Creationism taught in school?

[John Scott]

Just to clear things up -

The theory of evolution of the species is a theory. In some cases, as in the case of the English moth, we've observed evolution. In other cases, such as the theory that humans evolved from apes, there is no concrete evidence, and it remains debatable.

More to the point, creationism is not at odds with evolution. Some forms of creationism simply state that the world was created by God. This is of course at odds with the Big Bang theory. There is no solid proof for the big bang theory.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Some forms of creationism simply state that the world was created by God. This is of course at odds with the Big Bang theory. There is no solid proof for the big bang theory.

If only the act of creation is the issue then BB is not necessarilly at odds with creationism. BB theory has one big hole in it, and it's not so hard to see none other than a "God" through this hole. The BB theory also has this unique feature than in a paradoxical way appears to be very helpful in deducing that the universe was in fact created, as opposed to having evolved into being.

Btw. here I understand God as a Supernatural being, not necesarilly as decribed in the O.T.

[John Scott]

The Biog Bang theory was first expounded by a priest, so I doubt it's really anti-Christian, but to me the whole theory misses the point. Matter had to come from somewhere for matter to explode. The Big Bang theory assumes the pre-existence of matter.

[G10]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

In some cases, as in the case of the English moth, we've observed evolution.

I take it you are talking about the theory that all white moth's were being eaten during the industrial age and so they had to evolve into dark moth's so that they could blend in within their environment.

I have heard this said a few times in the UK and nobody has convinced me of this.

I would go with the theory that the white moth's were being eaten and the dark moth's survived and multiplied so that in the end the obviouse answer was that there were more dark than white.

If this isn't what you were talking about then sorry dude

[SVB]

Thats what did happened, youre right G1O. It's a simple case of directional selection. the number of dark moths drastically increased at the time of Britains industrial revolution, cause the white ones were eaten alot more, and so the dark ones could survive and breed - survival of the fittest. There was a move in the distribution of the phenotype so that the mode coincides with a new environmental optimum. There is a shift towards an extreme - directional selection.

[ehman]

Originally Posted by thebassman

I think many people are comfusing the "Theory of Evolution" with the term evolution itself. Evolution happens, my personality evolves as I age and interact with new people, places and things. The "Theory of evolution" however, is not fact...

Evolution of species over time is a fact supported by overwehming scientific evidence.

The theory of evolution is still just a theory because scientists still dont fully understand how the process, for example how exactly small changes in DNA account for large differences in the final result.

The (scientific) debate isnt over wether it occured but how it occurs.

[littleFella]

Years ago, in one of the books Hoimar von Ditfurth, I read about the magnetic field shifts as one of the major contributing factors to the evolutionary process.

Without going into details, the magnetic field shifts meant that a few times in its history, the earth was exposed to unsual degree of cosmic radiation, which influenced genetic code of some existing organisms, which in turn gave rise to all kinds of new species.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by paranoidandroid

Of course there are those who believe that evolution is an act of God, but that seems absurd in my opinion.

People's beliefs will always seem absurd because the basis for belief is outside the realm of conventional wisdom (i.e. what man knows in a scientific sense).

But this fact does not make belief ultimately invalid, because conventional wisdom is all that science has, and is simply an acceptable standard for ultimate truth, and not ultimate truth itself. I do not believe that ultimate truths can be uncovered by conventional wisdom.

Those that believe that evolution is an act of God seems absurd to me as well, but on the other hand I also believe it to be an ultimate truth.

[SVB]

Originally Posted by littleFella

Years ago, in one of the books Hoimar von Ditfurth, I read about the magnetic field shifts as one of the major contributing factors to the evolutionary process.

Without going into details, the magnetic field shifts meant that a few times in its history, the earth was exposed to unsual degree of cosmic radiation, which influenced genetic code of some existing organisms, which in turn gave rise to all kinds of new species.

It also results in paleomagnetism, as seen along the mid-atlantic ridge. That one is interesting, it's quite a powerful force.

[Atom]

Has anyone heard of the Big Bong theory?

[SVB]

Ferre would know about that one

[Atom]

That's the one where you can't remember what it was, but it was a damned good one!

[dave conz]

My very brief 5 cents:

- The evidence that the Universe is expanding is as strong as the evidence that the sky is blue. IMO there are only two plausible explanations:
(1) The Universe originated from a single point billions of years ago.
(2) The Creator deliberately made the Universe to appear as if it originated from a single point. A variation on this explanation says the Devil is causing the confusion.

Although either scenario could be correct, the first scenario has the strong advantage of being far more parsimonious.

- The evidence that life on Earth is millions of years old is equally as strong. Again, either this is true or the Creator/Devil is deliberately deceiving us.

- Creationism is not a valid science any more than it is a valid Christmas pudding. That's not to say science is intrinsically valid and creationism is not, it's just a simple fact that creationism does not follow the same rules and procedures as conventional science. They are two different beasts.

- If supporters of creationism were able to provide scientific evidence, than science would take it seriously. That's how science works (when used properly).

- I see two explanations for the fact that the Bible contains information which is in direct contradiction to the undeniable evidence in front of our eyes:
(1) God (or the Devil) is deceiving us.
(2) The Bible isn't actually the unadulterated Word of God, it is a collection of interpretations by fallible human beings.

Given that the Bible was written by the same type of ordinary fallible human beings which have been responsible for countless atrocities in the name of God, I find the second explanation to be more plausible.

BTW, I was very lucky to grow up in a house where my mother was a church minister and my father was an atheist. Don't ask how that worked, but it gave me an excellent opportunity to grow up appreciating the different viewpoints.

I have chosen to follow the scientific path and after many years of searching for the truth I still have no idea why the Universe was created, but I am sure of one thing: It was no accident. I believe science can demonstrate that the chances of an accidental Universe are infinitely small, leaving the preferred explanation that it was created as part of some scheme we don't understand.

[SVB]

very intelligent post there, Dave. You very interested in space?

[G10]

I would say that it seems that evolution is getting confused with adaptation.

I agree that man etc can and will adapt to suit their particular environment but at the end of the day (or century or millenia) he is still a man.

This principle follows with animals as well.

A few years back, they experimented on fruit flies by subjecting them to different levels of radiation which caused them to mutate over time.

Since the early 1900's, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased their frequency of mutation to over 100 times what was normal.

The eperiments showed that after a number of generations, normal fruit flies began to hatch and over time, returned to the original form it had existed.

The DNA code has a remarkable ability to repair itself or return it's original state. This helps preserve the kind of organism it is coded for.

[thebassman]

(1) The Universe originated from a single point billions of years ago.
(2) The Creator deliberately made the Universe to appear as if it originated from a single point. A variation on this explanation says the Devil is causing the confusion.

Why does it seem confusing that a creator would use natural sciences to do his creating? A lot of the Bible, particularly the OT, speaks in stories, and the exact wording and interpretation has obviously been skewed over the year. While I don't particilarly believe a lot of the things written in the Bible, I am certainly open to the fact that a creator had a hand in us coming to be. Most people get hung up on the fact the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days (6 days of work + 1 day of rest). And there are a lot of people that stick to that very literally. A lot of numbers in the bible tend to have meanings other than the what seems obvious. One thing to take into account is the fact that "one day to god is like 1000 years to us and vise versa". I personally believe in a creator who used something along the lines of the theory of evolution as its mean to create... but I think we're getting way off topic here. Creation vs. evolution is old and very much discussed out.

[G10]

Scientific theories are good and can almost stand their ground.

One thing I struggle with is that though science works very well on earth, once you go into space, a lot of it gets blown apart. e.g.

A black hole is capable of bending light because it has such a strong pull and can also crush a mountain into about a 1 inch cube.

There are many other objects in space that completely destroy our scientific knowledge (well physics anyway).

On that note, we can only speculate as to how things came about, creation or evolution as our basic earthly understanding of science falls apart outside the bounderies our planet.

My 2 cents worth.

I think your right Tim, we are getting a little off course with this one.

[Atom]

"- The evidence that life on Earth is millions of years old is equally as strong. Again, either this is true or the Creator/Devil is deliberately deceiving us."

Good post, Dave

This is the only part that I'm a bit confused by ^.

Unless, like Bassman mentioned, you're considering the 7 day thing as literal.