The Ultimate Poll!

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Should Intellegent Design, Creationism, and other scientific theories explaining the birth of the world be taught alongside evolution as other theories, or should evolution remain the unchallenged theory that, although it is only a theory, is taught as a fact nationwide?

[Tribesman]

Capo , evolution is taught as a theory not as a fact . The title normally given to it "The Theory of Evolution" is a bit of a giveaway .
Since many creationists consider their views to be a FACT because it is written in a heavily edited book that has undergone many translations with all the possibilites for errors that occur in that process I don't think they would be willing to agree to have it taught as a theory .

[Grey_Fox]

In Ireland, evolution is taught in science class while creationism is taught in religion class. There has never been a controversy or clash between the way it is done here and it has always worked (in a deeply Catholic nation mind you), and for the life of me I just cannot understand what the problem is with it in the US.

[Goofball]

Capo, it is impossible to answer your poll. You have asked an "either/or" question, but the response options are "yes" or "no."

At any rate, evolution should coutinue to be taught in science classes, and mythologically-based theories like creationism should be taught in religion classes.

BTW, creationism is not, as you called it, a "scientific" theory. It is based on mythology, not science.

[Skomatth]

The question does not fit with the poll choices. You gave two options in your post and saying "yes" to both of them would convey a contradictory opinion.

Since the class in question is a science class, only evolutionary theory should be taught since it is the only scientific theory. The other theories you mention are metaphysical ones and belong in a philosophy or possibly a history class. I also don't see why theories shouldn't be taught in science class, otherwise nothing would be taught in science.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Oi. This is getting a gah.

[Steppe Merc]

Only evolution. All that other religous stuff belongs in the home, at church and at religous schools.

wait... Would that be a no? Or a yes..?

[Pindar]

Should Intellegent Design, Creationism, and other scientific theories explaining the birth of the world be taught alongside evolution as other theories, or should evolution remain the unchallenged theory that, although it is only a theory, is taught as a fact nationwide?

Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. Whatever appeal one might feel for them, these ideas do not fit under scientific schema.

Stating Evolution is only a theory suggests this is somehow a bad thing or insufficient. This is a mistake. Theories do not become facts. Facts exist within theories. Theories provide the intellectual context through which facts become meaningful.

Challenging Evolution or pointing out its limits is perfectly appropriate. This does not mean extra-scientific models therefore are appropriate in a science setting.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Capo, it is impossible to answer your poll. You have asked an "either/or" question, but the response options are "yes" or "no."

At any rate, evolution should coutinue to be taught in science classes, and mythologically-based theories like creationism should be taught in religion classes.

BTW, creationism is not, as you called it, a "scientific" theory. It is based on mythology, not science.

er the yes is to the first part, and the no is to the second lol

[_Martyr_]

Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. Whatever appeal one might feel for them, these ideas do not fit under scientific schema.

Stating Evolution is only a theory suggests this is somehow a bad thing or insufficient. This is a mistake. Theories do not become facts. Facts exist within theories. Theories provide the intellectual context through which facts become meaningful.

Challenging Evolution or pointing out its limits is perfectly appropriate. This does not mean extra-scientific models therefore are appropriate in a science setting.

Nicely put!

[Papewaio]

Shoe on the Other Foot:

Howabout making it compulsory in Friday/Saturday and Sunday (Islam/Judaism and Christian) religous group meetings to teach the Theory of Evolution along side the respective Creation viewpoints.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Shoe on the Other Foot:

Howabout making it compulsory in Friday/Saturday and Sunday (Islam/Judaism and Christian) religous group meetings to teach the Theory of Evolution along side the respective Creation viewpoints.

because whereas attending religious cerimonies arent mandentory by law, school is.

[Productivity]

because whereas attending religious cerimonies arent mandentory by law, school is.

So you are happy with making religous lessons mandatory by law?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

So you are happy with making religous lessons mandatory by law?

Darwinism is against quit a few religious beleifs, and it's only a theory as well, therefore, either teach every side of the story or don't teach any at all. it's not like knowing how the world was created has ANY effect on your life whatsoever.

Plus I have yet to see anything evolve except my headaches.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

No, creationism can be taught in churches, mosques, temples and other religious buildings. If you want to tell your child to approach it with the knowledge that it is a widely backed scientific theory go ahead, but that does not mean that everybody must be brainwashed into believing it is pure prattle. It may be wrong, but most of the arguments for teaching creationism or ID or having theory disclaimers make it seem like a scientific theory is loosely based on reality or a hunch, not heavily researched and backed by credible facts.

[ichi]

Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. Whatever appeal one might feel for them, these ideas do not fit under scientific schema.

Stating Evolution is only a theory suggests this is somehow a bad thing or insufficient. This is a mistake. Theories do not become facts. Facts exist within theories. Theories provide the intellectual context through which facts become meaningful.

Challenging Evolution or pointing out its limits is perfectly appropriate. This does not mean extra-scientific models therefore are appropriate in a science setting.

It pleases me to no end to be in complete agreement with Pindar , knowing that he won't be parsing out my replies in an attempt to rip my logical framework to shreds.

He's right (this time)

ichi

[bmolsson]

Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. Whatever appeal one might feel for them, these ideas do not fit under scientific schema.

Sure they can be seen as science. You can make a scientific litterature study on the bible and establish a scientific result on what creationism is based on the study. Science today is much more than the classic view of it. I am pretty sure that a statistical study on creationism would result in scientific facts that can be used for a "God created Earth in Seven Days" theory.
With the above said, if this science would have any relevance or not, that is another issue.......

[Papewaio]

Darwinism is against quit a few religious beleifs, and it's only a theory as well, therefore, either teach every side of the story or don't teach any at all. it's not like knowing how the world was created has ANY effect on your life whatsoever.

Oil.

Dating the ages of the rocks helps find oil. Evolutionary changes are used to date the different layers as different versions existed at different times.

Note that how the world was created is separate from the Theory of Evolution.

Also note that the Theory of Gravity is another scientific theory. However in science class the story of Icarus is generally not taught. Science is theories not absolute untestable truths.

[kiwitt]

GAH!

Both can be taught. One at a secular school and one at religious home. However, if it is a religious school both can and should be taught at school.

[Pindar]

It pleases me to no end to be in complete agreement with Pindar , knowing that he won't be parsing out my replies in an attempt to rip my logical framework to shreds.

He's right (this time)

ichi

Me, parse? Parish the thought.

and I never rip logical frameworks that don't deserve a good ripping: somebody has to defend sound thinking. Speaking of which:

Sure they can be seen as science. You can make a scientific litterature study on the bible and establish a scientific result on what creationism is based on the study.

Alas, no. Creationism has an inherent metaphysical appeal. This places it beyond the scope or interest of science proper.

[Pindar]

Nicely put!

Thank you sir.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Should Intellegent Design, Creationism, and other scientific theories

You lost me right there.

[bmolsson]

Alas, no. Creationism has an inherent metaphysical appeal. This places it beyond the scope or interest of science proper.

I am not sure Andrew Marwell would agree.

Even if there is an appeal on higher powers, it doesn't go beyond science. Religion, language, psychology etc are accepted as science today even if its not always possible to put logic or empirical values on results from research in these sciences. Creationism is always assumed to contradict evalutionism, but in reality this is more a created conflict mainly in US among scientists and religious scholars. Evolution doesn't oppose creationism and vice versa. Another example would be Newtons law versus Einsteins relativity theory. Newton works just fine until you reach higher velocities where it's no longer is valid.

All science evolve itself and its always better to be tolerant and open minded. Creationists have a tendency to be very narrowminded, but that doesn't make creationism as such scientifically un-interesting.......

Note: No, I don't believe in a supreme being, but can't dispute the possibility that there is one...

[Papewaio]

I am not sure Andrew Marwell would agree.

Even if there is an appeal on higher powers, it doesn't go beyond science. Religion, language, psychology etc are accepted as science today even if its not always possible to put logic or empirical values on results from research in these sciences. Creationism is always assumed to contradict evalutionism, but in reality this is more a created conflict mainly in US among scientists and religious scholars. Evolution doesn't oppose creationism and vice versa. Another example would be Newtons law versus Einsteins relativity theory. Newton works just fine until you reach higher velocities where it's no longer is valid.

All science evolve itself and its always better to be tolerant and open minded. Creationists have a tendency to be very narrowminded, but that doesn't make creationism as such scientifically un-interesting.......

Note: No, I don't believe in a supreme being, but can't dispute the possibility that there is one...

Creationism has already been resoundly discredited along the spectrum of the Physical Sciences.

As for Religion, language, psychology being sciences that is a bit of a linguistic stretch. Parts of it them may use the scientific method, but no where to the level of rigours of the physical sciences and none to the level of physics. Physics has a tendancy of having a single point of failure disproving a theory / narrowing the boundaries of that theory.

The basis of calling most things science nowadays is a desire for reflected glory not a basis in facts, hypothesis and scientific theory. It is the same trend in calling Janitors, Cleaning Technicians and Garbage men, Environmental Cleanup Engineers.

[Samurai Waki]

I went to a Private Catholic School, we were taught to believe that Creationism is not science at all, and likewise The Theory of Evolution is not Religious. We were also told that neither should be taken as fact, but if one were to be more astute, that The Theory of Evolution is less confounding, and not riddled with loop-holes. We were also taught that Creationism was more or less a stolen belief from other Religions, before the Scientific evolution of our later history, humanity needed to find a way to answer the question "why are we here?" Because our ancient ancestors knew almost nothing about pre-humans (Homo Hablis etc.) it was the best way to interpret our existance by our thoughts. By the time the Christian bible was written, it had been well around 3000 years in Christian science terms since the first humans (aka Adam and Eve) had been born. We were also taught that most people within the hierarchy of the Catholic Faith believe that when the Bible was written it, specifically the tale of how the world was born and how the first human's came into existance was not even very believed by the monks who had written it. But because there was no better explanation, they thought that there was no other way it could have happened.

Modern Christian Scientists are not stupid mind you, most are not dogmatic, or try to perverse Science with myths, or Christianity with Facts (thats what makes religion unique, all the unanswered questions that humanity wants to find, but nobody really wants the truth.) In Fact, most Christian Scientists are trying to figure ways of how to tie in Christian mythology with the theory of evolution. Christians scientists biggest question they are trying to uncover is not so much "is the theory of evolution wrong?, or is Christian mythology wrong?" but instead is "how did God create the Earth? or How did God Create Humanity". "was God unpleased by the first 'semi-human' that he created? "How does our DNA link us to God?" "why did God destroy the Dinosaurs?" etc. etc.

I still personally think it's BS, but thats just me. Theory of Evolution all the way.

[Pindar]

I am not sure Andrew Marwell would agree.

Andrew would be wrong.

Even if there is an appeal on higher powers, it doesn't go beyond science.

Science is necessarily confined to the physical arena. This is the case both historically, in the rise of science out of natural philosophy, and methodologically. Postulations that move beyond the physical sphere are not subject to the criteria science operates under and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

Religion, language, psychology etc are accepted as science today even if its not always possible to put logic or empirical values on results from research in these sciences.

I agree with the honorable Papewaio assumption of a vernacular does not a science make.

Creationism is always assumed to contradict evalutionism

That is true, but that is separate issue. Metaphysical assumptions may or may not contradict science. Agreement does not mean such become scientific through that agreement.

Note: No, I don't believe in a supreme being, but can't dispute the possibility that there is one...

I thought you were Muslim.

[doc_bean]

Like I said before, kids should be thought as much as possible, let them make up there own mind.

However, as Pindar and a few others noted, only the theory of evolution is science, the rest can be taught in a non-science class, or possibly mentioned in science class as a side note, but they are not science.

Intelligent design uses the exact same scientific basis as the theory of evolution, mutation, cross-over etc., they just INTERPRET them in a religious way.

Creationism is a different beast, especially since there are so many sub-theories.
Is evolution within a species possible ? If so, teaching the theory of evolution still has value (incidentally, the real innovation C Darwin brought was that he said evolution could lead to different species, evolution within a species had been thought up before.)

BTW it wasn't until the 1920s that creationism was thought up, and only had a small community of followers, most christians since Darwin didn't have a problem with evolution.

[bmolsson]

Creationism has already been resoundly discredited along the spectrum of the Physical Sciences.

Because someone discredited something, doesn't make this someone right....

As for Religion, language, psychology being sciences that is a bit of a linguistic stretch. Parts of it them may use the scientific method, but no where to the level of rigours of the physical sciences and none to the level of physics. Physics has a tendancy of having a single point of failure disproving a theory / narrowing the boundaries of that theory.

It's called social science and it is widely accepted.

The basis of calling most things science nowadays is a desire for reflected glory not a basis in facts, hypothesis and scientific theory. It is the same trend in calling Janitors, Cleaning Technicians and Garbage men, Environmental Cleanup Engineers.

This comment is a linguistic stretch.....

[Efrem]

Evolution is the only theory with evidence to back it up, so I say go for it.

[bmolsson]

Science is necessarily confined to the physical arena. This is the case both historically, in the rise of science out of natural philosophy, and methodologically. Postulations that move beyond the physical sphere are not subject to the criteria science operates under and cannot therefore be considered scientific.

No.

I thought you were Muslim.

I am, but belonging to a earthly religious administration doesn't automatically mean that you be believe in what it originates from.