism survive and reproduce, and it will work its way into the general populace.

Now, if you add up enough of these mutations, eventually, you'll get an organism that's a completely different species from it's ancestor a thousand years ago! (Or however long, depending on multiple factors, but especially how fast the species reproduces.)


The term you're looking for when you say "mutation" is "micro-evolution," which is just a silly idea in and of itself-- there is no true distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The only people who make such a distinction are fools like Kent Hovind.

Seriously. Learn a bit of science from people other than Kent Hovind or Michael Behe. Then come back and debate us.
A mistake in your theory is that all mutation is beneficial.

A creationist is someone who believes life was created by a Creator.

Personally, I believe in the Biblical creation story, but technically a creationist could believe in life being sparked by God (a Creator) and evolution followed.

A mistake in your theory is that all mutation is beneficial.

that is not either stated or implied in that post, or in the theory of evolution. but you do acknowledge that some mutations are beneficial, right?

no, the point is that the precise origins of life are not directly relevant to the theory of evolution. if the theory of evolution works, then future life would evolve in branching lineages of common descent from lifeforms that were specially created by god today.
So, you're a creationist.


i don't see how that reading is possible given what i wrote. but even if it were a reasonable reading, you would then just be equivocating on what a creationist is. previously you had been using it as denying the possibility of evolution, while my above formulation explicitly opens itself to evolution. so the question is, which is it? what do you mean by creationist?

You said the following:



To summarize:
1. Mutation doesn't need evidence, because mutation can be directly observed.
2. Mutation proves evolution because evolution is based on mutation, even though evolution cannot be directly observed.

You're saying I should believe in something unproven because of something proven.

Look up the word "Causation" in that dictionary site I linked earlier. I think it'll help.

A mistake in your theory is that all mutation is beneficial.Nobody ever said mutations are always beneficial. But those that aren't will lead to the individual's death and the mutation is not carried into subsequent generations. So only the beneficial mutations make it. Evolution happens when the randomness in mutation meets the circumstances of the respective individual's life.

A mistake in your theory is that all mutation is beneficial.

Where was that said ?
Aside from which - your idea of what a scientific theory is is indeed quite incorrect. Please look up what it actually is, otherwise people will mock you.

A mistake in your theory is that all mutation is beneficial.

If this DNA codes for a trait that is beneficial, it is likely to help the organism survive and reproduce, and it will work its way into the general populace.

He didn't say all mutation is beneficial

A creationist is someone who believes life was created by a Creator.

Personally, I believe in the Biblical creation story, but technically a creationist could believe in life being sparked by God (a Creator) and evolution followed.Why do you believe thus? Because you were raised to?

A creationist is someone who believes life was created by a Creator.

Personally, I believe in the Biblical creation story, but technically a creationist could believe in life being sparked by God (a Creator) and evolution followed.

but you think there are reasons to believe the latter view is wrong and therefore must think that it should not be held. so what was the point you were trying to make by calling me a creationist? also, getting back to those dinosaurs with feathers...

Why do you believe thus? Because you were raised to?
Because I decided it for myself, it agrees with my religious beliefs, and since I have seen no reason to believe otherwise.

Because I decided it for myself, it agrees with my religious beliefs, and since I have seen no reason to believe otherwise.What is the source of your religious beliefs? Becoming a creationist is not something someone decides for oneself. What did you study? What is your expertise?

What is the source of your religious beliefs? Becoming a creationist is not something someone decides for oneself. What did you study? What is your expertise?
How can I not decide what I believe for myself?

So... because it agrees with what you already believed? Well that's an incredibly stupid way to decide what to believe. The intelligent way is to look at the evidence and see if it agrees with the idea, and, I'm sorry buddy, but all evidence indicates that Genesis is wrong.
Not in my experience.

Because I decided it for myself, it agrees with my religious beliefs, and since I have seen no reason to believe otherwise.

So... because it agrees with what you already believed? Well that's an incredibly stupid way to decide what to believe. The intelligent way is to look at the evidence and see if it agrees with the idea, and, I'm sorry buddy, but all evidence indicates that Genesis is wrong.

How can I not decide what I believe for myself?You can make that decision. But not without having sources. What are your sources?

If Creationism shouldn't be allowed in school, then so shouldn't Evolution. Neither theory, in a scientific sense, has more proof than the other. Even if you don't want Creationism taught, you can hardly support how the Government publicly funds the teaching of evolution, an unproven idea that has absolutely no discernible evidence beyond wild and conflicting theories.

Only one of those two things is a theory in the scientific sense. Further, as soon as you start talking about "proof" in the context of science, it becomes evident that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Further, the fact that you declare evolution to have "absolutely no discernible evidence" is terribly funny. Quick question: are you identical to your parents? No? Are they identical to their parents? No? How 'bout the generation before that, and before that, and before that - all identical? No? Ta-da! There's some discernible evidence!

Also, to respond quickly to about half a dozen of your later posts - evolution is not concerned with the origins of life. It doesn't matter if life was caused by magic, God, invisible pink unicorns, random chance, whatever. Evolution only concerns what happened after that.

Not in my experience.You have experience concerning Genesis? Of what kind? Do you travel in time?

Not in my experience.

So you believe Genesis based upon your ignorance of the scientific theory and the absence of any evidence supporting NEC?

You've already stated that Creationism has no evidence for it.

Absolutely not. Schools are about teaching legitimate different ideas, not fairy tales disguise as science.

Not in my experience.

Which part are you saying you disagree with, the part about "the intelligent way to form ideas is by basing them on evidence" or the part about how the evidence contradicts Genesis?

If it's the part about forming ideas on evidence, then there's simply no hope for you.

If it's about evidence in relation to Genesis, how bout, for a start, that Genesis claims that plants existed before the Sun did?

ok good, so it is possible in principle for a lineage of things that we would classify as reptiles to have mutations which result in their descendants having feathers. now, would you agree that it is possible in principle that a group of these feathered descendants could have mutations that could allow them to take up climbing trees?

...?

A mistake in your theory is that all mutation is beneficial.

A mistake in your reading comprehension is that you thought anyone said this. What was said was that BENEFICIAL mutations were likely to be passed on, and ones that are not beneficial were likely NOT to be passed on, because harmful mutations would likely end up killing the organism.

Not in my experience.

So you were there? You were present when god separated the water from the earth, and said let there be light? You were present when he created all of the animals, and then when he decided to make man out of dirt, and later when he decided to rip out man's rib and make woman? (Hey, wait, what was that about life not coming from a rock? What's mud again?)

You were there when he decided he'd messed up the first time, so he flooded it all out?

Because heck, that's what experience means.



Main Entry:
1ex·pe·ri·ence Listen to the pronunciation of 1experience
Pronunciation:
\ik-ˈspir-ē-ən(t)s\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin experientia act of trying, from experient-, experiens, present participle of experiri to try, from ex- + -periri (akin to periculum attempt) — more at fear
Date:
14th century

1 a: direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b: the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation2 a: practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity b: the length of such participation <has 10 years' experience in the job>3 a: the conscious events that make up an individual life b: the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally4: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through5: the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience


Really, one can be a Christian and have some common sense. I manage it.

Absolutely not. Schools are about teaching legitimate different ideas, not fairy tales disguise as science.
*applauds* Agreed there, no matter how much I disagree with you on other things...

I think Creationism should be taught in school. If you give two points of view it will force kids to think and form an opinion. I think that that is the most important part of school, the chance to form your own opinions. I am not against Evolution per-say, but believe in a middle ground.

You can teach creationism in school but not in a science class. Put it into a comparative religion course and force children to grapple with the ideas there. It's not a science as there is no verifiable and reproducible theory that can be tested. It's based on faith, and that sure as shit isn't science.

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either. So why don't you support creationism being taught? However if you don't support either being taught, I apologize.

If you don't believe in evolution than I hope you never take antibiotics ever again when you are sick. After all, they are a product of evolutionary science at work.

Since it isn't science, why would they teach it in a science class?

I believe that if we teach one kind of creationism in class, say Abrahamic, then we should also teach another, like an Eastern creation story, or an African one.
It should also be kept out of science classes, personally I believe as far as science class should go on the whole Evolution, Big Bang theory etc is to explain it to the kids, state that it is currently the favoured scientific origins, but that doesn't mean that we have all the facts.
Then have a religious studies that actually does that: studies religions, plural. Put forth the scientific view point, then proceed to teach them about many different cultures & religions origins stories.
That way they aren't told "This Is Right", they are made aware of differing points of view - both tolerance promoting & thought provoking - and allowed to make their own decisions on the matter.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

I'm not going to read this entire thread.

The answer is rather simple. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains aspects of nature. Creationism is a religious viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind."

One can believe in creation and evolution -- evolution is believed by many to be caused by God.

Science is appropriately taught in schools and evolution is a vital part of science curriculum.

Creationism cannot be taught as science because it is a religious viewpoint and teaching it as science violates the separation of Church and State.

For those interested, read Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html), 482 U.S. 578 (1987). (summary (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513/))

Not to mention the origin of the position itself. The idea is essentially, "I can't explain this, so I'm going to stop trying and just say God did it."

In ages past that line of thinking leads to burning people, wars and sacrificing virgins to make a dragon spit the sun back out... it's nice to be mostly past that isn't it :D

If life can derive from non-life in the past, why hasn't it happened more than once? Why don't we still observe that happening now?

Because the conditions aren't right and the probability of it happening is way too small.

I think it should be taught in context. So should lots of things about religion. I don't see the harm of presenting creationisim as a part of history, in the same way we teach ancient Greek or Roman ideas.

It would still be class.
So no students would care and the teacher would be annoyed, having to make up a new lesson plan, tests, and such.

I think it should be taught in context. So should lots of things about religion. I don’t see the harm of presenting creationisim as a part of history, in the same way we teach ancient Greek or Roman ideas.
Quite.

I get wary when people start saying that this or that information should on no count be presented to children.

I don’t see why children shouldn’t learn about creationism — in its Christian, Norse, Hindu, etc., forms — in the appropriate classroom, or why science teachers shouldn’t acknowledge the existence of creationist claims and clearly explain why such claims are unscientific, et al.

IIRC, that’s what teachers in the UK are advised to do.

awww, you guys scared 'em off

Quite.

I get wary when people start saying that this or that information should on no count be presented to children.

I don’t see why children shouldn’t learn about creationism — in its Christian, Norse, Hindu, etc., forms — in the appropriate classroom, or why science teachers shouldn’t acknowledge the existence of creationist claims and clearly explain why such claims are unscientific, et al.

IIRC, that’s what teachers in the UK are advised to do.

It doesn't belong in science class. In comparative religions class, yes.

Quite.

I get wary when people start saying that this or that information should on no count be presented to children.

I don’t see why children shouldn’t learn about creationism — in its Christian, Norse, Hindu, etc., forms — in the appropriate classroom, or why science teachers shouldn’t acknowledge the existence of creationist claims and clearly explain why such claims are unscientific, et al.

IIRC, that’s what teachers in the UK are advised to do.

Looking past the fact it has no place in the science classroom; the problem is the teachers. Some would do it as you suggest and face complaints about Christian bashing. Worst there were be some that would use the opportunity to start proselytizing the kids.

For those interested, I've just spent the last 2 hours or so watching a rather excellent program on the Dover case. Here's the link. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html)
It includes background information(both on the lead up to the case and on the science behind evolution), interviews, reenactments of various parts of the case. I very much recommend it. (And it's broken up into 12 chapters, so you don't have to watch it all at once.)

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

Your poll says "creationism in school" or something like that, which is fine, since i spent all of my 5th grade extra time brushing up on worldwide mythos and legends, which is solely where creationism belongs. It's okay in the right setting.
In science class? Since it's not even close to anything scientific, it doesn't belong there. Not even as a control group o.9

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they.

I'm assuming you're looking for a more sophisticated answer than "No, no, are you batshit insane, no, no FUCKING way, no."

Unless you want Pastafarianism taught at school, I repeat, NO.

If 'creationism' is going to be taught in science classes then potions, transfiguration, divination and defense against the dark arts should also be taught...

If 'creationism' is going to be taught in science classes then potions, transfiguration, divination and defense against the dark arts should also be taught...

That would be awesome.

If 'creationism' is going to be taught in science classes then potions, transfiguration, divination and defense against the dark arts should also be taught...

:p

If 'creationism' is going to be taught in science classes then potions, transfiguration, divination and defense against the dark arts should also be taught...

But is Snape FRIEND OR FOE?

http://trevor.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/republicans_for_voldemort.png

If it's about evidence in relation to Genesis, how bout, for a start, that Genesis claims that plants existed before the Sun did?
If you actually read the Bible, it says there was a light source and that plants had water. Waiting one day for the Sun, even if no light source was available, is not a problem, and to imply it would be is rather silly.

Unless you want Pastafarianism taught at school, I repeat, NO.

Hey, i'm all over that shit. I'd do it.
Especially the "vestigal appendage" class and the transubstantiation lessons.
*nods emphatically*

And you know people shouldn't associate the idea of silliness with anything in the bible. Especially two different accounts in the same book about how everything began.
And that second account is...?

I don't know where you're getting your Deuteronomy quote, but that's not how it looks in my Bible.

Deuteronomy 32:35 - To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

If you actually read the Bible, it says there was a light source and that plants had water. Waiting one day for the Sun, even if no light source was available, is not a problem, and to imply it would be is rather silly.

And you know people shouldn't associate the idea of silliness with anything in the bible. Especially two different accounts in the same book about how everything began.
Silliness is Mine, and retribution, In due time their wit will slip; For the day of their solemnity is near, And the impending japes are hastening upon them.'

And that second account is...?

gen 1 vs gen 2

so about those feathered reptiles...

gen 1 vs gen 2

so about those feathered reptiles...
I only see the one account, in Genesis 1, which Genesis 2 elaborates on.

How does the Bible explain the time periods in the context of Dinosaurs,carbon dating and the development of the homo brain?

I only see the one account, in Genesis 1, which Genesis 2 elaborates on.

Hmmm an elaboration that screws up the order ... intresting

And that second account is...?In there. Ever read it?

I don't know where you're getting your Deuteronomy quote, but that's not how it looks in my Bible.
Since you asked ...
http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/32-35.htm
Gotta love translations.

Leave a tip or pay it forward. :)

I only see the one account, in Genesis 1, which Genesis 2 elaborates on.

reading closer would probably help, as that reading is fundamentally unsupportable in either the original or any standard translation.

in any case, getting back to our earlier discussion about reptilian things with feathers, is it possible for them, having already gained said feathers, to take up climbing trees due to some other mutations?

I only see the one account, in Genesis 1, which Genesis 2 elaborates on.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

I only see the one account, in Genesis 1, which Genesis 2 elaborates on.

Even though the events happen in different orders?