Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Pannonian]

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?

[Yoyoma1910]

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?

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Lord Winter]

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.

[woad&fangs]

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.