Creationism in Museums and Schools

[Ice]

Don't worry, anyone who took freshman, university biology, can debunk anything Nav throws. You just need your old notes and google. How do I know? I did it before, yet he still comes back.

[woad&fangs]

This explains how organic compounds can be synthesized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

This is a direct example of evolution. It even contains animals with different numbers of chromosomes being able to breed and produce offspring which are not sterile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_horse

[seireikhaan]

This explains how organic compounds can be synthesized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

This is a direct example of evolution. It even contains animals with different numbers of chromosomes being able to breed and produce offspring which are not sterile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_horse

Woad, why would you use a Heathen source like Wikipedia? We all know that was invented by the devil to confuse us all.

[Ice]

Woad, why would you use a Heathen source like Wikipedia? We all know that was invented by the devil to confuse us all.

AND...........................

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

FIGHT!

Remember everyone, this has to be legit. I mean, it has Adolph Hitler depitcted and calls Darwin a racist.

[woad&fangs]

I was too lazy to find another source. However, the stuff about wild horses being able to produce fertile offspring with domesticated horses despite different #s of chromosomes is something I just learned. I also found this which claims the same thing.

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/h...lski/index.htm

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
The attachment of fanatic unreligion to Darwinist evolution as religious zealots to their beliefs is indeed sickening. Not that I have anything against (or for) evolution. Admittedly I find it plausible as a means of creation. However, students should have access to opposing theories if they are to study according to scientific principles. Especially in the case of evolution, which would better be labelled as a hypothesis rather than a theory, and which is often a problematic of philosophy (sc. Social Darwinism) or indeed religion (in most cases the religion of unreligion) as much as, or more than, science.

The radical stance of zealous evolutionists against even the mention of contrary thought is, IMO, a reverse twin of the religious zealots' fear and hatred against positive science in the late middle ages.
.

[Big_John]

.
The attachment of fanatic unreligion to Darwinist evolution as religious zealots to their beliefs is indeed sickening. Not that I have anything against (or for) evolution. Admittedly I find it plausible as a means of creation. However, students should have access to opposing theories if they are to study according to scientific principles. Especially in the case of evolution, which would better be labelled as a hypothesis rather than a theory, and which is often a problematic of philosophy (sc. Social Darwinism) or indeed religion (in most cases the religion of unreligion) as much as, or more than, science.

The radical stance of zealous evolutionists against even the mention of contrary thought is, IMO, a reverse twin of the religious zealots' fear and hatred against positive science in the late middle ages.
.

no.

[Mouzafphaerre]

no.

.
no U!
.

[Adrian II]

Not that I have anything against (or for) evolution. Admittedly I find it plausible as a means of creation. However, students should have access to opposing theories if they are to study according to scientific principles.

Opposing scientific theories, right? Not just any old theories. Teaching creationism in biology lessons is like teaching astrology and witchcraft in physics class. And guess who are most opposed to that? The established churches!

I'm not sure whether or not I believe in Young Earth creationism, or Old Earth creationism, since scripture isn't very specific on the matter.

Scripture is pretty specific on fluid flow processes, electroporation and microquasar fluctuation. Take it from there!

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
As it stands today, evolution is little more advantageous than astrology to be taken granted. Still, I stand closer to the prior than the latter. While I -secretly- scorn who worship zodiac stuff, I don't explicitly deny the albeit minimal credibility to be found in it. Evolution, OTOH, as a process, I deem plausible, yet I flatly refuse to take it as a matter of faith, for or against.

I have to agree with Navaros in that it seems pretty unlikely for Evolution to be proven (or unproven) with the classical scientific methods. If it was ever proven (or unproven) I would only say to myself "hmm, interesting! " and be done with it.


.

[Adrian II]

Evolution, OTOH, as a process, I deem plausible, yet I flatly refuse to take it as a matter of faith, for or against.

Faith has no part in it. Evolution is by far the best scientific theory we have, that's the whole point.

The fact that it is a theory doesn't mean that all other theories are just fine, that every priest or mullah is as smart as Einstein and that everyone can be a winner.

Creationism is biology for dummies.

[Navaros]

Wikipedia - ROFL. Probably the most uncredible 'source' in history.

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

[JR-]

Creationism should not be taught in any science class; it lacks the necessary elements of the scientific method in order to qualify. If they want to teach it in a philosophy or religions class, then by all means go ahead.

perfectly sums up my views on the matter.

i can see where that FRS fellow was coming from however, we have an increasing number of creationists* in the UK, and the current policy of ignoring the issue obviously does nothing to positively challenge such backward views. by all means bring it up in RE as part of a wider discussion on how we came to be.







*and no 'special' schools to put them in anymore

[Big_John]

As it stands today, evolution is little more advantageous than astrology to be taken granted. Still, I stand closer to the prior than the latter. While I -secretly- scorn who worship zodiac stuff, I don't explicitly deny the albeit minimal credibility to be found in it. Evolution, OTOH, as a process, I deem plausible, yet I flatly refuse to take it as a matter of faith, for or against.

I have to agree with Navaros in that it seems pretty unlikely for Evolution to be proven (or unproven) with the classical scientific methods. If it was ever proven (or unproven) I would only say to myself "hmm, interesting! " and be done with it.

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

i know i shouldn't bother, but, what the hell.

"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

[PBI]

Damn, I was going to have fun with this but Big John beat me too it.

So I will just add my two cents: Evolution does conform to the scientific method because it makes testable observations.

It predicts that in order to for life as we know it to have evolved on Earth, it would have to have been around for an incredibly long time, millions if not billions of years. This is testable and has proved to be correct.

It also predicts that if we have an organism with a very short lifespan, we should be able to observe it evolving in response to environmental factors in real time. This also has been proved correct, for instance antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Since when does anyone know the absolute truth of the bible anyway? Why can't evoloution and religon go together theres really nothing contradicting about it.

Such a stance is exactly what is wrong with the Anglican Church. Read the scripture and you will see that creationist arguments do not compliment the theory (because that's what it is) of evolution. However, what you won't see in the scripture is anything saying the earth is 6,000 years old, or that animals can't adapt to their surroundings through microevolution. While I don't won't to go down the Anglican path of pandering to modern society and its scientific (or not so scientific) views, I will say that there are many myths surrounding creationism which seem to be accepted with little thought, even amongst creationists.

As for the issue with DNA, flesh comes from flesh, spirit comes from His Spirit, it doesn't change anything.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Do you creationists also have a problem with the sciences of geology, chemistry and physics? Because to hold onto your beliefs, you also have to reject pretty much every theory in those disciplines too.

If only we could get a flat-earther to join up alongside a chap that believes that the little faery people ride tiny bicycles inside his computer to make it run, my day would be complete.

[InsaneApache]

and no 'special' schools to put them in anymore

That made me laugh. Then I remembered this shower of a governments attachment to faith schools. Then I felt like crying.

[PBI]

Reading the article, I found this particular quote frankly terrifying:

If we came from nothing and go into nothing... that encourages people to lead reckless and materialistic lifestyles.

We should modify our scientific theories until they give conclusions that make people more content not to question authority? The scientific community should stop trying to understand the world and benefit humanity and instead accept its rightful place as a propaganda arm of the government (or the church)? Lysenko and the Inquisition were right all along?

Sometimes I fear rationalism is doomed. A brief window of enlightenment in an eternity of benighted fanaticism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sometimes I fear rationalism is doomed. A brief window of enlightenment in an eternity of benighted fanaticism.

As opposed to half the posters who seem to think evolution is a fact (despite it being widely accepted that this is not the case), and who seem to believe in it because they were told it was a fact.

Add to that the fact that the same people seem to have absolutedly no understanding of creationism or what the Bible says on the matter, I don't see a lot of rational thought there.

So maybe you are right.

[InsaneApache]

Nice try. The choice is between openmindedness and dogma. If you believe that the world was created in seven days and that Adam was made a bit like a plant pot, fine. It's wrong of course but fine. On the other hand if you subscribe to the view that the world is 5 billion years old and that life evolved over eons and that there is a theory in place that attempts to understand his process, that's also fine.

The difference in the two is social control and power.

[PBI]

As opposed to half the posters who seem to think evolution is a fact (despite it being widely accepted that this is not the case), and who seem to believe in it because they were told it was a fact.

Of course it's not a fact per se, unlike religion science does not attempt to deal in facts or absolute truths, and it is much better for it. It deals in probabilities and evidence, it gives the most likely explanation based upon the evidence. That is what the Theory of Evolution is; rather than contradicting several pieces of evidence from multiple unrelated scientific disciplines and requiring us to invent as an axiom an omnipotent creator with limitless powers and attributes, it ties up all the evidence presented in a neat little bow and explains everything as being caused by an experimentally testable phenomenon (you acknowledge that micro-evolution does happen).

If another theory comes along which does a better job of explaining the origin of species, it will supplant evolution, but that theory is not Creationism. Science is not a particularly satisfying way of gaining knowledge about the Universe, but it has proven itself repeatedly to be by far the best method we have.

[Gregoshi]

Creationism in science class, day one:

Teacher (reading from Bible): "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." Any questions? No? Okay, on to science then...

[Adrian II]

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can.

You are 80 years behind again. Google 'fruit flies' and ' evolution' and try to grasp the basics. You probably won't even try, as usual. You expect people to take your views seriously and answer your points, but you never, ever return the courtesy. It makes you by far the worst debater in this forum. I seldom bother with your posts.

[Fragony]

I am fine with teaching creationism but not in biology class. Why not make both part of history classes because only there are they both relevant. It would be catering both. The big question through the ages, from the ancients till the renaissance.

[Kadagar_AV]

There are two lines of thought here....

1. "We can not explain everything, but day by day we add more pieces to the puzzle, and this is the best picture we have as of now based on what we ourselevs have seen of the world around us".

2. "We can explain everything, it's God's work. You can not understand his methods, no one can. Just have faith that it is so, no need to think about it. Accept his will, his will be done!"

Again, people are free to choose whatever path they like... But dont try to mix the paths:)

[Ronin]

For those asking for creationism to be mentioned in Science class......

When I went to school it was mentioned in Science class....I will try to quote my teacher verbatum:

"Back when people depended on belief on silly superstition they had this idea that this god fellow had created everything, now onto something with a bit more facts to back it up...the evolution theory"

I think it was given about 2 minutes...and that´s all it deserves on a science class....it´s quoted on a historical perspective and that´s all...if you want more send your kids to sunday school, or jesus camp or whatever.


Is evolution a fact?....no it´s a theory yes....but then again gravity is just a theory also...but let´s face it there´s a bunch of fact to back them both up.

on the other hand creationism has no facts to back it up......

[Kadagar_AV]

A question for creationists: Do you also think other religions creaton theorys should be brought up in science class?

Like, the nordic religion, that this world is a part of a big tree.. With a squirrel running around...

Or the religion Scott Adams mentions, that the whole universe was made in a big sneeze, and we should all be afraid of the big white towel?

Just wondering...

[Rhyfelwyr]

When they have their own national church, they can if they like.

[Ronin]

When they have their own national church, they can if they like.

numbers and organization do not equate value.

as a devote pastafarian I demand to see the story of how the flying spaghetti monster created all of us included in the curriculum!!!