Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

I was talking with some older friends and the topic of creationism in american school systems came up. I haven't read too many articles regarding a large push of the right-wing christian conservatives to try to incorporate creationism in American schools, but I have heard that some people would want this. I'm not sure if anyone here wants to teach creationism in american (or European I guess) schools, but I wanted to hear some reasons why it would be a good idea (in their opinion).

I fear creationism is separate for different religions and sects, so trying to implent this in academics in America would create problems with which creationism should be taught. To do that we'd have to have a state religion which is quite a strike against the 1st amendment and anti-establishment clause.

Well...

Depends, is this in terms of teaching it as a science, or in a world religions sort of class? If the latter, than sure. If the former, than NO. Creationism has no basis in science; it is, after all, religion. Do we teach kids both the heliocentric AND geocentric models of the Universe and let them "decide" which is correct? Of course not.

Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

---

Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma, hence evolution is != religion. Evolution and Darwinism have already been proven in several instances, this one has been provided for your enjoyment and perusal as it is the only one I remember off the top of my head.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.

If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.

If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.

---

I want to throw "The Selfish Gene" By Richard Dawkins at you.

They have never been proven.

Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them. This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong. Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":

Quote:

---

Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

They have never been proven.

---

Sorry, again you must be confused, I just showed you evidence that it has been proven. There are numerous other instances but my aging brain is failing me this evening.

Quote:

---

Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them.

---

:laugh4: You missed the point entirely. The particular article I cited shows that organisms evolve to adapt to their environments. It'd be like taking a human to the martian atmosphere and demanding they evolve immediately to compensate. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong.

---

Again incorrect, please see above. And for the record:

Quote:

---

Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":

---

Mr. Taylor is a complete and total joke and a farce, and has absolutely 0 business calling himself a scientist. I am familiar with some of his "work", and it flies (pun???) completely in the face of several proven tenants and theories. He's in the same category as Jack Chick, peddling dogma as if it were scientific fact. One final request, please don't go down the "it's just a theory" road, that's easily the most overused false cliche by creationists.

Pleasant evening to you. :bow:

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seireikhaan

Well...

Depends, is this in terms of teaching it as a science, or in a world religions sort of class? If the latter, than sure. If the former, than NO. Creationism has no basis in science; it is, after all, religion. Do we teach kids both the heliocentric AND geocentric models of the Universe and let them "decide" which is correct? Of course not.

---

Then will we have to have a religion class for every religion's beliefs? If that's the case, then tax payer dollars are spent on religion in schools and churches/mosques etc. shouldn't get tax breaks?

Just thinking, really. Trying to foster debate :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

The particular article I cited shows that organisms evolve to adapt to their environments.

---

That's not disputed by Creationists. And darwinism requires far more than that. darwinism requires lower forms of life to gain new genetic information which allows them to transform into completely different higher forms of life. There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.

What you are describing, and all darwinists are ever able to describe with evidence, are either examples of loss of genetic information, or activation of previously-dormant yet already-existing genetic information. It in no way makes the case for common ancestry or that an amoeba 'evolved' into all life that exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Then will we have to have a religion class for every religion's beliefs? If that's the case, then tax payer dollars are spent on religion in schools and churches/mosques etc. shouldn't get tax breaks?

Just thinking, really. Trying to foster debate :)

---

I meant more in terms of a singular, general "World Religions" class. I know there's one at most high schools in my area, and there's one at UNI as well. Not really complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

That's not disputed by Creationists. And darwinism requires far more than that. darwinism requires lower forms of life to gain new genetic information which allows them to transform into completely different higher forms of life. There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.

What you are describing, and all darwinists are ever able to describe with evidence, are either examples of loss of genetic information, or activation of previously-dormant yet already-existing genetic information. It in no way makes the case for common ancestry or that an amoeba 'evolved' into all life that exists.

---

Uhh....there is plenty of evidence of organisms evolving into higher forms of life.

Teaching Creationism is a possibility.

However, if you teach Creationism, you must also teach the Greek Mythological Model of Universal Creation, i.e. The Eternal Supergod Chaos fathering the heavens and the earth Gaia, then having sex (presumably) with his/her daughter in order to produce a plethora of gods who had sex with their siblings and declared war on their children, and fought an epic battle which shook the earth, (their mother), who has been shouldered since the beginning of time on the back of Atlas, even though he is an ancestor of Gaia. You must also teach about Zeus' numerous and graphic sexual conquests, including mating with animals.

Let's not forget to include the Roman models, perhaps other pagan deities as well, Norse mythology, animism, shamanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Native American folklore, African mysticism, Emperor worship, Ancestor worship, cannibalism and human sacrifice.

After all, why include only one belief system? If you teach one, you should teach them all. Including Scientology and Mormonism, as well as belief systems which have not been outlawed that are still referred to as cults.

And if we are going to present all of this as the viable alternative to current scientific findings about the rational nature of the universe, we must teach all of them as science as well, thereby negating the concept of the separation between rational thought and irrational belief.




I say it's a brilliant idea, and I wholeheartedly support it, because nothing would make me happier than to openly and publicly defy each and every nonscientific theory in a debate sponsored by a school system. The rational mind begs for the chance to challenge this nonsense in front of the impressionable children they might otherwise have claimed as their own.

Since the US has chosen to be secular, I suppose it is obliged to teach what we think we know about the formation of the universe from our scientific studies. However, there needs to be a lot more respect shown to Christians in schools, I was brought up presuming God didn't exist because of militaristic atheist parents, teachers, and classmates; now I'm annoyed I dismissed God for so long because of them.

I am with the pizzaguy on this one.

Even if we should just take the Christian creationism, there would be several models. Which is the right one?
If the Christian world would agree on a single model and a single manuscript, then we could discuss this. Right now with the 38 000 Christian denominations out there, they don’t even agree on the text used as the source of this concept. What they have agreed on is that the text doesn’t really exist. They base their authority, their priesthood, their teaching on something that does not exist in its original form which to me is problematic at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

However, there needs to be a lot more respect shown to Christians in schools

---

No, not at all.

I will say this under the pretext of you being an American citizen, even though I know you are not. I absolutely respect your right to believe as you wish (provided you do not infringe on other's rights in exercising your belief structure), that to me is a fundamental freedom that we enjoy and I would die fighting for it if need be. However, I absolutely do NOT 1. respect your religion or belief or 2. am even required to recognize your beliefs as an individual, nor am I required by law to do either 1 or 2, and that's absolutely the way it should be.

Religion is and should be a private matter for individuals, that said bringing it to the marketplace of ideas is a great and normal thing to do. The problem is when overzealous types try to force it into situations where it has zero bearing or place being. School is about education; math, grammar spelling and language ( :shame: ), physics, biology, etc. Dogma and belief are not fact and absolutely should not and will not be taught in schools, nor even recognized. That's something for folks to teach their children in the privacy of their own homes or religious gathering places, which ARE the proper venues.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Ian T. Taylor

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Ian bloody T. Taylor :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:what a joke
Why not make it a better joke and use Adnan Oktar instead :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Cretinists:dizzy2:absolutely clueless .
Then again it does disprove the theory of evolution , if it is selection of the fittest then cretinists would be extinct because they are too dumb to survive .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Since the US has chosen to be secular, I suppose it is obliged to teach what we think we know about the formation of the universe from our scientific studies.

---

Yes. Children can be taught about creationism at home or in Church if they like.

Quote:

---

However, there needs to be a lot more respect shown to Christians in schools, I was brought up presuming God didn't exist because of militaristic atheist parents, teachers, and classmates; now I'm annoyed I dismissed God for so long because of them.

---

This is also true, but it really needs to start with the students. Teachers, from my experience, generally do not speak about religion often. The difference with them is that if you criticize Christianity it is perfectly fine, but if you criticize another religion, like Islam, there go the fireworks.

Darwinism is only one form of evolutionary theory, it requires random mutation in order for one species to change into another. It is quite correct that we have not observed this in nature or in the lab.

The only things ever produced from fruit flies are fruit flies.

This does not make evolution wrong as a concept, in fact I would say that the evidence for an evolutionary process is overwhelming. I would also say that we don't really know how the process operates, and that Darwinism looks increasingly insufficient to expalin it. This means that the current theory is open to attack, which has resulted in increasingly antagonistic behaviour from many biologists.

Case in point, Dr. Dawkins. This man has done a great deal to damage Science, because he offers you are binary choice; religion or numbers. Increasingly people are dissatisfied with the numbers and are rejecting them for the comfort of fundamentalist religion.

So, back we go to the Dark Ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Darwinism is only one form of evolutionary theory, it requires random mutation in order for one species to change into another. It is quite correct that we have not observed this in nature or in the lab.

The only things ever produced from fruit flies are fruit flies.

This does not make evolution wrong as a concept, in fact I would say that the evidence for an evolutionary process is overwhelming. I would also say that we don't really know how the process operates, and that Darwinism looks increasingly insufficient to expalin it. This means that the current theory is open to attack, which has resulted in increasingly antagonistic behaviour from many biologists.

Case in point, Dr. Dawkins. This man has done a great deal to damage Science, because he offers you are binary choice; religion or numbers. Increasingly people are dissatisfied with the numbers and are rejecting them for the comfort of fundamentalist religion.

So, back we go to the Dark Ages.

---

The mechanics of evolution are measured in generations. With each generation, there may be a slight mutation, not always one that can be measured, and not always one that is visibly applicable to the process of evolution. However, slight mutations there are, because of the imperfection of DNA reproduction, and a competitive selection process there is, both in logic and in evidence. If there is a trend towards a certain direction, these distinctive products can be called subspecies. Scientists have set a high bar, however, for the definition of species, which is something which can reproduce with itself, but not with another different species. Given the short history of the scientific process, is it surprising that we have not yet observed, under laboratory conditions, something which takes so long to happen?

Selective breeding, mutations and evolution are used everyday in agriculture, and have been for centuries. To say they are a farce is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.


Do you think we would have any current breed of standard consumed livestock or crop with these?

Wasn't the Religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster created to reverse the rulings in Kansas schools that creationism was to be taught? Since the Religion does have legal legitimacy in Kansas, their views would also need to have been taught.. which were insane and absurd, but no less than Creationism.

Piracy and Global Warming are connected, been an unusually chilly year I think its because of all the activity off the coast of Somalia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...

---

Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.

Anyways, creationism shouldn't be in schools except religious theory class or whatever. Same goes for 'intelligent design'. But they shouldn't be taught as science or in science classes.

However, this should not preclude schools from teaching that darwinian evolution isn't a perfect theory, and going over some of the scientific gaps or contradictions in the theory.

Quote:

---

Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma

---

Ideally, yes, but you need to take a look at the global warming thread...
Anyways, that's why I added that last paragraph above - we can't teach dogmatic acceptation of darwinian evolution.

CR

Quote:

---

Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", they need to be nuetral. You have the right to practice your religon to your hearts content, but state sponsered insitutions shouldn't be used as a veicahal . Thats not to say they can't be taught in a religon class. It just can't be taught as science, something which is based on quantifiable proving of hypotheises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The mechanics of evolution are measured in generations. With each generation, there may be a slight mutation, not always one that can be measured, and not always one that is visibly applicable to the process of evolution. However, slight mutations there are, because of the imperfection of DNA reproduction, and a competitive selection process there is, both in logic and in evidence. If there is a trend towards a certain direction, these distinctive products can be called subspecies. Scientists have set a high bar, however, for the definition of species, which is something which can reproduce with itself, but not with another different species. Given the short history of the scientific process, is it surprising that we have not yet observed, under laboratory conditions, something which takes so long to happen?

---

None of this has actually been proven. I don't dissagree in principle but there is no proof. All we have seen are changes within species, and most of those involve breeding for already existing recessive traits. I don't know of a single instnace where we have evidence of, for example, a fly growing a sting like a bee.

I also don't know of any studies that have demonstrated actual mutations in the wild, only the accumulation of existing traits through selective breeding.

My problem is not with evolution but with puritanical Darwinism, I think that the possibility that the genetic code might be altered by outside influences, e.g. a virus, are also things that need to be considered. What I'm talking about is the much decried Lamarkism.

Darwinism is rapidly turning into Dawkinism and it's becoming inflexable, just like a fundamentalist religion.

Hence the creation of the 9th Circuit Court; religious matters and schools tend to butt heads severely when something gets involved in 9th Circuit, especially because it's entire foundation is to uphold the Separation of Church and State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

None of this has actually been proven. I don't dissagree in principle but there is no proof. All we have seen are changes within species, and most of those involve breeding for already existing recessive traits. I don't know of a single instnace where we have evidence of, for example, a fly growing a sting like a bee.

---

At the same time, there's evidence of mutations in bacteria and viruses were they start to resist the previous treatments that we have. And then there's the fossil record too which gives evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.

Anyways, creationism shouldn't be in schools except religious theory class or whatever. Same goes for 'intelligent design'. But they shouldn't be taught as science or in science classes.

However, this should not preclude schools from teaching that darwinian evolution isn't a perfect theory, and going over some of the scientific gaps or contradictions in the theory.

Ideally, yes, but you need to take a look at the global warming thread...
Anyways, that's why I added that last paragraph above - we can't teach dogmatic acceptation of darwinian evolution.

CR

---

The various flavours of selection in evolution are probably too subtle for high schoolers to understand. Better to teach them the basics, which is the Darwinian explanation of evolution, then those who want to specialise can learn about its inadequacies in college or university. Darwinian theory gets one through life quite adequately, without the need to go into detailed genetics, sexual selection, and other explorations of his ideas. Similarly, Newtonian physics is inadequate once one gets past a certain point, but his basic theories will get one through everyday life, and those who want to specialise can learn about Einsteinian physics and others at higher levels.

Just for the sake of accuracy I thought I would mention that bacteria also get new DNA through plasmids in addition to internal mutations.

Also, some(or maybe all, I don't remember) viruses contain only RNA and have no DNA. That is why they are able to mutate so quickly.

By the way, the wild horse(Mongolian) has 2 more chromosomes than the modern, domesticated version of itself. If you can change the number of chromosomes then you can make pretty much any changes within a kingdom. I still don't know how plants->animals would work because some plants have a trinity of chromosomes instead of pairs like animals. However, I'm only a high school senior, so I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere.

Creationism can be taught in a humanities class when the religion in question is discussed. It has no place in a science class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The various flavours of selection in evolution are probably too subtle for high schoolers to understand. Better to teach them the basics, which is the Darwinian explanation of evolution, then those who want to specialise can learn about its inadequacies in college or university. Darwinian theory gets one through life quite adequately, without the need to go into detailed genetics, sexual selection, and other explorations of his ideas. Similarly, Newtonian physics is inadequate once one gets past a certain point, but his basic theories will get one through everyday life, and those who want to specialise can learn about Einsteinian physics and others at higher levels.

---

I don't buy into this form of educational practice for contentious subjects, some admission of holes is necessary at least. If you use this approach with religion you invariably get an atheistic backlash from the student. I submit that papering over the cracks in Darwinism is behind the rise in Creationism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...

---

Most western states separate church and state (except the UK, Denmark and a couple of others) wich doesn't entail more than a strict seperation between institutions as such. Many European countries have christian-democratic parties. From a strictly "democratic" point of view I don't see why opinions inspired by religious conviction should be considered inadmissible beforehand. But then again I never claimed that democracies always make for rational decisions.

Only a handful of states seperate religion as such from the state or even all public life- besides France and Turkey I can't think of any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I will say this under the pretext of you being an American citizen, even though I know you are not. I absolutely respect your right to believe as you wish (provided you do not infringe on other's rights in exercising your belief structure), that to me is a fundamental freedom that we enjoy and I would die fighting for it if need be. However, I absolutely do NOT 1. respect your religion or belief or 2. am even required to recognize your beliefs as an individual, nor am I required by law to do either 1 or 2, and that's absolutely the way it should be.

---

But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams. You can't tolerate everyone's views, because in reality only one theory can be taught in a class, and everyone must at least appear to believe it in order to pass the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I don't buy into this form of educational practice for contentious subjects, some admission of holes is necessary at least. If you use this approach with religion you invariably get an atheistic backlash from the student. I submit that papering over the cracks in Darwinism is behind the rise in Creationism.

---

Its interesting, as a society we've been valuing less concrete, more personal ideas, the whole post modernist, the interpretation is inside you, everyone's different kind of things. Yet at the same time we still have the rigid logic of the enlightenment drilled into us, look at some of threads we had about religon or even global warming. People demand hard facts and logic to back up everything. Its an interesting contrast, and weird to think that two opposites exist at the same time. That kind of double standard may be the reason why there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground. It seems that you either have to be a hardcore atheist or a complete religious fanatic these days.

Creationism in my opinion has a place in schools but not in science lessons. Due to the fact it's religion it should be touched on in some sort of religious class. I'm not sure how the USA school system works but I guess if it's like ours over here you should have some form of religious education. Simply bring up the subject of creationism in these classes.

The problem with Evolutionism taught individually is that you oversimplify the evolution of the genome and its role.
It's just like saying "Put a couple of dead branches and some mortar in space and let them assamble into a skyscraper".
Science teaches you the rules, Theology explains the meaning of these rules.
You can't survive without knowing the rules, nor without knowing the meaning of these rules.
No matter how much people would try, you can't mess with the genome like with a string of beads.Many functions of the DNA and ARN have been mapped but try building one out of simple aminoacids and you start getting headaches.
They coul'n't reconstruct the DNA of a Thylocene let alone build an entire chain of moleculesas complex as nuclear acids.
So by working through Evolution one can only grasp the silouetthe of a Creator behind all.

Quote:

---

But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams.

---

Wow thats shocking , you mean that in a science exam you had to write about science not religion .
Whatever next , I suppose the cruel teachers would have failed you if you had answered a question on Shakespear with a piece about the ming dynasty:dizzy2:

Tribesman's bluntness nonwithstanding, I agree with him.

If I had to take an exam on world religions, I would have to learn about them and answer most of the questions correctly.

If I had to take an exam on science, I might have to learn about Darwinism, because Darwin's Theory of Evolution is science, and creationism is not. The only way you can possibly believe otherwise is if you are woefully uninformed, unfamiliar with the definitions of science and of faith, or you know it's true and are too stubborn to admit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.

---

...Wait, what? Are you saying what I learned in Archaeology, and those Archaeologists who specialize in the Origins of the Human Race, are either all wrong or lieing?

Truth is that all species mutate, and modern humans aren't any special in that matter. Two hundred thousand years ago we were different. Not only that, we have proof. It's something called material culture. Two hundred thousand years ago there weren't humans like us but there were some species who had similarities with us, and proof comes not only through bones, which thanks to genetics, biology, chemistry, physics can relay us a lot of valuable information, but also comes through what those humans built back then (Stone tools, millions of tools; And these are available in such a number that Archaeologists could even classify them in specific group-types), which become gradually more complex and hard to make as time passes by, that coupled with biological evolution (Once again shown by bone material culture) ultimatly shows the human evolution in intelligence terms, when it comes to utilities. Fortunatly, we aren't the only species that is known to evolve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams. You can't tolerate everyone's views, because in reality only one theory can be taught in a class, and everyone must at least appear to believe it in order to pass the subject.

---

I'm sure the examining boards would have accepted a suitably sourced and explained answer of another flavour if Darwinian evolutionary theory wasn't to your taste. You'd need to demonstrate a clear understanding of what you're talking about though, and not just positing unsupported ideas.

Frankly, if we would find a 6000 year old ark on top of a mountain, I'd be willing to listen. But so far, lots of hoaxes, and zero science.

Scientific theories are fine for science classes, I was commenting on the idea of being forced to accept other people's ideas. My point is that writing scientific theories in a science exam is fine, however it's no different from being taught about religions in their own classes, and yet there's always a panic that somehow Christians are trying to brainwash people and force their ideas upon everyone. It's very much the otherway around nowadays. No doubt militant atheists are happy about that, but there seems to be a double standard for Christians from everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Scientific theories are fine for science classes, I was commenting on the idea of being forced to accept other people's ideas. My point is that writing scientific theories in a science exam is fine, however it's no different from being taught about religions in their own classes, and yet there's always a panic that somehow Christians are trying to brainwash people and force their ideas upon everyone. It's very much the otherway around nowadays. No doubt militant atheists are happy about that, but there seems to be a double standard for Christians from everyone else.

---

I'm not aware of militant atheists protesting against the teaching of creationism in religion classes. If their creationist theory also has the same scientific basis, using the scientific method, as evolution theories, then I'm sure the exam boards would be happy to consider them as well. After all, Darwin formed his theory from observation of evidence, collating evidence, and forming a conclusion from the evidence, testing his conclusion against all available evidence, ie. using the scientific method. If you wish to propose a creation theory that competes with Darwinism in science classes, then test your theory using the scientific method, and see how well it compares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I'm not aware of militant atheists protesting against the teaching of creationism in religion classes. If their creationist theory also has the same scientific basis, using the scientific method, as evolution theories, then I'm sure the exam boards would be happy to consider them as well. After all, Darwin formed his theory from observation of evidence, collating evidence, and forming a conclusion from the evidence, testing his conclusion against all available evidence, ie. using the scientific method. If you wish to propose a creation theory that competes with Darwinism in science classes, then test your theory using the scientific method, and see how well it compares.

---

darwin certainly did not form his conclusions based on evidence, nor observation, nor testing, nor the scientific method. At least not his outlandish claims like all life 'evolved from a common ancestor. No example of this has ever been observed, or tested, or repeated.

All that darwin truly observed was variation within a kind. His belief that all life came from a common single-celled ancestor was, and remains to this day, 100% pure unsubstantiated imagination. Common ancestry has no scientific basis, therefore it should not be taught in science class.

A lot of posters in this thread are of the opinion that darwinism is acceptable to teach in science class because it is science - but that's a false premise. It's imagination, not science. It's outlandish claims are no more scientific, and have no more evidence for them, than any claims of Creationism.

i am still hoping to see american schools see the light and start teaching the true "stork theory" for conception.....if you´re gonna go with creationism I think it will fit thematically.

@Navaros: just curious, how come you don't post for weeks or even months in a row yet show up almost immediately whenever evolution-creationism is debated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

darwin certainly did not form his conclusions based on evidence, nor observation, nor testing, nor the scientific method. At least not his outlandish claims like all life 'evolved from a common ancestor. No example of this has ever been observed, or tested, or repeated.

All that darwin truly observed was variation within a kind. His belief that all life came from a common single-celled ancestor was, and remains to this day, 100% pure unsubstantiated imagination. Common ancestry has no scientific basis, therefore it should not be taught in science class.

A lot of posters in this thread are of the opinion that darwinism is acceptable to teach in science class because it is science - but that's a false premise. It's imagination, not science. It's outlandish claims are no more scientific, and have no more evidence for them, than any claims of Creationism.

---

DNA

Personally, one thing I do really find funny about creationism is that by looking on the evidence (aka all living beings) you can conclude that the entity the did this either was brilliant engineer with very limited tools or was an idiotic engineer.
Basically it built working stuff from a junkyard and not as factory as you could expect. The side effect of this is that some systems are horribly impractical.

Anyway to put it simply, evolution theory is the model that best explains a wast amount of data from multiple scientiffic fields and has no serious contenders.
While the thesis that someone created everything and put a lot of evidence there to confuse us cannot be disproven, neither can the fact that this world and everything on it is just something came to life thanks to my thoughts.
As such, I do demand proper worship or tribute, or you will awake post mortem in a place that makes hell feel like a pleasant vacation.

When something cannot possibly be disproven, it ceases to count as knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

When something cannot possibly be disproven, it ceases to count as knowledge.

---

Can you even define knowledge?

Without knowledge, there is no definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Without knowledge, there is no definition.

---

If there is no definition of knowledge, we should assume there is no knowledge?

knowledge forms the basis of definition. There are two possibilities; either there is knowledge and things are knowable, therefore inherent truth exists, or nothing is knowable and nothing exists.

I choose the more rational interpretation, and assume truth exists and that knowledge of that truth is possible. Therefore, we can define things based upon knowledge of the truth.

A sphere is round. Without objective truth, common perceptions, evidence, and proof, I cannot make a definition of a sphere. But because there is truth, there are common perceptions, and we can gather evidence, and arrive at a conclusion. As such, definitions flow from knowledge of truth.

If there are conflicting truths, they weren't true to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greek Guy

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

---

We assume. We agree. We conclude. But we do not - can not - know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

We assume. We agree. We conclude. But we do not - can not - know.

---

That sounds all mystical and deep and all but it overlooks the obvious assumption that you know that you cannot know.

Obviously, that means you think you know something, and are arguing that it is possible to know something, because you're attempting to convince someone of your viewpoint.

Basically, it's self-defeating logic. I didn't have to come up with a rebuttal, because it crumbles under it's own rules.

Fascinating concepts to debate of course, but off-topic.

I'm telling the moderator on you, KukriKhan and Sigurd. :whip:


:clown:

Derailing or not. :wiseguy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

knowledge forms the basis of definition. There are two possibilities; either there is knowledge and things are knowable, therefore inherent truth exists, or nothing is knowable and nothing exists.

---

Let's go back to the beginning of this.

You said:
[rephrased]
When something is not disprovable, it is not knowledge.

I said:
[rephrased]
What is knowledge?

You said:
[rephrased]
Knowledge precedes definition.

I said:
[rephrased]
If we do not know what knowing is, do we even have knowledge at all?

You said:
[rephrased]
I am not going to define knowledge and will continue expanding on this common assumption of knowledge as if we have agreed on a definition already.

I say:
Define knowledge before continuing. What is knowledge?

There is a dispute between philosophers about what the definition of knowledge is.

However, a dictionary entry on knowledge reads:

(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>

There are many different uses of the word. To limit the discussion to what I am referring to, knowledge is that which is believed, true, and justified. In other words, factual information that we are consciously aware of.

If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.

Ergo, knowledge. Those who dispute whether or not knowledge exists dispute whether or not they themselves exist. And when one does that, I question whether or not they steer away from a toddler they see walking in the street. Because, after all, who knows whether or not that child exists?

I prefer the rational opinion on knowledge, which is that it exists and we can perceive it. The opposing opinion is self-defeating and inherently worthless, because even if someone knew that there is no such thing as knowledge, they would ipso facto be completely wrong at the same time.

Ah, paradoxes. Sometimes they help us prove what cannot be true. Hence, knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

DNA

---

Pwned. It's really all there is to it.
Even if we had no archaeological evidence about past species which are clearly (e.g. Scientifically proven) linked with us, why do we have closer DNA similarities with species (Simians, most notably the living species Pan Paniscus, who shares 98% of our DNA) who coincidently have biological, physical, psychological and social similarities with us (humans) then any other species? Is it because God (Maybe it was Zeus? Odin? Osiris?) wished us to have more furry and retarded brother? Pah-leeze. We have evidence, facts. Creationism has...Nothing. Creationism is a story, which cannot ever be proven. Evolutionism on the other hand, (I can speak at least in the Evolution of the Human Species) is well advanced, and although it still has many missing links, actually defines a plausible evolution based on scientific evidence. Creationism is just one big missing link, meaning it is a fairy tale story, created in a time where humans had no way to trace back their past.
Believing in Creationism, James Ussher using the Bible and various religious documents to trace back to the date where the world was created, he came up with a date: 4004 B.C.
Unfortunalty a modern science called "Geology" has already proved that there were natural materials existing far beyond that date. Pity.

The existance of knowledge is a working assumption, without which we cannot form a frame of reference. It's still an assumption though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The existance of knowledge is a working assumption, without which we cannot form a frame of reference. It's still an assumption though.

---

The existence of knowledge is as much an assumption as your existence, and the existence of the universe.

Yes, we must assume they exist, but they are self-evident. They require no further evidence than their existence. That is why when people question objective truth, knowledge, reason, logic, evidence, sense, and understanding, I question why they bother questioning.

Without knowledge there is no reason. Without reason there is no logic. Without logic, we are precisely as well-off dead as we are alive, so we should not lock anyone up for murders, nor bother to procreate.

One questions at that point why we bother breathing, if nothing matters and nothing is true or provable or knowable. I say, be bold. Question whether you can know. But you will never know that you can never know, because THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Unfortunalty a modern science called "Geology" has already proved that there were natural materials existing far beyond that date. Pity.

---

When one has unrelenting devotion to religious faith, one has equally unrelenting doubt in knowledge and proof. As such, religious people will always question the existence of knowable truth, but never question the existence of revelation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

When one has unrelenting devotion to religious faith, one has equally unrelenting doubt in knowledge and proof. As such, religious people will always question the existence of knowable truth, but never question the existence of revelation.

---

Simply put, people with unrelenting devotion to an unproven mythical being, have unrelenting doubt about proven facts? It's the same as having doubts that the sky is blue, that humans have feet, that humans have children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Simply put, people with unrelenting devotion to an unproven mythical being, have unrelenting doubt about proven facts? It's the same as having doubts that the sky is blue, that humans have feet, that humans have children.

---

Doubting the obvious is okay. After all, without the tinfoil hatters and flat earthers the world would be a less exciting place to live in. Now, feeding this garbage to children, THAT is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

The existence of knowledge is as much an assumption as your existence, and the existence of the universe.

Yes, we must assume they exist, but they are self-evident. They require no further evidence than their existence. That is why when people question objective truth, knowledge, reason, logic, evidence, sense, and understanding, I question why they bother questioning.

Without knowledge there is no reason. Without reason there is no logic. Without logic, we are precisely as well-off dead as we are alive, so we should not lock anyone up for murders, nor bother to procreate.

One questions at that point why we bother breathing, if nothing matters and nothing is true or provable or knowable. I say, be bold. Question whether you can know. But you will never know that you can never know, because THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

---

Ah, but this is where it gets slippery. You mentioned logic, but logic is based on the assumption that the measurable is repeatable, and that 1 + 1 will always = 2. This is actually a pretty big assumption, and it's what all modern science is based on.

1,000 years ago the existence of God would have been considered even more obvious. "Man is the measure of all things".

Ultimately the stance of the religious fundamentalist is as logical as your own, it simply has a different start point. You assume that your careful measurement of the natural world is accurate, they assume their holy text is accurate. You demand that the Holy text eqate to the natural world, or be proved false, and they demand that your conclusions from measurement equate with their holy text, or be proved false.

They have the advantage because they can refute any measurement you produce by declaring that it has been altered by God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ah, but this is where it gets slippery. You mentioned logic, but logic is based on the assumption that the measurable is repeatable, and that 1 + 1 will always = 2. This is actually a pretty big assumption, and it's what all modern science is based on.

1,000 years ago the existence of God would have been considered even more obvious. "Man is the measure of all things".

Ultimately the stance of the religious fundamentalist is as logical as your own, it simply has a different start point. You assume that your careful measurement of the natural world is accurate, they assume their holy text is accurate. You demand that the Holy text eqate to the natural world, or be proved false, and they demand that your conclusions from measurement equate with their holy text, or be proved false.

They have the advantage because they can refute any measurement you produce by declaring that it has been altered by God.

---

If there ever comes a time when 1+1 does not equal 2, then the fundamental nature of the universe will have changed. There is no evidence this has ever happened or ever will, and even if it did, that means nothing.

All my arguments pertain to THIS universe as it always has been and always will be. You HAVE TO THROW OUT any argument which pertains to a different universe, because it's irrelevant to this one.

Focus on this universe, because that's the only place our arguments matter. What you are saying in effect is that I could be wrong, but the nature of reality would have to change.

That's the same as saying you cannot refute my arguments, and that they are correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

If there ever comes a time when 1+1 does not equal 2, then the fundamental nature of the universe will have changed. There is no evidence this has ever happened or ever will, and even if it did, that means nothing.

All my arguments pertain to THIS universe as it always has been and always will be. You HAVE TO THROW OUT any argument which pertains to a different universe, because it's irrelevant to this one.

Focus on this universe, because that's the only place our arguments matter. What you are saying in effect is that I could be wrong, but the nature of reality would have to change.

That's the same as saying you cannot refute my arguments, and that they are correct.

---

It was only proved that 1+1=2 about twenty years ago, actually. That's not the point. The point is this:

The God about which we are talking is claimed to be all poweful, he can therefore change the nature of this reality whenever he wants to and leave no evidence it has happened, which makes your arguements irrelevant.

We get around this problem be saying that he doesn't, because he is a just God and does not lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It was only proved that 1+1=2 about twenty years ago, actually. That's not the point. The point is this:

The God about which we are talking is claimed to be all poweful, he can therefore change the nature of this reality whenever he wants to and leave no evidence it has happened, which makes your arguements irrelevant.

We get around this problem be saying that he doesn't, because he is a just God and does not lie.

---

The God of which you speak would have to contradict his own laws, making him a liar.

I don't believe in such a God, and my arguments are quite relevant.

The rule is, if you have to alter the laws of the known universe to make your opponent's argument irrelevant, then they are quite relevant.

Question: What hypothetical observations would disprove darwinism?

Darwinism? You'll have to be more specific.

The theory of evolution has many, many examples of proof, ranging from the geologic to the biological to the chemical, to modern observations regarding breeding new species of plant life, to the FACT that species die every year by the thousands, yet many many more remain. That suggests that new species are being created, otherwise there would have been unknown trillions of species at the beginning of the world, "4004" years ago.

New species have come into existence during humanity's existence, by our own doing. And it happens naturally as well. Artificial selection is real, and natural has been observed.

Viruses and bacteria mutate and become different strains. Mutations in genes occur. Biological links between species have been found. There is a logical progression of life from the simple to the complex, in our geological history.

The evidence is overwhelming. Creationism has no evidence, and if all the evidence was poofed into existence by a magic genie in a bottle, then science has no meaning.

I tend to disbelieve that science has no meaning, because progress has always been achieved by the rational mind using logical methods, and standing in the way of that progress has always been the superstitious, the phobic, the mystical, supernatural, religious, who disbelieve the rational and favor what cannot ever be proven.

Science has led to dead ends, but those dead ends proved that other avenues were possible. Even the dead ends helped us understand. Religion has never brought about one one-thousandth the amount of progress that reason has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

The theory of evolution has many, many examples of proof, ranging from the geologic to the biological to the chemical, to modern observations regarding breeding new species of plant life, to the FACT that species die every year by the thousands, yet many many more remain. That suggests that new species are being created, otherwise there would have been unknown trillions of species at the beginning of the world, "4004" years ago.

New species have come into existence during humanity's existence, by our own doing. And it happens naturally as well. Artificial selection is real, and natural has been observed.

Viruses and bacteria mutate and become different strains. Mutations in genes occur. Biological links between species have been found. There is a logical progression of life from the simple to the complex, in our geological history.

The evidence is overwhelming. Creationism has no evidence, and if all the evidence was poofed into existence by a magic genie in a bottle, then science has no meaning.

I tend to disbelieve that science has no meaning, because progress has always been achieved by the rational mind using logical methods, and standing in the way of that progress has always been the superstitious, the phobic, the mystical, supernatural, religious, who disbelieve the rational and favor what cannot ever be proven.

Science has led to dead ends, but those dead ends proved that other avenues were possible. Even the dead ends helped us understand. Religion has never brought about one one-thousandth the amount of progress that reason has.

---

Phew. And I was beginning to think that you were one of the guys who thought Dinossaurs were placed beneath the Earth by "god" to "test our faith". Such people irritate me beyond imagination (Mainly because I have excavated things from beneath the Earth myself, as an archaeologist)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Phew. And I was beginning to think that you were one of the guys who thought Dinossaurs were placed beneath the Earth by "god" to "test our faith". Such people irritate me beyond imagination (Mainly because I have excavated things from beneath the Earth myself, as an archaeologist)

---

I'm one of the Org's most outspoken blasphemers, and a heretic among heretics. I doubt anything that is supernatural, not proven, or not sufficiently proven, and I even doubt that all proof is foolproof. However, I believe evidence and repeated results and removing alternate conclusions, over preaching that there is a man inside an invisible box who watches everything that we do and sends us to burn inside eternal hellfire forever when we die.

I don't mind tests of faith, but when this God places everything on this planet in such a way that the results are counter-intuitive, I have to wonder why he considers suicide an unforgivable sin. It seems logical that if God is testing our faith by misleading us to the wrong conclusions, the biggest leap of faith of them all would be to kill oneself and see what happens.

As such, suicide bombers should be considered the most faithful of them all.

Hence my problem with faith. (Or, one of many)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

The God of which you speak would have to contradict his own laws, making him a liar.

I don't believe in such a God, and my arguments are quite relevant.

The rule is, if you have to alter the laws of the known universe to make your opponent's argument irrelevant, then they are quite relevant.

---

I agree, but I'm not trying to convince you of this, I'm merely expalining the mindset. There is a better answer to the proposition. You see, God is also omnipresent, in time and space. If God created the Universe 6,000 years ago and then, well backfilled the rest of history makes no difference than if he started with the big bang. Not only would there be no way to tell the difference, there would be no difference because God is timeless. As such he can start the universe at any temporal point and then go back and do the bits that came before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

Question: What hypothetical observations would disprove darwinism?

---

It's a good question. :bow:

Well, bearing in mind that Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species is now just a thread in a much more complex Theory of Evolution, I shall assume you mean the latter.

As noted above, there are many scientific disciplines outside biology that provide evidence, so one might be able to argue for say, evidence that invalidated the dating of rocks (ie some evidence that showed us stratification theory was wrong, or that our physics were wrong when measuring radioactive decay) might shake the usefulness of the fossil record.

The Theory of Evolution has been modified many times by observations - not least because Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. The Creationists tend to use this as an argument that the whole thing is utterly flawed, whereas it is quite normal for science. This replicates each philosophy - a creationist will distrust anything that does not emerge fully formed and free from doubt - a scientist welcomes revision of ideas - their evolution, if you will.

However, to be brief and flippant, I would say apply the same standards as the advocates of Creationism do. They constantly argue that no-one has seen a fish evolve into a frog, therefore, evolution is bunk. (Macro-evolution as they term it - I haven't seen any arguments that micro-evolution doesn't happen).

So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

More likely, I might start questioning whether it's wise to drive country roads under the influence. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It's a good question. :bow:

Well, bearing in mind that Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species is now just a thread in a much more complex Theory of Evolution, I shall assume you mean the latter.

As noted above, there are many scientific disciplines outside biology that provide evidence, so one might be able to argue for say, evidence that invalidated the dating of rocks (ie some evidence that showed us stratification theory was wrong, or that our physics were wrong when measuring radioactive decay) might shake the usefulness of the fossil record.

The Theory of Evolution has been modified many times by observations - not least because Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. The Creationists tend to use this as an argument that the whole thing is utterly flawed, whereas it is quite normal for science. This replicates each philosophy - a creationist will distrust anything that does not emerge fully formed and free from doubt - a scientist welcomes revision of ideas - their evolution, if you will.

However, to be brief and flippant, I would say apply the same standards as the advocates of Creationism do. They constantly argue that no-one has seen a fish evolve into a frog, therefore, evolution is bunk. (Macro-evolution as they term it - I haven't seen any arguments that micro-evolution doesn't happen).

So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

More likely, I might start questioning whether it's wise to drive country roads under the influence. :wink:

---

A thoughtful response, but not really adequate. I know a place in Wyoming where you can find terradactyl fossils in a layer of rock above my own footprints. Radioactive dating has a lot of controversy, especially C14 dating...

I'm not arguing against Darwinism or for Creationism. Darwinism is supported by a mountain of confirming evidence. What I'm really challenging is Popper's philosophy of science, based on the idea that scientific theories are falsifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

So, when a moose spontaneously appears out of thin air fully formed - ie we get to see creation in action and an observation that does not fit evolutionary theory - I might start questioning evolution.

---

That might do it... but I wonder if there could be an observation which would refute just Darwinism and not all of thermodynamics.

Sure. If course, only when and if it's accepted as a plausible explanation by the majority of the scientific community, just like evolution is.

That's how science works; we teach what know now, and when something better comes along, we swap instantly(relatively) for the improved shiny thing. It's flowing, not set in stone.

That day isn't going to come, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

A thoughtful response, but not really adequate. I know a place in Wyoming where you can find terradactyl fossils in a layer of rock above my own footprints.

---

This argument is used frequently by the supporters of a young earth i.e Creationists.
That you find fossils, not only pterodactyl, in high layers could be the result of glacier activity or floods. I understand Wyoming has glaciers. Those babies gnaws at the ground, creating new landscape. Any host of nature forces can change the norm. In the Oil business, the knowledge of how this works helps us find trapped petroleum.

What is Creationism anyway? Isn't it a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1? To support the idea of a young earth, you must trust that the non existent original manuscripts of Genesis never was tampered with, that one day as written is 24 hours and not a undefined period of time.

Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.

Quote:

---

Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.

---

One usual explanation for that is that when the Jewish scriptures were written for the egyptian library the timespan didn't add up with recorded Egyptian history so they added lots of years to the lifespan of the characters to get rid of the contradiction .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well the 6,000 years comes from the genealogy Biblical characters. One thing I have wondered about is how they calculate lifespans, and how we know how quickly they dropped.

---

Largely by the ages recorded in Genesis I would imagine, until you get to Moses, at which point the supposed date locks into history pretty clearly. Except of course it doesn't, because Exodus doth not jive with secular history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.

---

Nothing exists. Everything is just fluctuations in a vacuum.