Creationism taught in school?

[G10]

Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley

On that point, evolution isnt a theory, but the Big Bang is.

I take it we now have evidence that states evolution is a proven fact then?

[paranoidandroid]

thebassman-

Evolution or "big bang" isn't any more or less a legitimate theory than creationism

I think part of the problem of this thread is that an article about the proposed teaching of creationism as a scientific theory alongside scientific theories such as evolution, has been confused by the adition of mentioning another theory The big bang theory which isn't directly mentioned in the original article at all.

The original article has is basis in the following-

Last month the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to require the teaching of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent design" -- the idea that life is too complex to have developed without a creator.

Which leads me to consider, the original post by evilregis-

The reason I post this is to ask those who frequent here what you think about your children being taught something like creationism as SCIENCE in school?

SCIENCE being the key word, in my opinion the argument for a God or creator of whatever religion belongs in the Religous studies/Philosophy class, while Evolution (based on scientific studies) belongs in the SCIENCE class. (Incidentaly there are plenty of religous people who also believe in evolution, it is not a black and white issue)

Let's remember the format for logical statements, and format our arguments accordingly. And read:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

I agree totaly John, thats a great link thanks.

[SVB]

Originally Posted by G10

I take it we now have evidence that states evolution is a proven fact then?

Evolution is just selection. You can see it in everyday life. Why do you think you are advised not to take too much antibiotics? Breed some bacteria in a petri dish, and attack them with antibiotics. Keep doing it. Soon, they wont die. Why? Because some are naturally immune (due to genetic mutation). They survive, and breed, and so that antibiotic has no effect any more.
Its the same as the black death that wiped out millions on Europe. Some people were not affected, because they were immune to it. They have bred, their desendents are also immune. Many of us are immune now.
You cant say that is a "theory", its a fact. Thats all evolution is, darwin called it "survival of the fittest". Some can survive certain conditions, most commonly due to mutation, and continue to breed. Why do you think there are more bacteria immune to antibiotics now days than ever before? Because we use antibiotics too much and have created these new resistant bacteria.
As for the big bang, that is a theory, you cant perform bigbangs in the lab, and its unexplainable as to how it began.

[chaka42]

healthy mutations do not exist (aside from lab assisted ones), most mutations that do occur lead to the animals death as opposed to pro-breeding and surivival benefits that evolution claims. evolution, as a scientific theory, can no more be proven just as creationism. it all depends on what an individual has "faith" in. there are 2 sides to the spectrum, one that believes the a holy God created the world and everything in it, and the second, who doesn't believe in God, therefore must explain the creation of the world in the absence of God.

[SVB]

Originally Posted by chaka42

uhh, yes, it is ....

http://www.evolutionary.org/
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLUT.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html

i can add more if you'd like ...

Excellent links you gave. Evolution is a fact. It cant be disputed. All biologists agree with that. There is no issue with it. However, the mechanics of evolution are the theories (as made clear in the links you posted). There are many theories regarding the mechanics, which can be argued away forever.

Originally Posted by Douglas J. Futuyma (in one of those links)

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

[littleFella]

One could actually use science's own methods to show that creationism is the only possible way to explain the beginning of the Universe. It's all just a game of words anyway.

As someone said (to paraphrase): the scientists have been climing a mountain of knowledge for hundreds of years and eventually they reached the top, only to find out that there is a bunch of theologians, sitting there for thousands of years and lauhing at the scientists.

[paranoidandroid]

A good introduction to the argument of evolution over creation

The funny thing is that, arguments made for evolution tend to be made by people who have devoted large parts of their lives methodicaly gathering evidence in a logical and scientific manner. They learn, explore, discover many alternatives including religion. Their evidence comes from the world around them, the living and the dead, the rocks and fossils. They even go beyond there own worlds and look into space. While arguments against evolution tend to be made by people who have no understanding of the concept, on that basis they reject it completely.

Funny isn't it?

[Rivux]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Rivux - read your own quotes. They aren't teaching it. Quote one sentence in the article where it says they are teaching creationism.

I beleive we were discussing the concept of teaching creationism in science class.

[littleFella]

I think there are some problems with the debates concernign evolution. Few people even read Darwin's work, some who did take it as literally as some christian fundementalists take the bible literally. In my view, both are mistaken.
Evolution is a fact. Creationism has not been proven by science to be false.

Those who analyze available data do not appear to be in a position to disprove creationism. As you wrote, "Their evidence comes from the world around them, the living and the dead, the rocks and fossils." but the thing is that creationism deals also with the point when none of these even existed. There was no physical in the universe, not even the elementary building block of the Universe. As a matter of fact there was no universe.

[paranoidandroid]

So did God create all the evidence for evolution?

The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such trickery?

The full article

[littleFella]

Evolution does not automaticcaly disprove creationism, and creationism does not necessarilly reject evolution. The Vatican for one has no problem with evolution.

[paranoidandroid]

Good point, I am just a bit surprised when people completely reject evolution as some kind of myth.

[evilregis]

Science has not proven the case for a Creator. Therefore, how can you teach the subject of creationism as scientific when the very basis of it has yet to be proven?

Even if God created evolution, which there obviously is zero proof of since there is zero proof of God, the fact remains that evolution is, in fact, scientifically sound. That said, it deserves to be taught as such despite, as Stephen Bradley pointed out, that while the mechanics of evolution are disputable, evolution itself is not.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by paranoidandroid

Good point, I am just a bit surprised when people completely reject evolution as some kind of myth.

I think too many people associate the evolution with a limitted approach of the "I don't come from a monkey" thing. That's as stupid as believing every word of the Bible (which by the way is not even possible).

At the other end of the spectrum there are those who don't even notice their own arrogance in thinking that science has, or will have all the answers. That approach is not much different from religious approaches typical of fundametalists.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by evilregis

Science has not proven the case for a Creator. Therefore, how can you teach the subject of creationism as scientific when the very basis of it has yet to be proven?

If you get deep into the Big Bang theory, you may reach a conclusion that the only possible explanation of the beginning if the universe is a creator. Please, do not confuse it with the Biblical God, that's not what I mean, although it might be that exact Creator. But perhaps the word Supernatural, is a better term.

[South]

Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley

Evolution is just selection. You can see it in everyday life. Why do you think you are advised not to take too much antibiotics? Breed some bacteria in a petri dish, and attack them with antibiotics. Keep doing it. Soon, they wont die. Why? Because some are naturally immune (due to genetic mutation). They survive, and breed, and so that antibiotic has no effect any more.
Its the same as the black death that wiped out millions on Europe. Some people were not affected, because they were immune to it. They have bred, their desendents are also immune. Many of us are immune now.
You cant say that is a "theory", its a fact. Thats all evolution is, darwin called it "survival of the fittest". Some can survive certain conditions, most commonly due to mutation, and continue to breed. Why do you think there are more bacteria immune to antibiotics now days than ever before? Because we use antibiotics too much and have created these new resistant bacteria.
As for the big bang, that is a theory, you cant perform bigbangs in the lab, and its unexplainable as to how it began.

The question is creation vs evolution, the beginning of and explanation for life. The items you suggested only prove evolution as survival adaptation. That falls far short of the "one cell became two.........became all the species of the earth over time". In my opinion I doubt that will ever gain the evidence to be called fact.

I'm a fundamental Christian. As far as the school question this is one area I may almost agree with you on. Even to gain the title of scientific theory you must have at least some scientific evidence to be given credibility even if it's inconclusive. If creationism has that it should be given the same consideration within science as evolution. If not it shouldn't.

I think even the hardest anti-religeon critic would agree with that?

Curious though, just for the sake of the point. If creationism supplies scientific support, would you accept it being taught as an alternative theory?

[paranoidandroid]

If creationism supplies scientific support, would you accept it being taught as an alternative theory?

If there was as much scientific evidence of creationism as there is evidence for evolution then I am sure this would be accepted by the science community with much more credibility.

Problem is, evolution is founded upoun scientific evidence while creationism is founded on blind faith. Also the scientific evidence takes away from the blind faith in creationism. Of course there are those who believe that evolution is an act of God, but that seems absurd in my opinion.

[South]

Originally Posted by paranoidandroid

Problem is, evolution is founded upoun scientific evidence while creationism is founded on blind faith. Also the scientific evidence takes away from the blind faith in creationism. Of course there are those who believe that evolution is an act of God, but that seems absurd in my opinion.

True, but science is the observation of nature and changes often as new observations are made. I am by no means an anti-science Christian (I know there are some). I myself see science as exciting within my own faith, sort of the uncovering and revealing of God's nature. Without it we'd still be sucking sick people with leeches and plowing with mules.

Just remember that science is best observed with an entitely open mind. To disclude some things as absurd and not worthy of observation taints the whole. Pre-drawn conclusions don't fit in. The general knowledge was that bread mold was a bad thing and rotting meat produced flies.