[_ Old Earth _] Should creationism be in public schools?

[Milk-Drops]

To avoid rabbit trails, just show us where theory means something other than what it means as defined by wordsmiths.

Webster's dictionary is used to collect the words of the English language and their most common usage. However fields of study may have their own definitions for words.

For instance, in all the sciences a theory is a testable model based on research. The Theory of
Evolution is based on over 150+ years of research and is the model that explains the diversity of living organisms. Creationism however does not have a cohesive model.

Evolution has NOT been proven, despite your efforts to assert otherwise.

Science doesn't prove anything. Its a continuous self adjusting tool used to better understand how the universe functions. Only math has proofs.

 

[jeff77]

Why would that be necessary in a biology class? Science is about the natural world, not the super natural world. It is methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism.

It could matter to some. Some people automatically assume that the question of our origin will come up in a class that is teaching evolution. Sometimes it does, I thought that was the reason for people wanting to allow the mention of a creator when someone could also be teaching the big bang was by chance.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I think I understand why the UK put the ban hammer down on Creationism in the UK. When it comes to scientific education Creationism/Intelligent design has never had a coherent theory that could actually be taught. Creationism and ID has always relied on " teach the controversy" and "tell both sides" as its catch phrases, however teh only sides Creationism and ID ever present are just random attacks on the theory of Evolution and loose concepts such as Irreducible Complexity. That isn't a theory, one is an assertion based on saying we don't understand something, and the other part is just mud slinging. ID/creationism has always had the problem with presenting an actual model and defining their terms coherently enough to actually teach. That is why Creationism/ID lost the Snopes trial, because when the proponents were backed into a corner and told to actually define the theory, they couldn't do it, or when they did it was so vague that it was unteachable. That has always been the problem.

I'd be thrilled to see a good ID/creation theory, but sadly the people promoting ID/Creationism are more concerned with Politics than science. Mainly because after the Snopes trial the attention shifted to using politics instead of science to get Creationism/ID into the public Zietgiest rather than using the tried and true method.

 

[Milk-Drops]

It could matter to some. Some people automatically assume that the question of our origin will come up in a class that is teaching evolution. Sometimes it does, I thought that was the reason for people wanting to allow the mention of a creator when someone could also be teaching the big bang was by chance.

For me, I don't have to many bones in the fight. I may get into a lot of discussions on this board about Evoltuion, but that is usually just me defending what the theory actually says against what some apologists have confused people into beleive the theory states.

In the grand scheme of things, if a teacher mentions that its possible that there was some force we don't understand that could have had an impact, its not that big of a deal. The only problem arises when they taught that its backed by science to say this. Notions such as Gods of any religion and science almost always fall under un testable circumstances for science. Science deals with data and constructing theories and models on said data. When a god or gods is injected into the mix it gets a little weird because then the god or gods have to be defined. Some gods are undefinable so its almost pointless to even add them. Now if someone believes in a creator, then that is awesome. However, if they want to say that something happened because of a creator, they have to start defining factors and their creator. That is when science tends to reach its limit.

 

[jeff77]

What about allowing schools to teach a different theory that opposes evolution that is not creationism? There are secular scientist that don't believe in a creator or TOE. What do the evolutionist have to lose by allowing that?

 

[jeff77]

For me, I don't have to many bones in the fight. I may get into a lot of discussions on this board about Evoltuion, but that is usually just me defending what the theory actually says against what some apologists have confused people into beleive the theory states.

In the grand scheme of things, if a teacher mentions that its possible that there was some force we don't understand that could have had an impact, its not that big of a deal. The only problem arises when they taught that its backed by science to say this. Notions such as Gods of any religion and science almost always fall under un testable circumstances for science. Science deals with data and constructing theories and models on said data. When a god or gods is injected into the mix it gets a little weird because then the god or gods have to be defined. Some gods are undefinable so its almost pointless to even add them. Now if someone believes in a creator, then that is awesome. However, if they want to say that something happened because of a creator, they have to start defining factors and their creator. That is when science tends to reach its limit.

Yeah, all those defining factors could be a problem.

 

[agua.]

For me, I don't have to many bones in the fight. I may get into a lot of discussions on this board about Evoltuion, but that is usually just me defending what the theory actually says against what some apologists have confused people into beleive the theory states.

In the grand scheme of things, if a teacher mentions that its possible that there was some force we don't understand that could have had an impact, its not that big of a deal. The only problem arises when they taught that its backed by science to say this. Notions such as Gods of any religion and science almost always fall under un testable circumstances for science. Science deals with data and constructing theories and models on said data. When a god or gods is injected into the mix it gets a little weird because then the god or gods have to be defined. Some gods are undefinable so its almost pointless to even add them. Now if someone believes in a creator, then that is awesome. However, if they want to say that something happened because of a creator, they have to start defining factors and their creator. That is when science tends to reach its limit.

Oh and I don't accept evolution nor dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Milk-Drops]

What about allowing schools to teach a different theory that opposes evolution that is not creationism? There are secular scientist that don't believe in a creator or TOE. What do the evolutionist have to lose by allowing that?

IF a theory is coherent enough and can explain all the evidence that ToE currently explains, then the grand majority of Biologists would be thrilled to allow it to be taught. The battle isn't so much to make sure evolution is taught at all costs. The battle has mostly been about people trying to circumvent peer review and misrepresent what science actually says about ToE, the Big Bang, Geology, etc. Science will accept alternate theories that do a better job explaining the data, but until they are coherent and pass peer review, they are usually just concepts. Like Panspermia. They really aren't serious notions, just hypothesis's based on possibilities.

 

[MarkT]

There is experimental evidence that supports evolution, but we should of course understand what kind of experiments are possible with providing evidence for common descent.

For instance, there is Lenski's experiment with E-coli bacteria, which spanned 60,000 generations. In this experiment, Lenski observed that the E-coli bacteria gained the ability to grow on citrate, and metabolize citrate in an aerobic environment. This is simply looking at a relatively simple organism as E-coli, for a little over 20 years.

There is also of course, observation, which of course is the primary means for studying evolution as there has been billions of years of this planet's history. Fossils have various dates that span millions of years, where species come and go. Are these new species simply popping out of nowhere, or does the obvious relationship to other animals point to the truthfulness of evolution?

Not to mention the findings from the branch of biology known as phylogenetics, which studies the relationship between groups of organisms. If you want to learn some more about it, the internet is at your disposal.

I'm not scientist, so I don't pretend to be a huge expert on the topic, but I have learned enough to be convinced that it is true.

It depends on the observer. I could argue Lenski's experiment was a failure for what it did not produce; it did not produce multicellular life. I could argue that if you are going to use a morphological system to infer relatedness then two creatures having a different overall appearance are unrelated.

If there is no experimental evidence for common descent then why call it science?

 

[Barbarian]

Because religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, creationism cannot be taught in science classes in public schools. Being faith-based, it is a religion, not a scientific theory. There is no reason it can't be explained in a course on comparative religions, along with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, etc. It just can't be presented as truth.

Because evolution is supported by a mass of evidence, including experimental evidence (such as the evolution of a new organ in lizards, and the creation of new species) it is a valid scientific theory.

Alternative theories to Darwin's have been repeatedly proposed. One of them, the Modern Synthesis, combining Darwin's five points and genetics, is the currently accepted one. Darwin's original theory has been supplanted by a more complete and accurate one. This is how science works.

From the 1930 to the 1950s, the Soviet Union banned Darwinian theory, and as scientist and human rights activist Andrei Sakharov pointed out, it severely damaged Soviet Biology, which is still catching up with the west.

Great Britain has no legal tradition of religious freedom, so it would not be unconstitutional for Great Britain to allow any religion, including creationism, to be taught in public schools.

Yes, I know that Great Britain has no written Constitution. George III remarked that he had never seen the English constitution, but then he had never seen God either, and he knew God exists.

 

[MarkT]

IF a theory is coherent enough and can explain all the evidence that ToE currently explains, then the grand majority of Biologists would be thrilled to allow it to be taught. The battle isn't so much to make sure evolution is taught at all costs. The battle has mostly been about people trying to circumvent peer review and misrepresent what science actually says about ToE, the Big Bang, Geology, etc. Science will accept alternate theories that do a better job explaining the data, but until they are coherent and pass peer review, they are usually just concepts. Like Panspermia. They really aren't serious notions, just hypothesis's based on possibilities.[/quote

Because religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, creationism cannot be taught in science classes in public schools. Being faith-based, it is a religion, not a scientific theory. There is no reason it can't be explained in a course on comparative religions, along with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, etc. It just can't be presented as truth.

Because evolution is supported by a mass of evidence, including experimental evidence (such as the evolution of a new organ in lizards, and the creation of new species) it is a valid scientific theory.

Alternative theories to Darwin's have been repeatedly proposed. One of them, the Modern Synthesis, combining Darwin's five points and genetics, is the currently accepted one. Darwin's original theory has been supplanted by a more complete and accurate one. This is how science works.

From the 1930 to the 1950s, the Soviet Union banned Darwinian theory, and as scientist and human rights activist Andrei Sakharov pointed out, it severely damaged Soviet Biology, which is still catching up with the west.

Great Britain has no legal tradition of religious freedom, so it would not be unconstitutional for Great Britain to allow any religion, including creationism, to be taught in public schools.

Yes, I know that Great Britain has no written Constitution. George III remarked that he had never seen the English constitution, but then he had never seen God either, and he knew God exists.

Maybe the TOE could be taught in a comparative origins course, along with all the other origin theories.

 

[Barbarian]

Maybe the TOE could be taught in a comparative origins course, along with all the other origin theories.

In a comparative religion course, no problem. And of course, evolutionary theory could not be presented as a religion.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Maybe the TOE could be taught in a comparative origins course, along with all the other origin theories.

You could, but it would also have to remain in Biology courses for the purposes of Anatomy, genetics, ecology, and taxonomy.

 

[agua.]

Why can't Creationsim be an elective subject in schools. Here in higher grades ( at most schools ) students have core subjects they must take and several elective subjects they can choose between. There's a push and a High Court challenge going on over government funded Chaplaincy program. I just checked and the challenge has been successful at this point

 

[Milk-Drops]

It could be an elective subject, but there would have to be a curiculm pinned down for it to exist. Then it would have to have funding so a teacher could be hired.

 

[jasonc]

Depends on who you are talking to.

so it depends on which theistic evolutionist? and how many Jesus' would need to redeem then other men that aren't related to us? here we have god slaying adam for breaking the law and another protoman of the same nature that didn't sin.hmm why then have jesus die?

for by one man did sin enter..

 

[Barbarian]

Why can't Creationsim be an elective subject in schools.

It can be. It can be discussed as a religion or as a political movement. The school just can't endorse it, or present it as science.

 

[jasonc]

It can be. It can be discussed as a religion or as a political movement. The school just can't endorse it, or present it as science.

florida allows the teacher to present both theories. so long as evolution is presented. its been that way for years. of course im growing more and more into the movement of defunding public education and doing away with it. its not about teaching but an agenda.

 

[turnorburn]

That's a pretty broad statement there Barbarian "Because evolution is supported by a mass of evidence, including experimental evidence (such as the evolution of a new organ in lizards, and the creation of new species) it is a valid scientific theory"

The age of antichrist where evolution will rule the day animals mutating due to mass radio activity in our atmosphere our water our surroundings in general isn't unusual. No Barbarian evolution will be the necessary evil that will catapult antichrist into the limelight and by the looks of things he's moving right along.. evolution is the doctrine of humanism communism and atheism it has no place in what once was a Christian nation in a quest for freedom. in short without Jesus Christ we're all dead meat

tob

 

[Barbarian]

That's a pretty broad statement there Barbarian "Because evolution is supported by a mass of evidence, including experimental evidence (such as the evolution of a new organ in lizards, and the creation of new species) it is a valid scientific theory"

It's just a fact. Want to see some of the evidence?

The age of antichrist where evolution will rule the day animals mutating due to mass radio activity in our atmosphere our water our surroundings in general isn't unusual.

Do you have an English translation for that?

No Barbarian evolution will be the necessary evil that will catapult antichrist into the limelight and by the looks of things he's moving right along..

A bit slow, that. I mean, he's already a few billion years late. :blush

evolution is the doctrine of humanism communism and atheism

Seeing as Darwin attributed the origin of life to God, and seeing as Stalin imprisoned and killed Darwinian scientists, I'd have to say that is in the running for the "Argument Most Completely Wrong" medal.

it has no place in what once was a Christian nation in a quest for freedom.

Don't tell us; you need to complain to Management.

in short without Jesus Christ we're all dead meat

True. Without Him, there wouldn't be any evolution.