NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the creationists in the other thread didn't seem to pay attention when I brought this up, I'll bring it up again: If the argument for teaching creationism in science is that we're supposed to teach different ideas, why not teach alternative ideas about night and day and the blue sky? I mean, the idea that molecules in the air scatter blue light more so than other light and as the earth rotates our area of the earth rotates away from being shone on by the sun's rays and rotates into it again, is just one point of view, right? How about we teach alternatively that the sky is a thick layer of cyan paint suspended in the air by invisible dragons blowing on it such that the force applied by the blowing cancels out the force of gravity on the paint, and that night and day are caused by microscopic fairies (surrounding the invisible dragons) lighting the cyan paint by glowing more or less in a sinusodal pattern depending on their position above the earth's surface and the time of the year, and that the stars are just a few of the fairies glowing (brightly) when others don't?

See, creationists, there's a time to look at different ideas and there's a time to consider that some ideas just don't belong in a science class, even if they sound kinda scientific. I can't help but think that for the most part creationists are just people who were brainwashed by churches and are trying to rationalize the brainwashing. I remember when I was a little kid in summer school, the books the churches gave out refuted questions like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are only doubts the DEVIL fills your mind with"; obviously trying to scare people out of doubting, stifling skepticism, and I'm glad I saw through it, and knew that what was to really be feared was not some make-believe "devil" but the churches. They don't seem to want people to think about other religions. Schools, on the other hand, teach about different religions, such as doing comparisons of them in grade 8 social studies class, for example. Just an example of knowledge that churches seem to want to hide from people whereas schools want to give people, and want people to take. With differences like these, I don't want churches to poison schools. When priests start preaching evolution, maybe then I'll be a little more open to the idea of science teachers teaching creationism.

Like pounding your head against a wall of ignorance I see. No argument you use can change the minds of the willfully stupid. I admire your attempt though.

I actually kind of like that first explanation.

I actually kind of like that first explanation.

For some reason I've always like the answer to the question of why the sky is blue as, "If it was green, we wouldn't know when to stop mowing the lawn..."



Again, don't know why...

At least here churches don't rape schools with creationist tripe.

But they come back with "But it's the Bible!" nonsense.

When priests start preaching evolution, maybe then I'll be a little more open to the idea of science teachers teaching creationism.

This sounds great! It sounds like you made a great comparison, and a solid statement.

BUT....

The purpose of a science teacher is to teach the theories, and teach science. Not necessarily evolution as a default. The purpose of a Priest is exclusively about creationism. So while it is easier to present evolution as a theory, you can't ignore the creationists who believe in evolution and how that plays into science.

How about we teach alternatively that the sky is a thick layer of cyan paint suspended in the air by invisible dragons blowing on it such that the force applied by the blowing cancels out the force of gravity on the paint, and that night and day are caused by microscopic fairies (surrounding the invisible dragons) lighting the cyan paint by glowing more or less in a sinusodal pattern depending on their position above the earth's surface and the time of the year, and that the stars are just a few of the fairies glowing (brightly) when others don't?

You have an excellent point. Except, however, that this is a dried and done with argument. It's right. However, I have an entirely different take on creationism, and why it should be taught in schools, and it is NOT because we should express different ideas. I also dislike your obvious bias and inability to objectively view the situation. Keep your beliefs about God out of this, and only deal with the issue.

Yes, we shouldn't teach the mystical fairies in the sky. Why? Simple - it doesn't affect anything. This is a theory you thought up right now. Creationism, however, and religion in general, has had an enormous effect on the world and society. How many works of art have been inspired by stories about a greater being creating Earth? How many paintings, how many books? How much has this influenced our lives today? How much blood has been shed over these ideas (and variations of)? I'll answer that for you: a lot. To neglect such an important part of Humanity (85% of the world is religious according to the CIA World Factbook) would be like neglecting to mention the reasons for WWI or WWII, which are historical events that have had a huge impact on us. Or neglecting to mention the Homeric works, one of the first written works and oldest stories known to us. I could go on with analogies.

Of course, some people who like creationism want to have it in school, and have a dumb idea that "Oh, we should teach different ideas!" Well, they're just ignorant, and you're right.

However, I'd like you to come up with an analogy for my argument.

"Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church". : )

A better idea is to want equal time for science in church. If it is good teaching faith in science class why not science in sunday school

What I want to know is why does being of a certain religion or a preacher, priest or whatever give special credence to you're opinion? People sidestep carefully around religion and give special representation to the political or otherwise opinions of it's adherents and leaders. Why shouldn't the views of anyone be judged equally? I am against right-wing bigots and intolerant fools using religion as a buffer against criticism.

creationists who believe in evolution

:headbang: Contradiction, much?:headbang:

Of course creationism should be dealt with in school.

In Religious Education and/or Philosophy classes, that is...

Since the creationists in the other thread didn't seem to pay attention when I brought this up, I'll bring it up again: If the argument for teaching creationism in science is that we're supposed to teach different ideas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Since the creationists in the other thread didn't seem to pay attention when I brought this up, I'll bring it up again: If the argument for teaching creationism in science is that we're supposed to teach different ideas, why not teach alternative ideas about night and day and the blue sky? I mean, the idea that molecules in the air scatter blue light more so than other light and as the earth rotates our area of the earth rotates away from being shone on by the sun's rays and rotates into it again, is just one point of view, right? How about we teach alternatively that the sky is a thick layer of cyan paint suspended in the air by invisible dragons blowing on it such that the force applied by the blowing cancels out the force of gravity on the paint, and that night and day are caused by microscopic fairies (surrounding the invisible dragons) lighting the cyan paint by glowing more or less in a sinusodal pattern depending on their position above the earth's surface and the time of the year, and that the stars are just a few of the fairies glowing (brightly) when others don't?

See, creationists, there's a time to look at different ideas and there's a time to consider that some ideas just don't belong in a science class, even if they sound kinda scientific. I can't help but think that for the most part creationists are just people who were brainwashed by churches and are trying to rationalize the brainwashing. I remember when I was a little kid in summer school, the books the churches gave out refuted questions like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are only doubts the DEVIL fills your mind with"; obviously trying to scare people out of doubting, stifling skepticism, and I'm glad I saw through it, and knew that what was to really be feared was not some make-believe "devil" but the churches. They don't seem to want people to think about other religions. Schools, on the other hand, teach about different religions, such as doing comparisons of them in grade 8 social studies class, for example. Just an example of knowledge that churches seem to want to hide from people whereas schools want to give people, and want people to take. With differences like these, I don't want churches to poison schools. When priests start preaching evolution, maybe then I'll be a little more open to the idea of science teachers teaching creationism.

Schools are not supposed to teach ideas. They are supposed to convey knowledge.

Schools are not supposed to teach ideas. They are supposed to convey knowledge.

Says who?

Ideas and analytical thought should be at the centre of education in my opinion.

Schools are not supposed to teach ideas. They are supposed to convey knowledge.

Which is momumentally difficult to do.

To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.

Since I quoted Confucius, my post is now the Truth.

Well what's the difference between god and a teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) in relation to science?

Creationism has the potential to be truth. It should not be taught in schools, of course.. it can be talked about, but schools should teach things that we currently know as truths. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise, but I also have met some of the idiots that think Earth is 6000 years old...

Creationism has the potential to be truth. It should not be taught in schools, of course.. it can be talked about, but schools should teach things that we currently know as truths. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise, but I also have met some of the idiots that think Earth is 6000 years old...

Or what about those people who believe the Earth is flat (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LNC117UYsHs)?

No, he didn't. His "comparison" was an insult to our intelligence.

We all need to "insult our intelligence" from time to time.
Else it becomes rather dull and egotistic.

Since the creationists in the other thread didn't seem to pay attention when I brought this up, I'll bring it up again: If the argument for teaching creationism in science is that we're supposed to teach different ideas, why not teach alternative ideas about night and day and the blue sky? I mean, the idea that molecules in the air scatter blue light more so than other light and as the earth rotates our area of the earth rotates away from being shone on by the sun's rays and rotates into it again, is just one point of view, right? How about we teach alternatively that the sky is a thick layer of cyan paint suspended in the air by invisible dragons blowing on it such that the force applied by the blowing cancels out the force of gravity on the paint, and that night and day are caused by microscopic fairies (surrounding the invisible dragons) lighting the cyan paint by glowing more or less in a sinusodal pattern depending on their position above the earth's surface and the time of the year, and that the stars are just a few of the fairies glowing (brightly) when others don't?

See, creationists, there's a time to look at different ideas and there's a time to consider that some ideas just don't belong in a science class, even if they sound kinda scientific. I can't help but think that for the most part creationists are just people who were brainwashed by churches and are trying to rationalize the brainwashing. I remember when I was a little kid in summer school, the books the churches gave out refuted questions like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are only doubts the DEVIL fills your mind with"; obviously trying to scare people out of doubting, stifling skepticism, and I'm glad I saw through it, and knew that what was to really be feared was not some make-believe "devil" but the churches. They don't seem to want people to think about other religions. Schools, on the other hand, teach about different religions, such as doing comparisons of them in grade 8 social studies class, for example. Just an example of knowledge that churches seem to want to hide from people whereas schools want to give people, and want people to take. With differences like these, I don't want churches to poison schools. When priests start preaching evolution, maybe then I'll be a little more open to the idea of science teachers teaching creationism.

You are not taking our position seriously. When you start taking our position seriously, and accept the possibility of the universe having been created by an omnipotent higher power of some kind, instead of continuing to flap your jaw about how we're supposedly these "monumentally stupid idiots" or "unscientific" or "brainwashed/brainwashing religious nuts" and things like that, THEN I'll become more open minded to the concept of evolution.

This sounds great! It sounds like you made a great comparison

No, he didn't. His "comparison" was an insult to our intelligence.

I don't want churches to poison schools.

Churches AREN'T "poisoning" schools; public schools are poisoning the children of the world with the LIE that they came from monkeys or reptiles or frogs or fish or jellyfish or amoebas, etc.

And no, I'm not against education, so don't go around saying that I am. What I am against is all this creationist-bashing that goes on here in NSG. Even if you don't believe in creation, then AT THE VERY LEAST stop looking down your noses at us for not subscribing to Darwin's fairy tale of evolution.

Well what's the difference between god and a teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) in relation to science?

The difference is this:

The teapot was created. God was NOT created; He has always existed and always will.

(*follows your link and sees a link for "Flying Spaghetti Monster"*) lol

(*follows link to the Flying Spaghetti Monster; reads the following quote from Bobby Henderson:*)

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

He sets forth "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" in contra-distinction to "Intelligent Design", which automatically defines his "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" as UNintelligent Design.

In other words, he's saying that the "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" means that the universe designed itself, with no higher force guiding it, and it all took form and shape just by accident, on a sheer stroke of luck.

If you think I believe THAT, you're out of your (insert your own favorite cuss-word here) mind.

We all need to "insult our intelligence" from time to time.
Else it becomes rather dull and egotistic.

If you mean insult our own intelligence or that of those like minded to ourselves, as opposed to that of people who disagree with us, then QFT.

The difference is this:

The teapot was created. God was NOT created; He has always existed and always will.

(*follows your link and sees a link for "Flying Spaghetti Monster"*) lol

Oh, really? Which God then? Because whichever it is, seems quite unwilling to reveal himself!

If you mean insult our own intelligence or that of those like minded to ourselves, as opposed to that of people who disagree with us, then QFT.

I believe that is what I meant.

I also tend to laugh at myself quite often. Religiously in fact... HA!

You argument is pretty null, for a easy to point out reason.

The sky is blue, and we know why because it can be tested and confirmed and observed. Evolution, however, is unproven, cannot be tested and has never been observed.

You argument is pretty null, for a easy to point out reason.

The sky is blue, and we know why because it can be tested and confirmed and observed. Evolution, however, is unproven, cannot be tested and has never been observed.

Nothing in science can ever be proven, by definition; evolution has been tested in more ways than I could even count; evolution has most certainly been observed. Between the fossil record and lab experiments demonstrating speciation firsthand, there is simply no way one could make those assertions except from complete ignorance (or, I suppose, outright dishonesty).

Evolution, however, is unproven, cannot be tested and has never been observed.
Nothing in science is proven. Yes it can. Ever heard of the E. coli tests? Drosophila. Nylon bug. HeLa. I can go on, but it's been observed. You are speaking from ignorance here.

Edit: Oh, and the sky isn't even technically blue. It's clear. We see blue because that's the light that makes it through*.

*Technically it's actually a shade of violet under most conditions, but we see it as blue because we don't pick up that shade very well.

Well what's the difference between god and a teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) in relation to science?

The teapot has measurable dimensions, mass, and holds water. It is commonly available and millions of people have seen one.

Being a creationist myself, I think its a bit unfair to be calling people who believe in the Biblical God or any God for that matter to be lunatic, stupid, or ridiculous. Our beliefs, (or mine anyway) have been given some remarkable thought and I'm among the last to just follow something without questioning it first. So to say that creationists don't think is a fallacy, because I'm a living example.

Of course, when it comes to schooling I wholeheartedly agree that creationism is not science. You can't test God, he is therefore not scientific. But then, neither is evolution. The theory of evolution relies on the facts that support it, so whilst the facts may currently point to an understanding that we evolved from whatever some few million years ago, it's impossible to tell with certainty that the theory is necessarily accurate in accordance to what actually happened. Remember, the scientific process demands that a hypothesis be considered true until it can otherwise be proven false. I mean, suppose some findings were to be found tomorrow that completely disproved the theory of evolution as we know it--anyone with the understanding that we know it actually happened would find themselves reeling.

What we would be better to teach our children, is the evidence that supports either side. Make mention of both the theories of evolution and creationism in how they relate to these evidences, and allow students to draw their own conclusion as to what they choose to believe in. Of course if everyone finds it agreeable, a separate class that actually tackles theories such as evolution, creationism, the flying spaghetti monster if you really wish (although it probably wouldn't qualify to be included given its lack of actual believers), et cetera could be created, presenting only the arguments of each to allow for an impartial curriculum to form.

I think the concerns of those who believe in creationism fear that teaching evolution is if it were proven can indoctrinate people into believing a false (according to them) interpretation of the evidence. Likewise evolutionists fear the same, so we share a few more things than either side would necessarily realize. What would be good to establish, is the fundamental reason for schooling itself. Are we going to teach our children truth, or the facts as we can verify them from sources that aren't in dispute? Since it seems that truth cannot be agreed upon, and most sources for or against evolution, creationism, whatever have been brought into dispute with regards to their accuracy, I make my case for a system that incorporates both.

[QUOTE=In other words, he's saying that the "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" means that the universe designed itself, with no higher force guiding it, and it all took form and shape just by accident, on a sheer stroke of luck.[/QUOTE]

The common mistake here is assuming that there is design inherent in the universe because of its complexity. There is not a single form out of a billion in which the universe could exist; should other random events have changed its course, it would still exist in another shape. Creationists often look at the end product and assume that nothing so complex could happen randomly, but the end product is exactly that--the end. There was no blueprint to follow, no specific order of steps. It is no more plausible to suppose an intelligent designer created the universe than it is to look at a newborn baby and suppose that, rather than growing organically in the womb, each part of the baby was carefully constructed and sculpted by a doctor.

At the very heart of the matter, I think, is the idea that science is about asking questions. Science is about observing, testing, recording--and these principles cannot be applied to creationism. To say "God made the Universe" is to say "Stop looking." There is nowhere else to go--there is no test to carry out to explore even the possibility of an intelligent designer. Asking science to accept creationism is asking science to stop searching and questioning, and that is counter to the very foundation of science.

At the very heart of the matter, I think, is the idea that science is about asking questions. Science is about observing, testing, recording--and these principles cannot be applied to creationism. To say "God made the Universe" is to say "Stop looking." There is nowhere else to go--there is no test to carry out to explore even the possibility of an intelligent designer. Asking science to accept creationism is asking science to stop searching and questioning, and that is counter to the very foundation of science.

Not always, there are plenty of creationists who are willing to address the needs of finding scientific answers for questions like 'Is there a God?', and do so with careful deliberation to actually address the scientific method.

www.creationontheweb.com/ is one organization that springs to mind for me.

What we would be better to teach our children, is the evidence that supports either side.

"Either" side ? Do you seriously believe it is a matter of "either" creationism OR evolution ? That if one shows evolution is wrong creationism must be right ?
Because that would be more than silly - it would be moronic.

Seriously - I agree that criticism on the theory of evolution should be present in classes on evolution, but fail to see why that would be a reason to allow creationism in.

"Either" side ? Do you seriously believe it is a matter of "either" creationism OR evolution ? That if one shows evolution is wrong creationism must be right ?
Because that would be more than silly - it would be moronic.

Seriously - I agree that criticism on the theory of evolution should be present in classes on evolution, but fail to see why that would be a reason to allow creationism in.

I'm obviously talking about Christian creationism in this example, where the world was created in six days. Of course, the class that I suggest would be something that incorporates beliefs and values, and would address the beliefs that are most popular including creationism. Because to create a beliefs and values class that omits well, some of the most widely-believed in theories would be pointless.

How about we teach alternatively that the sky is a thick layer of cyan paint suspended in the air by invisible dragons blowing on it such that the force applied by the blowing cancels out the force of gravity on the paint
You're an idiot, everyone with half a brain knows that there's only one invisible sky dragon, and it's not responsible for the sky being blue. It is however responsible for eating the sun every night, that's why we have to sacrifice virgins to make it throw it back up again.

The teapot was created. God was NOT created; He has always existed and always will.

How can you say for sure whether the teapot was created or not? I mean if it's in orbit so far away and can't be detected it may well have been there for all time (if it exists).

I mean, suppose some findings were to be found tomorrow that completely disproved the theory of evolution as we know it--anyone with the understanding that we know it actually happened would find themselves reeling.

That's how science works, I'm pretty sure the scientific world had absolute faith in Galilean transformations until 1905.

You're an idiot, everyone with half a brain knows that there's only one invisible sky dragon, and it's not responsible for the sky being blue. It is however responsible for eating the sun every night, that's why we have to sacrifice virgins to make it throw it back up again.

Ah, the nightly virgin sacrifice...getting even the saddest guys laid since the fourth reign of Taldor the Unbearable...

I'm obviously talking about Christian creationism in this example, where the world was created in six days. Of course, the class that I suggest would be something that incorporates beliefs and values, and would address the beliefs that are most popular including creationism. Because to create a beliefs and values class that omits well, some of the most widely-believed in theories would be pointless.

I agree that the Bible and its derivative philosophies deserve a place in a class on comparative religion, or on morality or even social history.

But why does that mean it should be taught side by side with the theory of evolution ?

I agree that the Bible and its derivative philosophies deserve a place in a class on comparative religion, or on morality or even social history. How does it deserve that?

But why does that mean it should be taught side by side with the theory of evolution ?Of course not. Are you kidding?

How does it deserve that?

Over 30% of the worlds population adheres to some form of Bible derived morality. In Europe the churches had quite a lot of influence on history.
True - if Christianity should be praised for all of that is a good question -but not teaching it would be silly. Kinda like not teaching about Hitler[1] in history class, because he "does not deserve attention".

Of course not. Are you kidding?
No, asking. Creationists seem to believe that evolution and creationism are somehow comparable - or that since one can criticise evolution one must allow creationism in classrooms. I disagree with the first and find the second a non sequitur. So I want one of them to actually explain it to me.

[1] Yay - Godwin !

A better idea is to want equal time for science in church. If it is good teaching faith in science class why not science in sunday school
*rofl*

Since the creationists in the other thread didn't seem to pay attention when I brought this up, I'll bring it up again: If the argument for teaching creationism in science is that we're supposed to teach different ideas, why not teach alternative ideas about night and day and the blue sky? I mean, the idea that molecules in the air scatter blue light more so than other light and as the earth rotates our area of the earth rotates away from being shone on by the sun's rays and rotates into it again, is just one point of view, right? How about we teach alternatively that the sky is a thick layer of cyan paint suspended in the air by invisible dragons blowing on it such that the force applied by the blowing cancels out the force of gravity on the paint, and that night and day are caused by microscopic fairies (surrounding the invisible dragons) lighting the cyan paint by glowing more or less in a sinusodal pattern depending on their position above the earth's surface and the time of the year, and that the stars are just a few of the fairies glowing (brightly) when others don't?

See, creationists, there's a time to look at different ideas and there's a time to consider that some ideas just don't belong in a science class, even if they sound kinda scientific. I can't help but think that for the most part creationists are just people who were brainwashed by churches and are trying to rationalize the brainwashing. I remember when I was a little kid in summer school, the books the churches gave out refuted questions like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are only doubts the DEVIL fills your mind with"; obviously trying to scare people out of doubting, stifling skepticism, and I'm glad I saw through it, and knew that what was to really be feared was not some make-believe "devil" but the churches. They don't seem to want people to think about other religions. Schools, on the other hand, teach about different religions, such as doing comparisons of them in grade 8 social studies class, for example. Just an example of knowledge that churches seem to want to hide from people whereas schools want to give people, and want people to take. With differences like these, I don't want churches to poison schools. When priests start preaching evolution, maybe then I'll be a little more open to the idea of science teachers teaching creationism.

Who the hell was the idiot who wrote those books? :headbang:
I am a Christian, and I can tell you: the one who has no doubt on his own faith is not faithful any more. He is a routine-believer, someone who does not belive because he doesn't even ask himself: "Am I doing the right thing?" anymore.
This is something on which my priests have always been pointing their fingers, warning their parishioners from such a freezing in faith.

Evolution and Creation are similiar in the following senses...

1. Neither can be properly tested, creation because it requires action of a being and evolution because it rely's on random chance which can never be scientifically reproduced.

2. Neither can be observed. No one was around while God created the earth, no one was around when Apes turned into humans.

3. Both have fundamental religious connotations. There is a God so worship him, there is no God your an idiot if you worship one.

4. Both only rely on indirect evidence - God said so in the bible, using these set of assumptions and this method we come to this being X years old, which in relation to other items means that Y turned into Z at around X years.

5. Both could be considered together the only options for the existance of the world. Either some being created it or some lucky throw of the dices resulted in us. I see no other option.

However I do see differences and there are some things that I do wish to counter

Evolution and Creation are different in these senses...

1. The World was created, what's it's purpose? If anything creationism says that things are in the world for a reason and with our minds we can go and look at "why" and wonder at the creation of God. Evolution says "That's just the way it happened, random chance." If anything there is no where to go after this.

2. Evolution is scientifically popular, but creationism isn't despite "design" seemingly inherint throughout the worlds systems

3. Creation implies there is a whole realm of existance that we can't comprehend. Evolution doesn't

What I really can't see is that with string theory derivitives require at least 10 different dimensions most of which is outside of our perception... which certainly hints at realms of existance of which we can'y perceive

Evolution and Creation are similiar in the following senses...

1. Neither can be properly tested, creation because it requires action of a being and evolution because it rely's on random chance which can never be scientifically reproduced.

2. Neither can be observed. No one was around while God created the earth, no one was around when Apes turned into humans.

3. Both have fundamental religious connotations. There is a God so worship him, there is no God your an idiot if you worship one.

4. Both only rely on indirect evidence - God said so in the bible, using these set of assumptions and this method we come to this being X years old, which in relation to other items means that Y turned into Z at around X years.

5. Both could be considered together the only options for the existance of the world. Either some being created it or some lucky throw of the dices resulted in us. I see no other option.

Rubbish. Evolution can be tested as well as observed, randomness does not preclude testing or observation. Evolution has no whatsoever religious connotation. Evolution does not rely on indirect evidence, but on the mechanisms of genetics and the availability of the remains of long gone organisms, that's pretty direct evidence. Evolution has nothing to do at all with creation as such, it has do with how species change and how life came to existence in the first place. Evolution is not an ideological counterpart to creationism, it is a mechanism in real nature.

Evolution and Creation are similiar in the following senses...

1. Neither can be properly tested, creation because it requires action of a being and evolution because it rely's on random chance which can never be scientifically reproduced.

You can always test aspects of it. If the theory of evolution is correct, one expects to find X. Does one ? Yes ? Point for evolution. Doesn't one ? Hmm. Is that explainable or is it indicative of a fundamental flaw ?
The same thing goes for creationism. That one cannot test one aspect, does not mean cannot test anything at all.

And behold - creationism tends to fail. Tends to fail everything in fact.

Example:
Either a few dozen independent methods to determine the ages of the earth, the solar system, universe and so on are all completely and utterly wrong and the fact they all produce answers within the same order of magnitude is nothing but coincidence OR the universe is not 6000 years old and the earth is not older than the sun.

I admit creationism does sound nice, but it simply does not seem to correspond to reality at all...

Creationism in a science class is pointless. However, I do think people need to learn more about what science is in schools, and perhaps the science class is not the best place for this either. Science is the building of models on the fundamental structure of the world through application of a rigid system of observation and inductive inference. Acquiring an explanation as to what this means, where it can be applied and why we need to know about it is perhaps an even more important lesson for kids to learn than anything encapsulated within our current scientific models, and yet it is something that is glossed over with barely a nod and a wink in our schools.

I would be highly in favour of the Philosophy of Science being a course within the educational curriculum from a reasonably early age, perhaps as part of a more general Thinking Studies subject. It is here that discussion of why Creationism is Not Science would take place, as well as why people nonetheless choose to acknowledge ideas that are unscientific in their world view (which is something that no non-scientist can explain and no pure scientist can understand in our current education system).

For some reason I've always like the answer to the question of why the sky is blue as, "If it was green, we wouldn't know when to stop mowing the lawn..."



Again, don't know why...You're telling me you've never seen a green sky before? You seriously missed out, dude.

I've read some of the arguments presented, and have come up with the following solution.

1. Create an anthropology class specifically to look at beliefs and values of people around the world.
2. Teach the theory of evolution as scientifically based, presenting the arguments for and against (scientific and philosophical).
3. Teach the theory of creationism as an 'alternative' belief, and present the arguments for and against (scientific and philosophical).
4. Teach other theories that are popularlly believed in, and present the arguements for and against (scientific and philosophical).
5. ???
6. PROFIT.

"Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church". : )

LOL

Evolution and Creation are similiar in the following senses...

1. Neither can be properly tested, creation because it requires action of a being and evolution because it rely's on random chance which can never be scientifically reproduced.
Haven't had any science classes then, huh

2. Neither can be observed. No one was around while God created the earth, no one was around when Apes turned into humans.
Apes didn't turn into humans, and the Theory of Evolution makes no such claim

3. Both have fundamental religious connotations. There is a God so worship him, there is no God your an idiot if you worship one.
That isn't a tenet of evolution, merely your assumpotion about people who support it

4. Both only rely on indirect evidence - God said so in the bible, using these set of assumptions and this method we come to this being X years old, which in relation to other items means that Y turned into Z at around X years.
How does the age of the earth have anythin g to do with evolution?

5. Both could be considered together the only options for the existance of the world. Either some being created it or some lucky throw of the dices resulted in us. I see no other option.
Simply because you don't see one, doesn't it doesn't exist

However I do see differences and there are some things that I do wish to counter

Evolution and Creation are different in these senses...

1. The World was created, what's it's purpose? If anything creationism says that things are in the world for a reason and with our minds we can go and look at "why" and wonder at the creation of God. Evolution says "That's just the way it happened, random chance." If anything there is no where to go after this.
the Theory of Evolution does not state that there is no god

2. Evolution is scientifically popular, but creationism isn't despite "design" seemingly inherint throughout the worlds systems
popular?

3. Creation implies there is a whole realm of existance that we can't comprehend. Evolution doesn't
and why should it?

What I really can't see is that with string theory derivitives require at least 10 different dimensions most of which is outside of our perception... which certainly hints at realms of existance of which we can'y perceive
So? what does this have to do with ToE?

Yes, we shouldn't teach the mystical fairies in the sky. Why? Simple - it doesn't affect anything. This is a theory you thought up right now. Creationism, however, and religion in general, has had an enormous effect on the world and society.
Excellent point. But the original argument, I think, was against creationism in _science class_. Teaching creationism in history or anthro classes makes sense, but it isn't science, so don't teach it in science class.

I've read some of the arguments presented, and have come up with the following solution.

1. Create an anthropology class specifically to look at beliefs and values of people around the world.
2. Teach the theory of evolution as scientifically based, presenting the arguments for and against (scientific and philosophical).
3. Teach the theory of creationism as an 'alternative' belief, and present the arguments for and against (scientific and philosophical).
4. Teach other theories that are popularlly believed in, and present the arguements for and against (scientific and philosophical).
5. ???
6. PROFIT.
Why, hello there, fellow idealist! Yes, we should introduce as many ideas as possible, if even just for practice in critical thinking. But you can't teach everything. My own school has had some arguments over English classes with some cultures and their writing being under-represented. But the problem is that to go into depth in any one culture is to neglect so many more. You have to pick and choose sometimes, even if that means not covering everything.

Excellent point. But the original argument, I think, was against creationism in _science class_. Teaching creationism in history or anthro classes makes sense, but it isn't science, so don't teach it in science class.


Why, hello there, fellow idealist! Yes, we should introduce as many ideas as possible, if even just for practice in critical thinking. But you can't teach everything. My own school has had some arguments over English classes with some cultures and their writing being under-represented. But the problem is that to go into depth in any one culture is to neglect so many more. You have to pick and choose sometimes, even if that means not covering everything.

Now whose puppet are you?

You're telling me you've never seen a green sky before? You seriously missed out, dude.

Ah, green flashes. I saw a photo of one once. Quite possibly the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

Excellent point. But the original argument, I think, was against creationism in _science class_. Teaching creationism in history or anthro classes makes sense, but it isn't science, so don't teach it in science class.
You're right, I missed that.

Schools are not supposed to teach ideas. They are supposed to convey knowledge.
Oh? So now we should completely abandon philosophy and art class? How about gym class and PE? Forget anything other than the hard sciences and history, too! Puhleaze, be serious, mista.

:headbang: Contradiction, much?:headbang:

Well, you know, it does happen. There is that theory you have to consider. Creationism and evolution can both be thought of together. The creator creates, and the nature still can evolve. It explains how matter and energy exist, as an alternative to or reason behind the big bang. Some folks generally try to comprehend WHERE everything came from, and they aren't satisfied with an explosion.

Rubbish. Evolution can be tested as well as observed, randomness does not preclude testing or observation. Evolution has no whatsoever religious connotation. Evolution does not rely on indirect evidence, but on the mechanisms of genetics and the availability of the remains of long gone organisms, that's pretty direct evidence. Evolution has nothing to do at all with creation as such, it has do with how species change and how life came to existence in the first place. Evolution is not an ideological counterpart to creationism, it is a mechanism in real nature.

Life came into existance how? Evolution has still to come up with a solution that passes Biology's most fundamental law... the law of Biogenesis. Genetic variation within a species or grouping of species is a far cry from "ape to man" evolution. I would like to submit that the term 'evolution' is broad. I'm taking about big-icture large scale reptile->bird transitions which, there is no direct evidence of.

You can always test aspects of it. If the theory of evolution is correct, one expects to find X. Does one ? Yes ? Point for evolution. Doesn't one ? Hmm. Is that explainable or is it indicative of a fundamental flaw ?
The same thing goes for creationism. That one cannot test one aspect, does not mean cannot test anything at all.

And behold - creationism tends to fail. Tends to fail everything in fact.

Example:
Either a few dozen independent methods to determine the ages of the earth, the solar system, universe and so on are all completely and utterly wrong and the fact they all produce answers within the same order of magnitude is nothing but coincidence OR the universe is not 6000 years old and the earth is not older than the sun.

I admit creationism does sound nice, but it simply does not seem to correspond to reality at all...

There is also evidence to suggest that a number of crucial elements in the atmosphere, particularily hydrogen where at the rate of net loss of Hydrogen and other gases would place the limit of the age to 10's of thousands. But anyway, at that point I would argue that trying to go back that far is just ludicrous, unless we know the conditions and exactly how the world has changed over that period any dating method is going to be grossly inaccurate when dealing with any time frame of millions or billions of years.

Haven't had any science classes then, huh


Apes didn't turn into humans, and the Theory of Evolution makes no such claim


That isn't a tenet of evolution, merely your assumpotion about people who support it


How does the age of the earth have anythin g to do with evolution?


Simply because you don't see one, doesn't it doesn't exist


the Theory of Evolution does not state that there is no god


popular?


and why should it?


So? what does this have to do with ToE?

Apes -> men: perhaps not directly but condensing the supposed "evolutionary tree" down there is certainly fairly common understanding that apes/monkeys or other such primates evolved into human beings. I'm saying there is no direct evidence to say such fundamental changes can occur.

Well, perhaps not directly and explicitly, but it's certainly implied that either there is no god, or if there was such a being did not interefere. Which certainly seems like religious tenets to me.

I was not talking about the age of the earth, I was merely trying to make a point about in indirect evidence styles used. I'll bullet point for you ...

1. Test (direct evidence) on Item X determines that Item X is Y years old.
2. Item Z according to the current understanding is Y+100 years
3. Item X appears and then disappears, Item Z appears afterwards.
4. Conclusion is drawn that X evolved into Z
5. Conclusion is not drawn on direct evidence but on a whole lot of indirect evidence and assumptions. ie. We don't know that X did transform into Z. it merely just "seems logical"

Um, no.. either it was designed or it wasn't. either it was the result of a directed inteligence, or it was the result of undirected chance. There are no other options. However you do somehow think you have one. I will be willing to hear it.

What you are saying Evolution is UNPopular?

Um, I was merely pointing out differences... I wasn't saying that evolution should, or creationism shouldn't. I was merely saying one does and the other doesn't.

See last point. These 10+ dimensions would be beyond our senses, beyond our ability to determine and even understand. Evolution IMO, does not take into consideration these extra dimensions. Where as creationism does.

Anyway my point... Is that I don't think that certain aspects of "evolution" are as scientific as they are made out to be.

Why is this even an issue anymore? Or gay marriage? Or Abortion? Or [insert issue that is seemingly controversial to a few people, but doesn't matter to most other intelligent human beings]?

Feh.

What you are saying Evolution is UNPopular?
Actually it is with many people, I just don't see what popularity has to do with it.
Anyway my point... Is that I don't think that certain aspects of "evolution" are as scientific as they are made out to be.
And what parts would be unscientific?

:headbang: Contradiction, much?:headbang:
No, it isn't. The theory of evolution and creationism deal with two totally different things. Evolution deals with explaining how life changes over time. Creationism deals with explaining how life/the universe began.
You are not taking our position seriously. When you start taking our position seriously, and accept the possibility of the universe having been created by an omnipotent higher power of some kind, instead of continuing to flap your jaw about how we're supposedly these "monumentally stupid idiots" or "unscientific" or "brainwashed/brainwashing religious nuts" and things like that, THEN I'll become more open minded to the concept of evolution.
When you learn that evolution has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE(if it was created at all) and learn about the scientific method and apply it to creationism, then you'll be taken seriously by science.


Churches AREN'T "poisoning" schools; public schools are poisoning the children of the world with the LIE that they came from monkeys or reptiles or frogs or fish or jellyfish or amoebas, etc.
Except they're not saying that at all. I guess you were asleep during bilogy class.

And no, I'm not against education, so don't go around saying that I am. What I am against is all this creationist-bashing that goes on here in NSG. Even if you don't believe in creation, then AT THE VERY LEAST stop looking down your noses at us for not subscribing to Darwin's fairy tale of evolution.
The problem is that creationists can't accept that creationism and evolution are totally unrelated, no matter how hard they want to believe that the evil evolutionists are oppressing them because of what they believe. They just keep demonstrating total ignorance of evolution and science in general. It's hard to keep from just snapping and yelling at them.
The difference is this:

The teapot was created. God was NOT created; He has always existed and always will.
How do you know that? The teapot is beyond your ability to examine in any way. So is God.

He sets forth "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" in contra-distinction to "Intelligent Design", which automatically defines his "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" as UNintelligent Design.
Wrong. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism has great respect for IDers, who campaign tirelessly to give equal time to every theory. And yes, they do believe in Unintelligent design. Or rather, Drunk Design, IIRC.

In other words, he's saying that the "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" means that the universe designed itself, with no higher force guiding it, and it all took form and shape just by accident, on a sheer stroke of luck.
No, it means that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, who was most likely drunk at the time.

If you think I believe THAT, you're out of your (insert your own favorite cuss-word here) mind.
If you can read one thing and have your mind register it as something totally different then I might say the same to you.

Evolution and Creation are similiar in the following senses...

1. Neither can be properly tested, creation because it requires action of a being and evolution because it rely's on random chance which can never be scientifically reproduced.
Correct, creationism cannot be tested, not without a time machine. Though if there was some observable phenomena that could only be explained by the universe being created, then it would suggest that the universe was created. With regards to evolution, incorrect. Evolution can be tested, and has been tested.

2. Neither can be observed. No one was around while God created the earth, no one was around when Apes turned into humans.
Correct about creationism. Half-correct about evolution. Evolution has been observed, and there is evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor(which is, I assume, what you mean by 'Apes turned into humans'), but there was nobody around to witness it, since it took place over many many generations.

3. Both have fundamental religious connotations. There is a God so worship him, there is no God your an idiot if you worship one.
Creationism does imply a God. Evolution does not imply that there not a God.

4. Both only rely on indirect evidence - God said so in the bible, using these set of assumptions and this method we come to this being X years old, which in relation to other items means that Y turned into Z at around X years.
Right on creationism. Wrong on evolution. We can and have observed evolution in the lab.

5. Both could be considered together the only options for the existance of the world. Either some being created it or some lucky throw of the dices resulted in us. I see no other option.
Or something created the dice and then rolled them, resulting in us.

However I do see differences and there are some things that I do wish to counter

Evolution and Creation are different in these senses...

1. The World was created, what's it's purpose? If anything creationism says that things are in the world for a reason and with our minds we can go and look at "why" and wonder at the creation of God. Evolution says "That's just the way it happened, random chance." If anything there is no where to go after this.
Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with getting a satisfying answer to the question of 'Why does the world exist?'? Also, evolution does not even try to answer that question.

2. Evolution is scientifically popular, but creationism isn't despite "design" seemingly inherint throughout the worlds systems
Complexity does not imply design.

3. Creation implies there is a whole realm of existance that we can't comprehend. Evolution doesn't
So? Evolution does not set out to explain all of existence.

What I really can't see is that with string theory derivitives require at least 10 different dimensions most of which is outside of our perception... which certainly hints at realms of existance of which we can'y perceive
Which has nothing to do with evolution or creationism.
Life came into existance how?
My guess would be abiogenisis. But I wasn't there, so I don't know.
Evolution has still to come up with a solution that passes Biology's most fundamental law... the law of Biogenesis.
Evolution does not attempt to explain how life came about.
Genetic variation within a species or grouping of species is a far cry from "ape to man" evolution.
No it isn't. Genetic variation with a species of billions of generations could lead to almost anything.
I would like to submit that the term 'evolution' is broad. I'm taking about big-icture large scale reptile->bird transitions which, there is no direct evidence of.
Just because you are not aware of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.



There is also evidence to suggest that a number of crucial elements in the atmosphere, particularily hydrogen where at the rate of net loss of Hydrogen and other gases would place the limit of the age to 10's of thousands. But anyway, at that point I would argue that trying to go back that far is just ludicrous, unless we know the conditions and exactly how the world has changed over that period any dating method is going to be grossly inaccurate when dealing with any time frame of millions or billions of years.
Good, because we can discover the conditions and how they changed. For example, ice core sample can show us what the atmosphere of the planet was like for about as long as there have been polar ice caps.



Apes -> men: perhaps not directly but condensing the supposed "evolutionary tree" down there is certainly fairly common understanding that apes/monkeys or other such primates evolved into human beings.[/quote
Wrong. Apes/monkeys and other such primates share a common ancestor with human beings.
[quote]I'm saying there is no direct evidence to say such fundamental changes can occur.
Your saying it has no bearing on its truth value.

Well, perhaps not directly and explicitly, but it's certainly implied that either there is no god, or if there was such a being did not interefere. Which certainly seems like religious tenets to me.
Just because you think so doesn't mean it was implied. There is no evidence of X, so either it doesn't exist, and thus can't have any affect on evolution, or it isn't having a measurable affect on the universe, and thus can't have any affect on evolution. X could be god, or X could be purple monkey dishwashers.

I was not talking about the age of the earth, I was merely trying to make a point about in indirect evidence styles used. I'll bullet point for you ...

1. Test (direct evidence) on Item X determines that Item X is Y years old.
2. Item Z according to the current understanding is Y+100 years
3. Item X appears and then disappears, Item Z appears afterwards.
4. Conclusion is drawn that X evolved into Z
5. Conclusion is not drawn on direct evidence but on a whole lot of indirect evidence and assumptions. ie. We don't know that X did transform into Z. it merely just "seems logical"
It's a good thing that evolution DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT AT ALL.

Um, no.. either it was designed or it wasn't. either it was the result of a directed inteligence, or it was the result of undirected chance. There are no other options. However you do somehow think you have one. I will be willing to hear it.
The initial conditions and 'rules' were designed, then the system was activated. In this scenario, there is a God and there is evolution.

What you are saying Evolution is UNPopular?
You seem to have a problem with even learning about it.

Um, I was merely pointing out differences... I wasn't saying that evolution should, or creationism shouldn't. I was merely saying one does and the other doesn't.
Way to add to the discussion.

See last point. These 10+ dimensions would be beyond our senses, beyond our ability to determine and even understand. Evolution IMO, does not take into consideration these extra dimensions. Where as creationism does.
There is no evidence that any dimensions beyoned the 3(or 4) we can percieve have had any affect on evolution.

Anyway my point... Is that I don't think that certain aspects of "evolution" are as scientific as they are made out to be.
If they're not scientific then they're not in the theory of evolution. Simple.
Why is this even an issue anymore? Or gay marriage? Or Abortion? Or [insert issue that is seemingly controversial to a few people, but doesn't matter to most other intelligent human beings]?

Feh.
Alas, about 50% of humans beings have below average intelligence.

Evolution and Creation are similiar in the following senses...

1. Neither can be properly tested, creation because it requires action of a being and evolution because it rely's on random chance which can never be scientifically reproduced.

2. Neither can be observed. No one was around while God created the earth, no one was around when Apes turned into humans.

3. Both have fundamental religious connotations. There is a God so worship him, there is no God your an idiot if you worship one.

4. Both only rely on indirect evidence - God said so in the bible, using these set of assumptions and this method we come to this being X years old, which in relation to other items means that Y turned into Z at around X years.

5. Both could be considered together the only options for the existance of the world. Either some being created it or some lucky throw of the dices resulted in us. I see no other option.

However I do see differences and there are some things that I do wish to counter

Evolution and Creation are different in these senses...

1. The World was created, what's it's purpose? If anything creationism says that things are in the world for a reason and with our minds we can go and look at "why" and wonder at the creation of God. Evolution says "That's just the way it happened, random chance." If anything there is no where to go after this.

2. Evolution is scientifically popular, but creationism isn't despite "design" seemingly inherint throughout the worlds systems

3. Creation implies there is a whole realm of existance that we can't comprehend. Evolution doesn't

What I really can't see is that with string theory derivitives require at least 10 different dimensions most of which is outside of our perception... which certainly hints at realms of existance of which we can'y perceive

Were you home schooled by any chance, given that you don't seem to have had any science education?

Were you home schooled by any chance, given that you don't seem to have had any science education?
Beat me to it.

It's sad that there are so many people who refuse to learn even the most basic elements of science. They're missing out on some really cool material. I know science gets the reputation of being boring or tedious, but it doesn't have to be!

If Bazalonia, or any other individual who has yet to study science, would like to pose any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. In terms of my qualifications, I have a BA in Biology (along with one in Psych and one in Philosophy), and I'm currently working on my PhD in Neuroscience. I'm not an evolutionary biologist by trade, but my field requires that I have a working knowledge of evolutionary biology. I wouldn't say I'm an expert yet, but I know some good references and ways to explore the work of the experts! :D

The teapot has measurable dimensions, mass, and holds water. It is commonly available and millions of people have seen one.

Are you suggesting that the concept of god doesn't hold water? ;)

You argument is pretty null, for a easy to point out reason.

The sky is blue, and we know why because it can be tested and confirmed and observed. Evolution, however, is unproven, cannot be tested and has never been observed.

Strawman.

The sky being blue as an analogy for evolution is flawed in that one is comparing an observable to a theory.

Thankfully, this was not the comparison that Hayteria was making. He was instead comparing the observable "the sky is blue" to the observable "mutations in organisms are passed down to descendent organisms, changing the nature of the organisms over time." The appropriate comparison to evolution would be "We know Rayleigh Scattering exists because the predictions it makes on the scattering of light as a function of wavelength can be confirmed by the observable 'the sky is blue.' We also know that evolution exists because the predictions it makes on the changing of organisms over time due to the passing on of mutations over successive generations can be (and have been) observed."

Beat me to it.

It's sad that there are so many people who refuse to learn even the most basic elements of science. They're missing out on some really cool material. I know science gets the reputation of being boring or tedious, but it doesn't have to be!

If Bazalonia, or any other individual who has yet to study science, would like to pose any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. In terms of my qualifications, I have a BA in Biology (along with one in Psych and one in Philosophy), and I'm currently working on my PhD in Neuroscience. I'm not an evolutionary biologist by trade, but my field requires that I have a working knowledge of evolutionary biology. I wouldn't say I'm an expert yet, but I know some good references and ways to explore the work of the experts! :D

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest he was being facetious. The line about being able to observe apes becoming humans sort of gives that away.

Then again, he's an Aussie, so who knows. :D

So, here's a brief summary of the arguments that seem to be revolving around and around, and the counters to them:

Creationists: Creationism is an alternative view of how we came about, and should be taught in Science class.

Scientists: Only science should be taught in science class. Science is something that can be tested, and creation can't be tested.

C: Evolution can't be proven any more than creation can.

S: Yes, it can. It is based on the life's work of many, many brilliant people. Just look at the fossil record, radiowaves from deep space, carbon dating, microevolution...According to Creationism, the earth just popped into existence about 10,000-6,000 years ago. There is simply too much evidence that that didn't occur. Creationism is an alternative view of how we came about that is not based on experiential evidence, and as such, should be taught where other such ideas are taught.

C: The Universe just came into existence and seems to be much older than it is.

S: Fine, but how can I test that? I need some evidence to work with before I change my point of view. Science changes over time, as new ideas are tested and debunked or found to be plausible. Just look at how much science has changed in the last 200 years, let alone the past 2000. How much has the Catholic Church changed?

C: But most of the world is creationist!

S: Even if that were true, there is no reason why that should enter into the realm of the scientific. Once again, science is based on experiential evidence, not popular opinion.

C:You just hate Deists.

S: No, I respect your views. I don't want science to be taught in church, which is the realm of religion. I would like you to respect my views, and only allow presentation of evidence based Theories in science class.

Are you suggesting that the concept of god doesn't hold water? ;)

No she probably isn't since she's a christian. I'll suggest it though.

So, here's a brief summary of the arguments that seem to be revolving around and around, and the counters to them:

Creationists: Creationism is an alternative view of how we came about, and should be taught in Science class.

Scientists: Only science should be taught in science class. Science is something that can be tested, and creation can't be tested.

C: Evolution can't be proven any more than creation can.

S: Yes, it can. It is based on the life's work of many, many brilliant people. Just look at the fossil record, radiowaves from deep space, carbon dating, microevolution...According to Creationism, the earth just popped into existence about 10,000-6,000 years ago. There is simply too much evidence that that didn't occur. Creationism is an alternative view of how we came about that is not based on experiential evidence, and as such, should be taught where other such ideas are taught.

C: The Universe just came into existence and seems to be much older than it is.

S: Fine, but how can I test that? I need some evidence to work with before I change my point of view. Science changes over time, as new ideas are tested and debunked or found to be plausible. Just look at how much science has changed in the last 200 years, let alone the past 2000. How much has the Catholic Church changed?

C: But most of the world is creationist!

S: Even if that were true, there is no reason why that should enter into the realm of the scientific. Once again, science is based on experiential evidence, not popular opinion.

C:You just hate Deists.

S: No, I respect your views. I don't want science to be taught in church, which is the realm of religion. I would like you to respect my views, and only allow presentation of evidence based Theories in science class.

Nice summary

Strawman.

The sky being blue as an analogy for evolution is flawed in that one is comparing an observable to a theory.

Not to mention the fact that the sky isn't blue. It can be perceived to be other colours, and actual spectral analysis will show that blue is not even the dominant colour normally.
Our eyes just like to deceive us ;)

Not to mention the fact that the sky isn't blue. It can be perceived to be other colours, and actual spectral analysis will show that blue is not even the dominant colour normally.
Our eyes just like to deceive us ;)

Our eyes are just more sensitive to particular wavelengths, yes. And if I'm not mistaken the dominant visible wavelength band is somewhere in the greens (i.e. ignoring UV light). You can still explain it through Rayleigh scattering. *nod*

And if I'm not mistaken the dominant visible wavelength band is somewhere in the greens (i.e. ignoring UV light).Yep. And why? Because being able to distinguish shades of green lets you and your species survive in an environment that is dominated by greens, such as forest and steppes. Evolution is a pretty cool thing... :)

Yep. And why? Because being able to distinguish shades of green lets you and your species survive in an environment that is dominated by greens, such as forest and steppes. Evolution is a pretty cool thing... :)

It certainly is.

It certainly is.

Indeed. I'm not a biology (or science of any sort, for that matter) major, but even my limited understanding of evolution is enough to just astound me. In comparison, I really don't see how any religious awe can compare to it.

Douglas Adams got it right, as he so often did: "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."