Evolution in public schools

[warri0r45]

(1) This is precisesly why we have peer review. Real scientists don't give a toss about thier presuppositions, they strive for accountability (though sure, they aren't perfect). Creationism is based on an infalliable book which is already true and therefore accountability or any notion that it may be wrong is thrown out the window. You can't reliably compare the two on the basis of presuppositions in my opinion. Ask yourself, why is it that the only people who accept creationism are biblical literalists?

 

True, most of the scientists looking at the universe from a Christian perspective basically look at the evidence and just try and see how, and if it can fit with the Bible, (1) but pray tell me how Evolutionists aren't the same? On your last comment, good point.

 

 

 

Another aspect of science which negates subjectivity is a simple test. Take the example of human chromosome 2 I presented. The hypothesis is that we and chimps share a common ancestor. To test this, we ought to see similarities in our genomes. We do, yet we have 2 fewer chromosomes then them and the 2 other great ape species (gorillas, orangutans). This presents the problem and we must then ask why this is and then ask how could a common ancestor with 48 chromosomes evolve to us, with 46 chromosomes? One of two things could have happened - the deletion of an entire chromosome (as in a homologous pair of chromosomes) or the fusion of two chromosomes. It's known that the deletion of an entire chromosome is lethal, therefore if evolution is true -- if we share a common ancestor with chimps and the other great apes -- then we must have one chromosome which is a fusion of two of thiers. Low and behold, it's chromosome 2. How do we know this? Well, we see that the two halves of said chromosome align nicely to two chimp chromosomes, of course. But that's not all. Here's the clincher - in the center of human chromosome 2, we find the obvious repeat sequence 'TTAGGG', which is the sequence of a unique chromosome structure called a telomere found in all vertebrate chromosomes. But why is this special? Because telomeres are sequences of DNA at the termination of a chromosome (at the end), not in the middle. Thus, we have telomeres where they are never found. How would one explain this? That's not all. Also found in human chromosome 2 are 2 centromeres, but one is deactivated (i.e. unused). So? This is another clincher because chromosomes only ever have one centromere. How would one explain this?

 

 

 

How would one explain that human chromosome 2 is not only strikingly similar in sequence to two chimp chromosomes, but that it contains telomeres where they don't belong and two centromeres, one of which is deactivated. Now how would creationism look at this? "That's the way god made us." Well, boys and girls, I think god, if you happen to believe in him, is either trying to tell us that we divirged from a common ancestor shared with chimps, or he's a deviant bastard that's trying to trick us.

 

"That's the way god made us" does seem the most appropriate answer for someone of my intelligence, however, (2) it seems a bit naive to say that. It does strike me as odd that, not considering Evolution as an option, we would have unused chromosomes.

 

Please forgive me if the following statements from me are ignorant. I am quite aware that I'm not well educated in this area. And if they are ignorant, and I am misrepresenting the purpose of chromosomes, I'd be more than happy to be corrected by you.

 

If chromosomes are constant (in number and use/purpose) among all specimens within each type of animal -- as in, separating dogs and cats into two different animal groups, but not separating poodles from great danes, if that makes sense -- I honestly can't see any explanation from a Creationist's perspective. (3) However, if chromosomes are not constant within animals groups, I will go more in depth into my reasoning.

 

 

 

In the interests of what is purely science, the phenomenon of the sequence of human chromosome 2 gives foolproof support of common ancestry.

 

 

 

(2) Do you mean Christian creationism or the idea that a creator had part in our existance? The latter is utterly unfalsifiable and thus impossible to prove or disprove. The former is contradicted by the unbiased (as in not religiously motivated), objective mainstream science.

 

Christian creationism.

 

 

 

(1) To answer this you must ask yourself for what reason an evolutionist would be biased. If they are actually scientists, they should have no reason to be so. I consider myself a scientist (student) and thus honestly would not give a toss if evolution were to be proven wrong. I'm much more interested in accountability, the evidence and science working without religious convictions getting involved. If, however, someone is an evolutionist only because they dispise religion, they are possibly biased and I would dearly like to slap them up the side of the head and tell them to stop abusing science. They use it to push an agenda just like creationists and thus I'm not fond of them either.

 

 

 

(2) Naive, yes. Just don't be willfuly so or argue through your naivety as if you know and you'll get no problems from me. In an ideal world we'd all know everything but we don't. I, just like anyone else, am ignorant of the majority of everything. Thus, I don't argue the majority of everything; only the things I do know.

 

 

 

(3) I think I see what you're saying. Chromosome numbers are equal within a species but even in closely related species chromosome number can vary drastically (in some cases). An example I remember from a lecture is that one muntjac deer species has 3 pairs of huge chromosomes (with the X fused to one of the homologues in a pair) and a small Y chromosome, while another almost identical looking muntjac deer species has 23 pairs of smaller chromosomes. Perhaps you could elaborate on the reaoning behind your response here.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

The Book of Genesis?

 

Courtesy by my good friend GhostRanger:

 

 

 

HereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s my interpretation of the scientific thinking, adopted in the first bit of the bible. Genesis 1:

 

 

 

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 

 

 

God created a large celestial sphere which separates water from outside of the sphere with from the water on Earth. Sometimes when the windows are opened on the sphere water flows through them and causes the rain.

 

 

 

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

 

 

Light required for plant life? Not in GodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s world.

 

 

 

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

 

 

The lights in the heavens are used for signs, a glowing endorsement of astrology.

 

 

 

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

 

 

Wait night is lesser light? Failure to comprehend that night is a lack of light.

 

 

 

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 

 

 

He put stars in the sphere to give us light, not even God could suspend the stars in the sky.

 

 

 

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

 

 

We have dominion over apex predators like sharks and grizzly bears?

 

 

 

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

 

 

 

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think I would like to use poisonous plants for meat, something tells me that it wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t end too well.

 

 

 

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

 

All animals were herbivores? I wonder what the mosquito had before it settled for a tasty meal of blood.

 

 

 

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

 

 

So the whole ecosystem with the death, pain and suffering; predators/prey, parasites and disease was good? Ok... Not to mention this was all done in a record breaking 6 days.

 

 

 

There you have it Genesis 1 in all its scientific glory.

[Intriguing]

(1) To answer this you must ask yourself for what reason an evolutionist would be biased. If they are actually scientists, they should have no reason to be so. I consider myself a scientist (student) and thus honestly would not give a toss if evolution were to be proven wrong. I'm much more interested in accountability, the evidence and science working without religious convictions getting involved. If, however, someone is an evolutionist only because they dispise religion, they are possibly biased and I would dearly like to slap them up the side of the head and tell them to stop abusing science. They use it to push an agenda just like creationists and thus I'm not fond of them either.

 

You pretty much said my thoughts with the second half of your comment, and you've gained additional respect from me because of that. However, regardless of the person, or how hard they try, all people MUST look at evidence from a certain perspective. That is unavoidable. Some people are just more easily moved than others.

 

 

 

(2) Naive, yes. Just don't be willfuly so or argue through your naivety as if you know and you'll get no problems from me. In an ideal world we'd all know everything but we don't. I, just like anyone else, am ignorant of the majority of everything. Thus, I don't argue the majority of everything; only the things I do know.

 

 

 

(3) I think I see what you're saying. Chromosome numbers are equal within a species but even in closely related species chromosome number can vary drastically (in some cases). An example I remember from a lecture is that one muntjac deer species has 3 pairs of huge chromosomes (with the X fused to one of the homologues in a pair) and a small Y chromosome, while another almost identical looking muntjac deer species has 23 pairs of smaller chromosomes. Perhaps you could elaborate on the reaoning behind your response here.

 

Certainly. My point is that a lot of Creationist scientists, believe that god created the initial animal kinds, e.g. dog, cat, giraffe, and then the animal kinds adapted to their environments to become separate species. This explains some issues, as in "how did all the animals fit on the ark", and also how current animals do adapt to their environments, which would in general be used as an argument for Evolution.

 

The thought, to my knowledge, is that when god created the initial animal, lets say a dog, he gave them medium-length hair, but gave them the information to get long hair, or short hair. When the dogs went to different environments, due to the flood (Given the level of intelligence you've shown, I'm simply going to assume you know what I'm talking about.), lets say one set went to the desert, and another to the snow, the dogs at the snow got rid of the information for short hair, and the dogs at the desert got rid of the information for long hair.

 

Using this, my thought was that perhaps the unused part of the human chromosome simply stopped being used as it was no longer needed by humans, and it was a waste of information.

 

This is the only explanation I could think of. If you want a better one, it would be best to try speaking to someone with an actual knowledge in biology.

[Satenza]

Creationism isn't science though. Science studies natural theories and evolution fits that, whereas Creationism is a supernatural theory. Teach creationism in religion/philosophy class and keep evolution in the science classroom.

 

 

 

I 100% agree there, i went to a devote roman catholic primary and high school. We had religion/philosophy classes and learn't about creationism then we went and learn't about evolution in science classes. Creation isn't a "theory" since it isn't science. Creationism has no means of testing, and really i don't understand how you can teach that in science class. What would you do, read the Bible? Thats not science.

[Intriguing]

 

The Book of Genesis?

 

Courtesy by my good friend GhostRanger:

 

 

 

HereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s my interpretation of the scientific thinking, adopted in the first bit of the bible. Genesis 1:

 

 

 

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 

 

 

God created a large celestial sphere which separates water from outside of the sphere with from the water on Earth. Sometimes when the windows are opened on the sphere water flows through them and causes the rain.

 

 

 

This also applies to some of your other comments. Figurative speaking?

 

 

 

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

 

 

Light required for plant life? Not in GodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s world.

 

 

 

I was under the impressiong plants could survive without light for one day. Regardless of that. Read verse 3 (which surprisingly comes BEFORE your verse 11), "Let there be light."

 

 

 

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

 

 

The lights in the heavens are used for signs, a glowing endorsement of astrology.

 

 

 

The entire Bible is based on Earth. People have used them for navigation, calendars, and all sorts of things. It's hardly endorsing astrology.

 

 

 

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

 

 

Wait night is lesser light? Failure to comprehend that night is a lack of light.

 

 

 

The moon reflects less light than the sun emits. It's simply stating it as it is.

 

 

 

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 

 

 

He put stars in the sphere to give us light, not even God could suspend the stars in the sky.

 

 

 

Figurative speaking I guess. The stars appear in set patterns in our sky. You do realise they didn't even have telescopes when this was written, right?

 

 

 

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

 

 

We have dominion over apex predators like sharks and grizzly bears?

 

 

 

Not physically, but our intelligence enables us to. Ever seen a bear running a zoo full of human specimens?

 

 

 

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

 

 

 

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think I would like to use poisonous plants for meat, something tells me that it wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t end too well.

 

 

 

The plants weren't poisonous before the fall. Seeing you're able to analyze the first chapter of Genesis, I'll assume you know what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

 

All animals were herbivores? I wonder what the mosquito had before it settled for a tasty meal of blood.

 

 

 

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

 

 

So the whole ecosystem with the death, pain and suffering; predators/prey, parasites and disease was good? Ok... Not to mention this was all done in a record breaking 6 days.

 

 

 

You fail to realise he's God..

 

 

 

There you have it Genesis 1 in all its scientific glory.

[Zonorhc]

Why on earth would you even think of teaching creationism in a secular institution like a public school? Aren't there already sectarian schools for that dogma?

[warri0r45]

(1) To answer this you must ask yourself for what reason an evolutionist would be biased. If they are actually scientists, they should have no reason to be so. I consider myself a scientist (student) and thus honestly would not give a toss if evolution were to be proven wrong. I'm much more interested in accountability, the evidence and science working without religious convictions getting involved. If, however, someone is an evolutionist only because they dispise religion, they are possibly biased and I would dearly like to slap them up the side of the head and tell them to stop abusing science. They use it to push an agenda just like creationists and thus I'm not fond of them either.

 

You pretty much said my thoughts with the second half of your comment, and you've gained additional respect from me because of that. However, regardless of the person, or how hard they try, all people MUST look at evidence from a certain perspective. That is unavoidable. Some people are just more easily moved than others.

 

 

 

(2) Naive, yes. Just don't be willfuly so or argue through your naivety as if you know and you'll get no problems from me. In an ideal world we'd all know everything but we don't. I, just like anyone else, am ignorant of the majority of everything. Thus, I don't argue the majority of everything; only the things I do know.

 

 

 

(3) I think I see what you're saying. Chromosome numbers are equal within a species but even in closely related species chromosome number can vary drastically (in some cases). An example I remember from a lecture is that one muntjac deer species has 3 pairs of huge chromosomes (with the X fused to one of the homologues in a pair) and a small Y chromosome, while another almost identical looking muntjac deer species has 23 pairs of smaller chromosomes. Perhaps you could elaborate on the reaoning behind your response here.

 

Certainly. My point is that a lot of Creationist scientists, believe that god created the initial animal kinds, e.g. dog, cat, giraffe, and then the animal kinds adapted to their environments to become separate species. This explains some issues, as in "how did all the animals fit on the ark", and also how current animals do adapt to their environments, which would in general be used as an argument for Evolution.

 

The thought, to my knowledge, is that when god created the initial animal, lets say a dog, he gave them medium-length hair, but gave them the information to get long hair, or short hair. When the dogs went to different environments, due to the flood (Given the level of intelligence you've shown, I'm simply going to assume you know what I'm talking about.), lets say one set went to the desert, and another to the snow, the dogs at the snow got rid of the information for short hair, and the dogs at the desert got rid of the information for long hair.

 

Using this, my thought was that perhaps the unused part of the human chromosome simply stopped being used as it was no longer needed by humans, and it was a waste of information.

 

This is the only explanation I could think of. If you want a better one, it would be best to try speaking to someone with an actual knowledge in biology.

 

 

 

(1) Ok, I'll put it this way. Scientists (evolutionists in other words, as 99%+ of all scientists accept evolution) look at the evidence from the perspective of a naturalistic method. It's assumed that the evidence supports a natural formation of life on earth and it does. The key here is that this perspective can be tested. Certain things must happen for this to be the case and these things can be affirmed or denied by testing. Creationists, on the other hand look at the evidence assuming that supernatural ideas can explain it. As these ideas are untestable, they are assumptions.

 

 

 

(3) Why add the supernatural baggage? I don't get it. People try to reconcile belief with science by adding these baseless assumptions. God must have had a hand in it, right? How can you test that? How does anyone know if god even exists? People speculate all the time and have done for millenia yet no one has actually known, hence why it's a belief requiring faith, right?. Science is about what we can know via observations, hypothesis and testing. If it dosen't fit into this framework, why add it and try and call it science?

[TotalTalker]

I personally believe the scientific theories, because religious theories are usually beliefs, where as scienfitic theories have had research involved, etc...

[sour_tacos]

Rebdragon, can I still have that cookie?

 

:pray:

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

(1) Ok, I'll put it this way. Scientists (evolutionists in other words, as 99%+ of all scientists accept evolution) look at the evidence from the perspective of a naturalistic method. It's assumed that the evidence supports a natural formation of life on earth and it does. The key here is that this perspective can be tested. Certain things must happen for this to be the case and these things can be affirmed or denied by testing. Creationists, on the other hand look at the evidence assuming that supernatural ideas can explain it. As these ideas are untestable, they are assumptions.

 

 

 

(3) Why add the supernatural baggage? I don't get it. People try to reconcile belief with science by adding these baseless assumptions. God must have had a hand in it, right? How can you test that? How does anyone know if god even exists? People speculate all the time and have done for millenia yet no one has actually known, hence why it's a belief requiring faith, right?. Science is about what we can know via observations, hypothesis and testing. If it dosen't fit into this framework, why add it and try and call it science?

 

 

 

What orifice did you pull this number out of?

 

 

 

Here in Texas we don't even bother teaching. The science teacher says "Some people believe in evolution, some in Creation." and we move on to what we actually know.

 

 

 

If you say that Creation should not be taught in schools for the reason that it is not proven, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Evolution has not been proven, ever, in a laboratory setting. Therefore making it not verified by the scientific method. All it has been is speculation from day one. Evolution has never gone the full gamut of the scientific method.

 

 

 

In fact, a large part of the scientific community do not believe in the man from monkey phenomenon. By saying 99% of scientists, you are making the asinine claim that every scientist from cosmetics to dentistry believes in evolution, which is a ridiculous and completely unfounded claim.

 

 

 

Yes, adaptation does occur, but we have never observed a complete species change as a result, only improvement of the original species.

 

 

 

Before you dare say Creationism is a completely bunk theory, then give me intangible proof that interspecies evolution happens. Do it.

[Tigra00]

 

 

 

(1) Ok, I'll put it this way. Scientists (evolutionists in other words, as 99%+ of all scientists accept evolution) look at the evidence from the perspective of a naturalistic method. It's assumed that the evidence supports a natural formation of life on earth and it does. The key here is that this perspective can be tested. Certain things must happen for this to be the case and these things can be affirmed or denied by testing. Creationists, on the other hand look at the evidence assuming that supernatural ideas can explain it. As these ideas are untestable, they are assumptions.

 

 

 

(3) Why add the supernatural baggage? I don't get it. People try to reconcile belief with science by adding these baseless assumptions. God must have had a hand in it, right? How can you test that? How does anyone know if god even exists? People speculate all the time and have done for millenia yet no one has actually known, hence why it's a belief requiring faith, right?. Science is about what we can know via observations, hypothesis and testing. If it dosen't fit into this framework, why add it and try and call it science?

 

 

 

What orifice did you pull this number out of?

 

 

 

Can't be too far off.

 

 

 

Anyone here who has seen a wild banana, and a banana that we eat - which humans have selected and nurtured over thousands of years to get to it's current state - believes in evolution to some point. You're pretty much forced to.

[Barihawk]

Ninja edit :P.

 

 

 

But yeah, I can believe that 99% of all evolutionary scientists believe in evolution.

 

 

 

But 99% of all scientists is laughable and absurd.

 

 

 

 

 

And I make the same challenge to Warri0r as the one he has in his sig. Give me intangible proof of evolution and I will stay out of these debates forever.

[Mercifull]

Thats a bad analogy Tigra, you just described natural selection not evolution. There are much better example to pick from such as detected speciation.

[assassin_696]

Bari, if you're looking for some kind of absolute proof for a scientific theory, then you're not going to find it. Scientific theories are falsifiable, that means that evolution will never be proven to such a degree that we can dust it under the carpet and say "that's it, we don't have to worry about that again".

 

 

 

But there is probably more evidence for evolution than any other scientific theory. Microscopic evolution has been astonishly well proven and tested, macroscopic evolution is harder to prove because of the time scales involved, but it's still very well accepted among the experts.

 

 

 

warri0r also didn't pull that figure out of any orifice. 99% of biologists (which let's face it, is the relevant field when it comes to that kind of thing) know evolution to be a fact. 99% might be a bit high if you lump in computer scientists and social scientists, but 99% of scientists in the relevant field believe in evolution.

 

 

 

Anyway, if you want evidence, i'm not as good as warri0r as quoting selected websites. If you really think you have something against evolution or are interested you should be able to look it up yourself.

 

 

 

But here is an excellent index of claims of people who are against evolution or pro-intelligent design. I'm sure you'll find a lot of your questions answered there, as well as more than enough proof for you.

 

 

 

Oh, and more than enough proof for you.

 

 

 

Also, see my Dennett quote in regards to being ignorant of evolution.

[____]

creation in science? That be the case I demand evolution be mandatory in every sermon as an alternate to whatever is said relating to whatever religion is present in said place of worship.

[Satenza]

 

 

 

Before you dare say Creationism is a completely bunk theory, then give me intangible proof that interspecies evolution happens. Do it.

 

 

 

It is a completley "bunk theory" because it isn't a theory. It's a theological hypothesis which realistically speaking means nothing. Since it's unprovable, unfalsifiable, untestable ect. Evolution isn't a theory to discredit creation, infact either way we look at the universe at the moment it seems like you can't escape a supernatural element.

 

 

 

We either accept that there was a first cause that started the universe- which goes against the laws of causality.

 

 

 

Or we except an infinite regress of causes - which is illogical.

 

 

 

I just think it's nieve to call the supernatural power "God" and assign characteristics to that.

[warren211]

Im a catholic and i'm fine with evolution. the bible said the world was created in 7 days. however, these days were based on israelie work days (work 6 days, rest on sunday). these days in genesis can have been from a few seconds long to 60 million years long. in one "day" of creation, evolution can have completely taken place. these two theories of creation could go hand in hand.

[Rebdragon]

Rebdragon, can I still have that cookie?

 

:pray:

 

No. I already eated it.

 

 

 

It was chocolate chip. Very yummy.

[Randox]

I sincerly appolgise for not reading this whole thing through, which I try to do for debates.

 

 

 

First off, since I belive in science, I consider the entire book of genisies to be metaphorical, as does the pope and most all other high ranking catholics (I am not catholic myself, I go ot the United Church of Canada). Taken literaly the book of Genisies makes no sense. This is one of my favorite contradictions:

 

 

 

'So God created man in his own image;...male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..."' .....If all this is literaly true, God's command also implies the necessity for incest. If Adam and Eve were the only humans created, they could not otherwise be the sorce of all humanity. But incest is universally condemned as a sin and a crime.

 

 

 

The public scholls in North America are under no obligation to teach any religion seeing as both the United States and Canada have separate Church and State (ie: the Church is not a part of the governing body).

 

 

 

Science class should not be teaching a theory that has NO basis in science, but is based on a book that (for the old testament) has been translated through 3 or 4 languages.

 

 

 

I should also note that someone who belives in creationisim (a creationist) is generaly considered fundmentalist. This comes from taking the bible literaly.

 

 

 

I personaly belive in Evolution, and think Creation the way it's described in genisis is just a TON of BS. I am not compleatly oppesed to teh idea of God maby helping Evolution along, and it is this flexibiilty that allows me to keep some religious faith. I view the Bible as a big story book, and I know my minister agrees with me on that point.

[Intriguing]

(3) Why add the supernatural baggage? I don't get it. People try to reconcile belief with science by adding these baseless assumptions. God must have had a hand in it, right? How can you test that? How does anyone know if god even exists? People speculate all the time and have done for millenia yet no one has actually known, hence why it's a belief requiring faith, right?. Science is about what we can know via observations, hypothesis and testing. If it dosen't fit into this framework, why add it and try and call it science?

 

I was simply mentioning god, because I was trying to see if the issue you presented me with could be explained by Creation. I was not trying to convert you.

 

Of course it can never be proved that god exists, however, for the majority of religious people, it does not need to be proved. They simply know he exists. The same can be said of athiests. There has never been any experiment which disproves god, and it takes faith for athiests to believe there is no god. However, I would rather not get into a debate about whether or not there is a god, because if there is, we can't observe him with our human senses.

 

Onto your last sentence, I would call Creationism science, because, even though you technically can't prove that there was a god behind it, the current theories of Creationism do fit with what we know about the world and universe.

 

As a side note, you seem to know what you're talking about with biology (from this thread and others), so I would be interested to see if the scenario I presented you with has any chance of being valid.

 

[Satenza]

Not its not science, and it will never be science. It's so ridiculous to call creationism a science. It's not even close. As I said before, and as many have said it's not science because it's not a theory. It's simply a claim with no possible way of studying it through the means of the scientific method. This is why it isn't taught in science classes because it is the complete opposite and it is nothing more than a kick in the face to empircism when you claim it to be science.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

How come Darwin's notebooks are filled with "facts" while the first book of Moses is "blind faith"?

 

Because Darwin's finches are still there. You can literally fly to Galapagos Island and see them with your own eyes. [bleep]ing idiot.

[Giordano]

I got no problem them teaching it. I'll also have no problem with them teaching Creationism.

 

 

 

It just happens to be so, Evolution has more scienctific data in it, than the story of Mark and Eve.

 

 

 

Plus it's a science class, people...

[db300]

i do not think they should teach creationism in school, that'd be like teaching evolution in church. :roll:

 

 

 

not trying to sound harsh here. 8-)

[illkilluall]

1. science is proven. it researches artifacts, skeletons, and molecules to explain where something came from(at least pertaining to this case). it is proven that humans evolved. coming from older species of older mammals with genetic mutations to change them and over millions of years of evolution, genetic and other wise, have become the humans we are now.

 

 

 

2. creationism is being told what happened with no proven facts, just what is written down in a book. just becasue it is written down somewhere dosent make it real. i could write down the wrong answer on a test, the teacher reads it, and it is wrong; it was written down, read, and proven wrong.

 

 

 

yes many religions believe that god made all people from nothing(or whatnot, i dont really know as i dont read the bible) now you can debate weather or not that is wright, but did he really make us all out of nothing, when it has been proven that we are made of elements, DNA having a genetic structure that is different from everyone else. if you do something to that, the result will be different from anything else. as is evolution. now if god made us all in his/her(hey, if it was just from his image, there would only be men, a woman, only women.) now if that is true, how are we all different in way many ways? how are 2 different races of people, different form one another? a mutation making them different. if we were all made the same then why do we look different? again a mutation. different personalities, not the same.

 

 

 

no matter what way you pull it, if we were made all the same, we are not. we are all different.

 

 

 

now dont flame me just because i am only towards 1 thing, you cant look at both and say there the same, as they are 2 different ways to look at 1 thing.