Just a theory: Evolution is a scientific reality.

[dyermaker]

Anyone who studies science knows that "theory" is not the same as "hypothesis".

 

It's the fallacy of Equivocation at work. Theory has a seperate scientific definition, "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Random House Collegiate Dictionary). Other "theories" include gravity, atoms, germs, and calculus. Creationism is not a theory, at all. It's scientifically worthless.

 

Something has to have a large body of scientific work behind it before it is considered a theory.

 

The people who are putting stickers on textbooks, however, are not scientists. They don't realize that minimalizing a scientific reality totally negates the science they're selling. You can't have modern biology without evolution.

 

It doesn't surprise me that most Creationists don't understand Evolution anyway, yet they readily dismiss it as "just a theory", on par with Creationism scientifically.

 

There is no credible scientific evidence for "intelligent design" (Creationism) and it doesn't belong in school textbooks, period.

 

But I'm willing to change my opinion if a single person can make a cogent argument as to why Evolution shouldn't be taught as the only credible theory on the origin of species.

 

Hey, "It's just a theory" people, now's your chance to show everyone how much science you know. Put your knowledge where your stickers are.

[opaleye]

What stickers are they? I live in New Zealand and I don't think we have any stickers on our science text books ???

 

One thing that really annoys me is when Creationists say that evolution is just "too coincidental" to make sense- assuming that evolution had some kind of direction it pursued to get to where we are now. And the Creationists that say that evolution "just doesn't make any sense" huh?

 

We had some of those in our anthropology class. They didn't want to learn about homo habilis and all the rest and who said that the idea that humans came from apes was simply ridiculus.

[bluechocolate]

My parents sent me to a catholic school right the way through - 14 years!! We said prayers every morning, had mass available in the school chapel everyday & received religious instruction & studied other world religions in a compulsory religion class which amounted to 110 hours a year. In science class we were taught evolution, there was never any dispute as to it's "authenticity".

 

In my opinion in a secular society ANY religious dogma, or "theory" if you will, has no place in a public education system. There are private schools available, churches & home where children can be taught religion.

"Today, more than a half century after this ['Humani Generis'] encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory [of evolution]."

----------------- Pope John Paul II - 1996

For me there is no conflict between evolution & creationism. Who are we to judge how long a "day" is to God? Six "God" days may very well be 3.5 billion years. I accept that "time" is not a concept that concerns God so evolution can fit nicely into his plan for creation.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

opaleye - http://www.loveshack.org/redir.php?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wavy.com%2FGlobal%2Fstory.asp%3FS%3D2535357

[I-want-to-be-happy]

Originally posted by bluechocolate

Who are we to judge how long a "day" is to God? Six "God" days may very well be 3.5 billion years. I accept that "time" is not a concept that concerns God so evolution can fit nicely into his plan for creation.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

opaleye - http://www.loveshack.org/redir.php?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wavy.com%2FGlobal%2Fstory.asp%3FS%3D2535357

I agree with bluechocolate completly. I don't beleave that humans came from monkeys if we did than why is there still monkeys and why have we not wittnesed monkeys evoling into humas we have been aroud long enough that we would have noticed. and how do you

think that evolution is possible where did it start and how did those things become to exist without help? And theorys change all the time

just like the theory on black holes in space. of corse there is science behind are existence God gave us the abilty to fend and think for ourselves.

[loveregardless]

For me there is no conflict between evolution & creationism. Who are we to judge how long a "day" is to God? Six "God" days may very well be 3.5 billion years. I accept that "time" is not a concept that concerns God so evolution can fit nicely into his plan for creation.

I completely agree with bluechocolate as well. "Why" would Divinty be limited by time constraints that WE created. ?? But I have a question, at what point in the "theory" of evolution does it say that "people evolved from monkeys", and why is it that people latch so firmly onto this particular statement? It is my understanding that there were many, and are still (skunk ape; sasquatch; big foot ), prehuman species, that were closer related to apes then modern humans, and possibly this is the scenario they are not understanding. However it also amazes me, that people do NOT see the amazing similarity between the behavior of apes and chimps, and the behavior of humans, and they still manage to believe that we are somehow different and "above" all other species on the planet.

 

I don't know exactly what your question was Dyer, but I completely agree with your statements. ??

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by bluechocolate

For me there is no conflict between evolution & creationism.

Nor is there a conflict in the scientific community.

Originally posted by I-want-to-be-happy

I don't beleave that humans came from monkeys

Um... too bad? It strikes me as odd that Creationists are horrified that they share a common ancestor with modern monkeys, but not shocked by the idea of being descended from dirt.

if we did than why is there still monkeys

The "monkeys" that we descended from are not around today. It is not my job to research evolution for you--you're just proving my point, that advocates of "intelligent design" are truly ignorant to evolution as a scientific reality. I'm sure you're a brilliant person in other disciplines, but stay the hell away from science textbooks!

and why have we not wittnesed monkeys evoling into humas we have been aroud long enough that we would have noticed.

Again, it's your reponsibility to understand the theory before challenging it.

and how do you think that evolution is possible where did it start and how did those things become to exist without help?

Argument from ignorance--because you don't understand something, there is no explaining it.

of corse there is science behind are existence God gave us the abilty to fend and think for ourselves.

I think we should do a better job fending against fundamentalism, they have crossed the line.

[HokeyReligions]

I think it's important from a sociology standpoint to teach ALL theories so that students can take that information and apply it to their own lives, morality, upbringing, and familial history. It might actually help them think for themselves.

 

A theory is more than a guess -- there are many events, discoveries, formulas, history, ideas, etc. behind it to support its validity. They are the PRINCIPLES of theory. They can be very convincing. Some principles can be proved to almost everyone and accepted as fact. But in the end, they still support a Theory--not a whole fact. The possibility that there may exist (as yet unknown to mankind) an abundance of principles that would disprove the theory also exists. The more questions scientists answer - the more questions they come up with.

 

As for creationism -- perhaps the principles that would prove it to modern science have been lost, or have not yet been discovered. The fact that so many millions of people over so many years have believed in a divine being leaves open the possibility that creationism is closer to the factual truth of the beginning of life -- it can't be totally discounted.

 

There are too many unanswered questions, and too many possibilities within the theory of evolution to put a stamp on it and say this is it, the question is answered, no more arguing about it. Perhaps the provable principles were interpreted incorrectly---they are, after all, filtered through the minds of men before they are written down on paper and stamped "Approved". Kind of like the Bible.

[bluechocolate]

from Imago

We are devolving, but that's a different discussion altogether.

---- hey! what happened to your post??

from HokeyReligions

I think it's important from a sociology standpoint to teach ALL theories so that students can take that information and apply it to their own lives, morality, upbringing, and familial history. It might actually help them think for themselves.

I agree with you on that. Education in world religions should be a required subject in ANY school system - there is such potential there to foster better understanding & peaceful communities.

from HokeyReligions

As for creationism -- perhaps the principles that would prove it to modern science have been lost, or have not yet been discovered.

I've read about creationist theory. I think it is as scientifically valid as believing the world is balanced on the back of a turtle, which is standing on another turtle, which is standing on another turtle..............or that the world was created by a giant snake that is now sleeping inside Uluru in the middle of Australia. I have however complied with the tribes wishes & NOT climbed Ayer's Rock (Uluru) because if offends their belief that the rock is an integral part of creation. To them the rock is sacred & not to be climbed over by a bunch of tourists. However, I would not want the nations children to be taught in a science class that there is any scientific evidence to prove that a giant snake is asleep inside that rock. In a secular public education system that belongs in, as you say, a sociology class or a class on religious studies.

from HokeyReligions

The fact that so many millions of people over so many years have believed in a divine being leaves open the possibility that creationism is closer to the factual truth of the beginning of life -- it can't be totally discounted.

And nor can all the other worlds religions theories on the beginning of life. The spiritual leader of several hundreds of millions of catholics accepts that evolution is based on valid scientific principles. As far as I'm aware the catholic church has no problem with keeping creation out of science classrooms - at least that has been my experience.

[loveregardless]

I've read about creationist theory. I think it is as scientifically valid as believing the world is balanced on the back of a turtle, which is standing on another turtle, which is standing on another turtle..............or that the world was created by a giant snake that is now sleeping inside Uluru in the middle of Australia. I have however complied with the tribes wishes & NOT climbed Ayer's Rock (Uluru) because if offends their belief that the rock is an integral part of creation. To them the rock is sacred & not to be climbed over by a bunch of tourists. However, I would not want the nations children to be taught in a science class that there is any scientific evidence to prove that a giant snake is asleep inside that rock. In a secular public education system that belongs in, as you say, a sociology class or a class on religious studies.

 

Brilliant. I could not have said that any better myself. Point made very beautifully and respectfully. Your good with "the delivery" my friend.

[bluechocolate]

Originally posted by loveregardless

Brilliant. I could not have said that any better myself. Point made very beautifully and respectfully. Your good with "the delivery" my friend.

Thank you.

so all is forgiven then

[loveregardless]

There was nothing at all to be forgivin. I was never mad at anyone, I recognized what you all were saying about my "delivery" and realized it was quite true. I just get very passionate about things sometimes...infuego if you will , I try to keep my emotions and intensity disguised, but most often it exudes from me without my knowledge. I'm now working on being more mysterious, a little less like an open book, heart on her sleeve type. Haha, let me know how I do.

[RowanRavyn]

Like so many others I can easily see how creationism and evolution could fit hand in hand.

 

I kind of like Terry Pratchetts balance of the world, from discworld. =-)

[Moose]

Anyone who studies science knows that "theory" is not the same as "hypothesis".

 

Theory: Speculation

 

Hypothesis: Implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

 

Neither one is conclusive. They are both synonym's for each other.

 

There is no credible scientific evidence for "intelligent design" (Creationism) and it doesn't belong in school textbooks, period.

 

That's a matter of opinion.

 

I've said it before, it doesn't matter a whole lot to me. It's up to the parents what version they'd like their child to know and understand. Then when that child is old enough to decipher which version they'll except, then so be it.

 

I won't except evolution because contrary to what you say, and what you've read, it hasn't been proven without a shadow of a doubt that this is how we were brought to exisistance.

 

Even scientist believe that we were all created by God. They just don't accept that He spoke it, and it was so. They have to be able to explain it to themselves before they can except it. To me, that tarnishes the true meaning of Faith.

[blind_otter]

I dunno. When I was 10 I would have been confused at being taught Creationism and evolution. I learned creationism in catholic school but I thought it sounded pretty dumb. No offense, just my opinion. I mean, that was on par with "the moon disappears because a snake swallows it every month", or "step on a crack, break your mother's back".

 

That said, how can so many people have gone through school and still think that we evolved from monkeys? Scopes Monkey Trial , anyone? Apparently we haven't come very far since 1925.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

I think it's important from a sociology standpoint to teach ALL theories so that students can take that information and apply it to their own lives, morality, upbringing, and familial history. It might actually help them think for themselves.

Fine. Teach "all" stories in a sociology class. However, Creationism is not a biological theory. Theories explain things, and Creationism is a lack of an explanation, it totally undermines science as we know it. If you want to teach Creationism in school, fine--but not in a biology class, because it has nothing to do with biology. It would be like demanding that Church services include lectures on evolution.

 

Additionally, you present a false dillemma. Christian Creationism and Evolution are not the only creation story. There are hundreds of Native American tribes that have their own creation story. If you really want to be "fair" you have to give the Potowatomie just as much time as the two creation stories presented in the Bible. Then there's Vedic Creationism, Hindu Creationism, the belief that we come from a different planet, and of course, Last Thursdayism, the belief that the Universe was created last Thursday, and everything we have indiciating a longer historical period is simply a figment of our imagination.

 

If Creationism were true (which all credible scientific evidence negates), then Evolution would be false. You don't teach false things in school, just because some people believe them. For example, there are plenty of people who believe that the Holocaust never happened, it's just a huge Jewish lie. Do we give these people equal time in History class? No, of course not. You can't teach one thing as true, and then another thing as true.

But in the end, they still support a Theory--not a whole fact. The possibility that there may exist (as yet unknown to mankind) an abundance of principles that would disprove the theory also exists. The more questions scientists answer - the more questions they come up with.

You're trying to mischarecterize the word theory, the word does not imply uncertainty.

 

The following are scientific facts. whether you like them or not:

 

1. Life appeared on Earth >2 billion years ago.

2. Lifeforms have changed and diversified since then

3. Natural Selection is an observable factor in speciation

4. Modern species share common ancestors

 

Evolutionary theory is based on those fact. The possibility that there could exist a principle that defeats it is totally irrelevant, because we have a responsibility to teach our children what we know.

 

The theory of limits could be disproved, in Calculus class, do we give "Calculator answers come from God" equal time?

The theory of gravity could be disproved, do we give "God holds us down on the planet" equal time?

The theory of germs could be disproved, do we give "God hates sick people" equal time?

The theory of heliocentricity could be disproved, do we go back to the days of "God created Earth, it's in the center of the universe" ?

For years the church taught that the world was flat, should we give that "theory" equal time as well?

 

The fact that so many millions of people over so many years have believed in a divine being leaves open the possibility that creationism is closer to the factual truth of the beginning of life -- it can't be totally discounted.

I think science curricula should be up to scientists, not activists.

 

Scientifically, Creationism offers nothing to Biology classes. It doesn't explain anything, it simply provides a reason for a lack of an explanation. It's worthless to science. Don't discount it in a history class (after all, a majority of Americans believe it), but modern Biology cannot exist hand in hand with Creationism.

 

The solution for Fundamentalist Christians should be to put their poor kids into schools that don't teach biology, eventually enrolling them in colleges that don't teach biology, and eventually scoring them jobs that don't require degrees from accredited colleges. It is not to make the rest of the people, educated enough to see Creationism has no scientific value, suffer through religious drivel in a science course.

There are too many unanswered questions, and too many possibilities within the theory of evolution to put a stamp on it and say this is it, the question is answered, no more arguing about it.

The controversies within the theory of evolution, the "unanswered questions" you refer to, are not the kind of questions answered in high school textbooks. They are totally advanced topics covered in graduate-level biology classes, where they are debated by students. That's totally irrelevant.

 

As science finds more evidence, their findings become more certain. Evolution has withstood decades of study, and no religious activist has successfully threatened evolution. You hold evolution to a way higher standard than you hold creationism, as there is effectively ZERO science behind creationism at all. As far as science is concerned, evolution has been proven. You can't prove anything with 100% certainty--should we then teach nothing at all in school, since it's possible it could be wrong? Besides, Creationism has not been proven at all, the argument that things must be proven to be taught does far more damage to the Creationists.

 

Psuedoscience acitivists try to paint a controversy where there is none. On the basics of evolution, including everything taught in high school and four-year college, there is no controversy. Scientists are as sure about evolution as they are about gravity.

 

Originally posted by Moose

Theory: Speculation

 

Hypothesis: Implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

 

Neither one is conclusive. They are both synonym's for each other.

Theory: coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Hypothesis: proposition tentatively assumed in order to draw out its logical or empirical consequences and test its consistency with facts that are known or may be determined

 

Use scientific definitions, not ones that suit you. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis are usually outlined in third grade science courses.

That's a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of scientific fact. Go ahead and challenge modern science, I dare you. Offer some credible scientific data in support of Creationism.

I won't except evolution because contrary to what you say, and what you've read, it hasn't been proven without a shadow of a doubt that this is how we were brought to exsistance.

Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of the doubt, that does not mean you shouldn't teach it. Evolution is a basic biological principle, upon which the entire study of biology, ecology, and environmental science is based. Without evolution, these sciences are nothing more than natural history courses.

They have to be able to explain it to themselves before they can except it.

Simply because you cannot explain evolution does not discredit the theory at all.

[HokeyReligions]

Dyer, step down off your band wagon a minute and really read what is posted. I said nothing about Christians. Are you assuming that all discusions involving a diety are referring to Christians? If you back up a minute and think about it you may find that you went on a wild tangent for no reason other than you wanted to take a trip.

 

Creationism does not undermine anything -- it exists along with other theories of how life began on this planet. Its not sermonizing or stating as fact or truth -- just teaching young minds that we don't know the answer, but here are some ideas.

 

Was life created by a being not of this world? A God? An alien?

Did life as we know it evolve from now-extinct life forms?

 

I never said teach each individual belief. A theory is an umbrella over a LOT of ideas and speculation and combinations of proven and not proven bits and pieces of science.

 

You really wore yourself out for nothing. You are addressing points that I never said or made---they came from your own mind.

 

Originally posted by dyermaker

Fine. Teach "all" stories in a sociology class. However, Creationism is not a biological theory. Theories explain things, and Creationism is a lack of an explanation, it totally undermines science as we know it. If you want to teach Creationism in school, fine--but not in a biology class, because it has nothing to do with biology. It would be like demanding that Church services include lectures on evolution.

 

Biology class? Where did that come from?

Theories ATTEMPT to explain things. So does creationism.

 

Additionally, you present a false dillemma. Christian Creationism and Evolution are not the only creation story. There are hundreds of Native American tribes that have their own creation story. If you really want to be "fair" you have to give the Potowatomie just as much time as the two creation stories presented in the Bible. Then there's Vedic Creationism, Hindu Creationism, the belief that we come from a different planet, and of course, Last Thursdayism, the belief that the Universe was created last Thursday, and everything we have indiciating a longer historical period is simply a figment of our imagination.

 

did not present a false dillemma. I think you did that when you chose to attack me for some kind of argument you are having in your own mind. I never mentioned Christian creationism---you did. Oh, and by the way -- Native American tribes who believe in a God or diety that created them is also creationism---I learned about many of them in school. The Theory covers all the individual beliefs and traditions.

 

If Creationism were true (which all credible scientific evidence negates), then Evolution would be false. You don't teach false things in school, just because some people believe them. For example, there are plenty of people who believe that the Holocaust never happened, it's just a huge Jewish lie. Do we give these people equal time in History class? No, of course not. You can't teach one thing as true, and then another thing as true.

Well, again - I don't know where you are getting this from. Perhaps you are just using me as a target? What does any of this have to do with TWO (of many) Theories of how life on earth began? To teach either one over the other is a subtly implication of one is right and one is wrong. Doesn't matter which one -- that's why I think they should all be addressed in school.

 

You're trying to mischarecterize the word theory, the word does not imply uncertainty.

 

The following are scientific facts. whether you like them or not:

 

1. Life appeared on Earth >2 billion years ago.

2. Lifeforms have changed and diversified since then

3. Natural Selection is an observable factor in speciation

4. Modern species share common ancestors

 

Whether you like it or not, the word does imply uncertaintly. If it were fact, it wouldn't be called theory!

There are many credible scientists who disagree with when life appeared on earth -- some say it was much, much longer ago.

 

Um, yeah lifeforms do evolve, I've mentioned that in many of my other posts. Cave fish for example. As for your #'s 3 & 4----both are debatable. I won't debate with you because you have your mind made up. That's fine -- but don't shove your 'scientific' beliefs on everyone else and tout them as fact.

 

Evolutionary theory is based on those fact. The possibility that there could exist a principle that defeats it is totally irrelevant, because we have a responsibility to teach our children what we know.

This is totally whacked and if that is how you are being taught then I can understand why you are stuck in one mind-set. The possibility of unknown answers is what we have to include in our children's education so that they can explore and look for the answers on their own, and develope their own theories.

 

The theory of limits could be disproved, in Calculus class, do we give "Calculator answers come from God" equal time?

The theory of gravity could be disproved, do we give "God holds us down on the planet" equal time?

The theory of germs could be disproved, do we give "God hates sick people" equal time?

The theory of heliocentricity could be disproved, do we go back to the days of "God created Earth, it's in the center of the universe" ?

For years the church taught that the world was flat, should we give that "theory" equal time as well?

 

Too bad you couldn't address my post instead of making up a bunch of stuff. I don' t know where you are even trying to go with this, except to argue with me---perhaps that is where you find your pleasure. Well, glad I could help.

 

 

I think science curricula should be up to scientists, not activists.

I think it should be up to the parents and the schools what is taught.

 

I'm not going to waste any more of my time on your little tirade. You couldn't discredit my post so you launched an attack based on your own false assumptions. Maybe you hoped to misdirect other readers into thinking that I said something else.

 

For all your talk you didn't address my original post -- you just made shyt up!

[Moose]

Use scientific definitions, not ones that suit you. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis are usually outlined in third grade science courses.

 

Those definitions came from webster.....I'll use what ever definition I feel using at the time.

 

It's a matter of scientific fact. Go ahead and challenge modern science, I dare you. Offer some credible scientific data in support of Creationism.

 

Scientific fact is man made and full of flaws and vairables. Scientific fact also said that Vioxx was a great drug and treated a lot of symptoms, but it also kills.

 

Why waste my energy in something that isn't going to provide proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? I'd rather be, "Lazy", and believe what God chose to put in Scripture.

 

Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of the doubt, that does not mean you shouldn't teach it. Evolution is a basic biological principle, upon which the entire study of biology, ecology, and environmental science is based. Without evolution, these sciences are nothing more than natural history courses.

 

Listen to your first sentence, then read what you wrote in an earlier post:

 

But I'm willing to change my opinion if a single person can make a cogent argument as to why Evolution shouldn't be taught as the only credible theory on the origin of species.

 

Since neither Evolution or Creatism can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, wouldn't instruction on both be deemed a valid option? I would say then that you would have to change your opinion to honor your words....

 

Simply because you cannot explain evolution does not discredit the theory at all.

 

Same goes for Creationism.....

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

Dyer, step down off your band wagon a minute and really read what is posted. I said nothing about Christians. Are you assuming that all discusions involving a diety are referring to Christians?

No, but currently, Fundamentalist Christians are advocating teaching Creationism in a biology class, despite the fact that it undermines biology as we know it.

 

There are other forms of Creationism, but no one is advocating that people teach our children them.

Creationism does not undermine anything -- it exists along with other theories of how life began on this planet.

Not in the realm of science. There is no credible scientific evidence that supports Creationism.

Its not sermonizing or stating as fact or truth

It is a basic principle upon which environmental sciences are founded.

 

Creationism is not a science. It is, at best, an opinion.

A theory is an umbrella over a LOT of ideas and speculation and combinations of proven and not proven bits and pieces of science.

A theory is not speculation. The aspects of Evolutionary Theory that haven't been proven, that still create controversy, are debated in graduate-level courses in Biology, not in High School biology curricula.

Biology class? Where did that come from?

Currently, Creationists are trying (successfuly) to get Creationism taught in Biology classrooms.

Theories ATTEMPT to explain things. So does creationism.

Creationism contributes nothing to science. There is no scientific body of work that substantiates teaching it in a science classroom.

 

Hypotheses "attempt" to explain things. Theories are basic, accepted principles behind which science operates.

 

To teach either one over the other is a subtly implication of one is right and one is wrong. Doesn't matter which one -- that's why I think they should all be addressed in school.

Address them in a class on religion.

Whether you like it or not, the word does imply uncertaintly. If it were fact, it wouldn't be called theory!

You not understanding what the word "theory" means in a scientific context does not change that definition.

 

Similairly, Creationists not understanding Evolution does not change Evolution's validity.

The possibility of unknown answers is what we have to include in our children's education so that they can explore and look for the answers on their own, and develope their own theories.

These are high-school biology textbooks.

 

Originally posted by Moose

Those definitions came from webster.....I'll use what ever definition I feel using at the time.

Dictionaries give more than one definition for words, because words are used differently in different contexts.

 

In a scientific context, theory does not mean "speculation", nor does it imply uncertainty.

Scientific fact is man made and full of flaws and vairables. Scientific fact also said that Vioxx was a great drug and treated a lot of symptoms, but it also kills.

The straw man! "Science" is not an authority, and the uncertainty in drug testing is not the same as the certainty in evolutionary theory.

 

Additionally, Creationism is man-made as well. The two stories of creation in the Bible are from seperate Jewish tribes 3200 years ago, transcribed from the oral tradition, and translated into English by scribes of King James. Whether or not you think it was inspired by God is irrelevant, as God could have easily inspired Darwin to observe natural selection as well.

Why waste my energy in something that isn't going to provide proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?

There is an incredible "shadow" of a doubt on Creationism, but there is ZERO SCIENTIFIC DOUBT ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOLS.

I'd rather be, "Lazy", and believe what God chose to put in Scripture.

No one objects to your laziness, until you start to put it into textbooks.

Since neither Evolution or Creatism can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, wouldn't instruction on both be deemed a valid option?

No. Creationism cannot be proven at all. It's just an opinion. It should only be taught in classes that instruct on unsubstantiated opinion.

 

Evolution can be observed, and has significant applications in the fields of science. The basic principles of evolution (natural selection, common descent, adaptation, and mutation) are scientific facts. There is no doubt in the scientific community about these basic principles.

Same goes for Creationism.....

You cannot explain Evolution, it's a theory you don't understand. You've demonstrated that consistently.

 

I can easily explain Creationism, and because I understand evolution, I can reject its scientifc validity.

 

Nice try, both of you, but stay the hell away from science classrooms!

[Moose]

Nice try, both of you, but stay the hell away from science classrooms!

 

"Get thee behind me Satan" - Jesus

 

Come on Dyer.....relax would ya?

 

We respect the way you think.....understand? Sure, we'll debate with you until we're all so pissed at each other we'll forget that we are really humans and and start killing each other, and feast on each other's flesh like, like, ummm monkeys or something.....but we don't want that do we?

 

You have your beliefs, and we have ours. I'm not going to say that your views are wrong, because they belong to you. I have no authority over your views.

 

With that said, you have no authority over my views either. I say your scientific facts are worth as much as mere men can come up with, (as far as their limitations with their lack of knowledge and technology), as compared to God's infinite and perfect logic.

 

Until science can finally prove to me, (with mine own eyes and capacity of thinking), how the very first atom came to be.....then that science has failed to disprove my God's creation of all life.

 

I've told you before, that I believe in adaptation, which is what you call your evolution. But your science can't except that man was spake to life by God. Instead, you rationalize our existance by evidence left from animals, that your perfect science and perfect knowledge convinced you that we, "came from".

 

"Even the very elect will be deceived" - In the Scriptures

 

That's all fine. My kids don't believe it, and that's not by my choice. It may have been a result of the way my wife and I raised them, but it certainly wasn't because either one of us forced them to accept it.

 

With that being said, I will stay out of the science room, I'm no longer in School anyway. As far as my children are concerned, they may have to go through the motions at school, but when they're home, they'll know where mom and dad stand, and as for me and my house......you know the rest........

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

You have your beliefs, and we have ours. I'm not going to say that your views are wrong, because they belong to you. I have no authority over your views.

Creationism is a belief.

 

Evolution is not a belief. It's science.

 

Beliefs belong in the home, science belongs in the classroom.

 

My position is not personal nor emotional, I'm speaking from exclusively from a pedagogical standpoint.

With that said, you have no authority over my views either.

I don't care if you choose to be ignorant to science. I do care if that ignorance is passed on in science textbooks.

I say your scientific facts are worth as much as mere men can come up with, (as far as their limitations with their lack of knowledge and technology), as compared to God's infinite and perfect logic.

"God's infinite and perfect logic" cannot be studied, and therefore is worthless to scientists.

Until science can finally prove to me, (with mine own eyes and capacity of thinking), how the very first atom came to be.....then that science has failed to disprove my God's creation of all life.

As far as avoiding ignorance goes, it is not science's responsibility to prove anything to you, it is your responsibility to learn science. You openly reject a theory you don't even understand the basic principles of.

I've told you before, that I believe in adaptation, which is what you call your evolution.

"Adaptation" is not a belief, it's a fact. Evolutionary theory is grounded partially in adaptation.

But your science can't except that man was spake to life by God. Instead, you rationalize our existance by evidence left from animals, that your perfect science and perfect knowledge convinced you that we, "came from".

You're mistaken. We share a common ancestor with modern primates. That's a basic scientific fact. It is not a controversy in the scientific community.

 

It's pointless to argue about specifics of evolutionary theory with you until you take the time to learn just what's fact and what's speculation. The basics of adaptation, speciation, and genetic favorability are not educated guesses by any stretch, they are basic scientific principles.

 

See, some orthodox theists believe that when you get sick, it's because you sinned. Pasteur, on the other hand, theorized that we get sick because of germs. Germs are a theory, there is still many unanswered questions in pathology. Should we teach medical students that they should tell their patients to make burnt offerings instead of prescribe antibiotics? No, of course not. Why? Because germ theory is fact, and the religious explanation is scientifically worthless.

My kids don't believe it, and that's not by my choice.

You've chosen not to learn about evolution. Do your children possess a better understanding?

[Theorist]

I think that perhaps this discussion has skirted around an essential issue.

 

Creationism is a faith based. Whatever story of creation you would like to use, be it from Genesis, or from other cultures. It requires an element of faith. My particular belief system allows for the thought that god created things, and they evolved from there.

 

Evolution is science. Science is based on the best data available. Our best data available shows how things have evolved over time.

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions

did not present a false dillemma. I think you did that when you chose to attack me for some kind of argument you are having in your own mind. I never mentioned Christian creationism---you did. Oh, and by the way -- Native American tribes who believe in a God or diety that created them is also creationism---I learned about many of them in school. The Theory covers all the individual beliefs and traditions.

 

I think you are referring to "Intelligent Design Theory" rather than Creationism, because creationism in fact refers directly to the christian God, whereas Intelligent Design Theory encompasses all dieties and even aliens.

[HokeyReligions]

Hypothesis is a conclusion, whereas Theory covers ideas, provable and nonprovable science, conjecture, assumption, and prior conclusions which leads to a new conclusion—or hypothesis. They are almost identical actually. It is a circular reference.

 

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

 

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

 

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

 

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modern life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.

 

However, what many people (yes, mostly Christians since that is the major faith in the USA) want in schools is equal time to present to students that there are more theories than one on the beginning of life. Decent with modification (Darwin’s theory) does not rule out divine, or supernatural, influence. The Bible is not the whole of history and I have yet to meet a Christian who thinks that what is contained in the Bible is all that exists. Most Christians (scholars, ministers, and lay people) that I have spoken with have agreed that the Bible is probably a “need to know” book. God didn’t tell everything—only what He deemed necessary. That does not rule out natural selection or genetic mutation. Science has not disproved creation. Perhaps God knew that primitive man would not understand the process (and if He exists, He was right!) so God only told man what He felt it necessary to man at the time.

 

The fundamentals of science should be taught in science class – but there is room to teach the theory of creationism (not specific religions) in sociology class. If students want to learn more about specific religions – they get that from church or parents or friends, etc. I’m not saying, and I have never advocated, conducting church services in school as part of the curriculum (which brings up a whole different topic for discussion – should individual practices of faith be disbarred from campus?).

 

Science does not exist to disprove other theories – it exists to understand natural phenomena. God is supernatural. The two can co-exist.

 

The Creation/Evolution Continuum in Christian Creationism

 

Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum and most creationist and evolutionist positions may fit along this continuum.

 

* CREATION

--Flat Earthers

Geocentrists

Young Earth Creationists

(Omphalos)

Old Earth Creationists

(Gap Creationism)

(Day-Age Creationism)

(Progressive Creationism)

(Intelligent Design Creationism)

--Evolutionary Creationists

--Theistic Evolutionists

--Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists

--Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists

* EVOLUTION

 

 

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism is the most common Old-Earth Creationism view. It accepts most of modern physical science, even views the Big Bang Theory as evidence of the creative power of God, but rejects much of modern biology. Progressive Creationists generally believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially created, not genetically related to older kinds.

 

Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one.

 

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

 

Methodological Materialistic Evolution

Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution. Materialistic evolution can be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.

 

Philosophical Materialistic Evolution

Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so is everything else.

[blind_otter]

*sigh*

 

Thanks for the cut-and-paste. Could you post the source?

[Moose]

Wow Hokey! Fantastic post! Thanks a bunch!