Evolution in public schools

[yomom1919]

I'll have to get back to you on that as I can't find my Bible.

 

 

 

http://www.bible.com

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

The only thing difference between Religion and the study of evolution is that people don't come together once a week to pray to Darwin.

 

Please stop.

[HellsBells]

*sigh* Creationism is not taught in public schools because not everyone believes in it. Same with me. Pope John Paul believed in it. And he's like the king of religion. :P Anyways, what's so bad about learning an alternate theory to creationism?

[drago_lark]

*sigh* Creationism is not taught in public schools because not everyone believes in it. Same with me. Pope John Paul believed in it. And he's like the king of religion. :P Anyways, what's so bad about learning an alternate theory to creationism?

 

 

 

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king.

 

 

 

Not everyone believes we evolved. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state".

[yomom1919]

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state".

 

 

 

He was using an analogy...

 

Honestly, do you still not understand that evolution is more than a theory, even with all this proof...?

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

*sigh* Creationism is not taught in public schools because not everyone believes in it. Same with me. Pope John Paul believed in it. And he's like the king of religion. :P Anyways, what's so bad about learning an alternate theory to creationism?

 

 

 

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state".

 

Creationism is not a theory. Look up the definition of the word theory in a science textbook. I've already told you to stop. Why haven't you stopped?

 

 

 

 

Honestly, do you still not understand that evolution is more than a theory, even with all this proof...?

 

 

 

Evolution is not more than a theory. Evolution is a theory. Creationism and Intelligent Design are less than a theory. Again, you people need to find out what the word theory means.

[Nadril]

*sigh* Creationism is not taught in public schools because not everyone believes in it. Same with me. Pope John Paul believed in it. And he's like the king of religion. :P Anyways, what's so bad about learning an alternate theory to creationism?

 

 

 

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king.

 

 

 

Not everyone believes we evolved. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state".

 

 

 

because one is a scentific theory (read my deffinition earlier in the 3rd page) supported by numerous facts while another is based off of blind faith (and not a theory in the same meaning evolution is).

 

 

 

 

 

Man, I sound like I'm a broken record.

[warri0r45]

I can't say I'm surprised that this has turned into 'who can misrepresent evolution the most.'

 

 

 

People, it's necessarily a theory. The theory part is necessary. It's necessary. Don't you see? You can't have science without theory. It's necessary. Facts are useless without explanation enlightened via a theoretic underpinning which itself is based on tests. Oh and theories don't become facts. Pure hogwash. You can watch a diamond turn into carbon dioxide and the theory of evolution still won't be a fact in the sense that you require. Dosen't happen.

 

 

 

As for the guy who said it's a religion - sorry, it's not. It's a scientific theory. If you want my opinion, anyone who worships Darwin or evolution is a tosser and they need to get thier head out of thier rear end.

 

 

 

If anyone wants some evidence of common descent, see my post on page 2.

[Rebdragon]

English needs a new word for a scientific theory, or a new word for the plain usage of theory. The only reason that this ever became an argument was 'cause of the frikkin' ambiguity of the word.

[drago_lark]

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

[warri0r45]

*sigh* Creationism is not taught in public schools because not everyone believes in it. Same with me. Pope John Paul believed in it. And he's like the king of religion. :P Anyways, what's so bad about learning an alternate theory to creationism?

 

 

 

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king.

 

 

 

Not everyone believes we evolved. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state".

 

 

 

Drago, the government has nothing to do with it. It's the scientists and the weight of evidence that sees us favour evolution over creationism. Not only is creationism not science, it's evidence is miniscule and often purported by groups who are too blind to see that they are biased by thier religious motivations. Evolution is not a matter of belief; it's a matter of accepting it as it has the weight of evidence, objectivity, use and explanatory power.

[Rebdragon]

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

 

It's posts like these that make me wonder about the environment a child is growing up in :-s . You do know that according to your religion there's nothing wrong with blind faith, right?

 

 

 

 

 

M'kay, apparently you don't like science. Let's try math:

 

 

 

Science =/= Religion.

 

 

 

Okey dokey?

[Nadril]

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

 

 

 

Read warriors post on page 2, please.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm really getting tired of you just ignoring everything.

[drago_lark]

*sigh* Creationism is not taught in public schools because not everyone believes in it. Same with me. Pope John Paul believed in it. And he's like the king of religion. :P Anyways, what's so bad about learning an alternate theory to creationism?

 

 

 

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king.

 

 

 

Not everyone believes we evolved. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state".

 

 

 

Drago, the government has nothing to do with it. It's the scientists and the weight of evidence that sees us favour evolution over creationism. Not only is creationism not science, it's evidence is miniscule and often purported by groups who are too blind to see that they are biased by thier religious motivations. Evolution is not a matter of belief; it's a matter of accepting it as it has the weight of evidence, objectivity, use and explanatory power.

 

 

 

In America there is a separation of church and state. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

[drago_lark]

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

 

 

 

Read warriors post on page 2, please.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm really getting tired of you just ignoring everything.

 

 

 

I'll reread through this whole topic tomorrow. I'm hitting the sack and maybe I'll think more clearly tomorrow.

[warri0r45]

*sigh* Creationism is not taught in public schools because not everyone believes in it. Same with me. Pope John Paul believed in it. And he's like the king of religion. :P Anyways, what's so bad about learning an alternate theory to creationism?

 

 

 

Actually he was the Pope which is far from king.

 

 

 

Not everyone believes we evolved. And there's nothing wrong with it I just don't see why one theory can be embraced by the government while the other is shooed away by "separation of church and state".

 

 

 

Drago, the government has nothing to do with it. It's the scientists and the weight of evidence that sees us favour evolution over creationism. Not only is creationism not science, it's evidence is miniscule and often purported by groups who are too blind to see that they are biased by thier religious motivations. Evolution is not a matter of belief; it's a matter of accepting it as it has the weight of evidence, objectivity, use and explanatory power.

 

 

 

In America there is a separation of church and state. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

 

 

 

I know, mate, I was just saying that the goverment dosen't decide what is science and what is not. You're getting the cart before the horse. Make it science first, then the government will step in and shoo it away as a seperation of church-state issue.

[lordkafei]

It's dishonest to lump evolution and creationism together as theories, both deserving of equal consideration.

 

 

 

True theories can be supported or refuted by experiments and data.

 

 

 

There is no experiment you can do nor any empirical data you could provide that would prove or disprove the existence of any grand designer, much less the Judeo-Christan one.

 

 

 

Evolution can be observed in nature, and tested. It is subject to revision when new data is discovered. It's a true theory, a refinement of knowledge over time.

 

 

 

Creationism, on the other hand, assumes its conclusion and tries to bend the facts to support the desired conclusion. It's a supernatural claim.

[assassin_696]

This is quite amusing, watching the diehard creationists completely ignore the facts being presented to them and bleating "... but it's just a theory".

 

 

 

Enough people here have already tackled the science behind creationism (or lack of) well enough, i'll just add to the whole "teach the controversy" point of view.

 

 

 

If we teach the controversy in every area of science or learning we'd confuse kids no end. Some people think that the holocaust never happened. Should we teach that in history? There is a Ph.D physicist who genuinely believes that the Sun goes round the Earth, should we teach that? Or what about the wonderful Flat Earth society? I suppose for balance we should add that as well. See where i'm going with this?

 

 

 

I'll finish off with a favourite quote that I read a while ago:

 

 

 

The evidence of evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin's chief sources), but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant -- inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. Doubts about the power of Darwin's idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, although the burden of proof for such skepticism has become immense.

[Intriguing]

Note : I haven't read beyong the 1st page, so I'm responding completely to the first post.

 

 

 

I'm an ex-Christian, who used to completely believe in Creation. At the moment, I'm searching for what I believe in, and would probably call myself an Agnostic -- In the sense that I believe in a god, but am not sure which one it is. My belief in the origin of the universe is similar. I believe a god was behind the creation of the universe, but whether or not the god chose to utilise Evolution or not, I am unsure.

 

 

 

That said, I can respect it that people don't believe in Creation, but I believe it's ignorant to ignore it by saying "Oh, it's just religious crap, with no evidence behind it". You may say that Evolution is completely backed by scientific evidence -- which it is, for the most part. But the same thing is true of Creationism. The problem with science, along with any other human endevour, is that it is subjective (prove me wrong). Two people can look at the same piece of evidence, say the strata of the earth, and get two completely different ideas about it. And the reason for that is the bias and assumptions that people come with.

 

 

 

This post probably hasn't acheived much, but I would request this of those who are pro-evolution. Would you be able to present me with some evidence which you believe disproves Creation, or a piece of evidence which can not be explained by Creationism? I'm not looking for evidence for Evolution or for Creation, because I know both can pretty much be conjured up from anywhere.

 

 

 

End note : Bear in mind, I'm about as unbiased as someone can be, with the exception that I believe in a god. And at the moment, I am neither pro-Evolution nor pro-Creation. If anything I have said offends you, that was not my intention. I simply misphrased it.

[ltb2006]

Well at my school my science teacher tought evolution and my R.e teacher tought creationism.

[warri0r45]

Note : I haven't read beyong the 1st page, so I'm responding completely to the first post.

 

 

 

I'm an ex-Christian, who used to completely believe in Creation. At the moment, I'm searching for what I believe in, and would probably call myself an Agnostic -- In the sense that I believe in a god, but am not sure which one it is. My belief in the origin of the universe is similar. I believe a god was behind the creation of the universe, but whether or not the god chose to utilise Evolution or not, I am unsure.

 

 

 

That said, I can respect it that people don't believe in Creation, but I believe it's ignorant to ignore it by saying "Oh, it's just religious crap, with no evidence behind it". You may say that Evolution is completely backed by scientific evidence -- which it is, for the most part. But the same thing is true of Creationism. (1) The problem with science, along with any other human endevour, is that it is subjective (prove me wrong). Two people can look at the same piece of evidence, say the strata of the earth, and get two completely different ideas about it. And the reason for that is the bias and assumptions that people come with.

 

 

 

This post probably hasn't acheived much, but I would request this of those who are pro-evolution. (2) Would you be able to present me with some evidence which you believe disproves Creation? I'm not looking for evidence for Evolution of for Creation, because I know both can pretty much be conjured up from anywhere.

 

 

 

End note : Bear in mind, I'm about as unbiased as someone can be, with the exception that I believe in a god. And at the moment, I am neither pro-Evolution nor pro-Creation. If anything I have said offends you, that was not my intention. I simply misphrased it.

 

 

 

(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?

 

 

 

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 than them and the 2 other great ape species (gorillas, orangutans). This presents the problem and we must then ask why this is and how could a common ancestor with 48 chromosomes evolve to produce 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

EDIT: I see you edited your post. Based on that, at present I can't see how creationism can explain human chromosome 2, as I devulged above. Always open to hear those who feel they do have an explanation, though.

[assassin_696]

This post probably hasn't acheived much, but I would request this of those who are pro-evolution. Would you be able to present me with some evidence which you believe disproves Creation, or a piece of evidence which can not be explained by Creationism? I'm not looking for evidence for Evolution or for Creation, because I know both can pretty much be conjured up from anywhere.

 

 

 

Well for a start, all the creationists claims of irreducible complexity are false. See in particular this index of creationist claims and the things they claim are irreducibly complex.

 

 

 

But as warri0r said, any kind of 'science' which sticks in an untestable, unmeasurable higher power is completely unfalsifiable because you can simple tweak the higher power to fit whatever facts are presented. Since it's not falsifiable, it's not a scientific theory.

[baron8000]

There is a very simple reason Christian creationism isn't taught in schools and evolution is.

 

 

 

Evolution is now, by general consensus of the scientific community correct. I'm sure there is probably debate on the exact detail but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist which didn't think of it as correct.

 

 

 

Creationism however is a melting pot of ideas in the religious community. Say they start teaching your Christian creationism, what about Islamic creationism? Sikh creationism, Buddhism, Tao, Scientologist, Flying Spaghetti monster and all the other religions of the world. Would you have your school teach all of these as well? Unless of course you think your religion is more deserving than the others.

 

 

 

Your school should have a R.S class; that is your route to understanding theology. Science class is for science, that is why I will always oppose teaching of religion as science in schools. Religion is a personal thing, not to be taught as standard and definitely not to be forced down peoples throat as fact.

[Intriguing]

(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, 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, 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. 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.

[Intriguing]

Well for a start, all the creationists claims of irreducible complexity are false. See in particular this index of creationist claims and the things they claim are irreducibly complex.

 

 

 

But as warri0r said, any kind of 'science' which sticks in an untestable, unmeasurable higher power is completely unfalsifiable because you can simple tweak the higher power to fit whatever facts are presented. Since it's not falsifiable, it's not a scientific theory.

 

 

 

Fair enough. However, I personally am not too fussed about Creationism not being taught in schools. As Warri0r pointed out, the only people that believe in Creationism (Christian Creationism, anyway) are those who are actually Christians. So I don't think it would accomplish anything to teach it in schools.