Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Leo
I think creationism's value is more in challenging evolutionary beliefs and putting forward the reasonableness of the idea of design requiring a Designer.
|
And if creationists ever came up with a rigorous methodology for identifying "intelligent design", then they'd could come the genome databses and maybe have something to point at and say "So, Scientific Community, who or what designed that?" As it is, they point at a lot of things and asy "This could not have evolved! HA suck that!" but never actually go through the process of identifying why it could not evolve (at least, using a real model of evolution. I agree that using their broken understanding of evolution, it would be impossible for certain things we find to evolve. But the fact that they have no understanding of evolution puts no limits on the people that DO understand how evolution works).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Leo
You don't see design and order come out of an explosion (ie Big Bang) and I would not dismiss it so lightly as charlatanism - creationists pose serious questions for evolutionists.
|
What does the big bang have to do with evolution? And actually, yes you do see more ordered, but less energetic states come out of more energetic, but less ordered, states. That's how growth and life is possible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Leo
And sorry 101001010, evolution is not fact, but a theory. While changes from natural selection do occur, natural selection cannot explain the origin of species.
|
Evolution, a change in the genetic structure of a population over time, is an observable phenomenon. It has been observed. It is known to occur. Observed phenomena known to actually occur are also called facts. There are, also, evolutionary theories that seek to account for data by saying that evolution occurred. But it is only because we have observed evolution in action and seen what kinds of changes it makes that we can look at other data, see the same types of end results and infer that evolution occurred to produce the data we see.
It's no different from saying "Ah, here we have a hole. This hole shares various similarities with known bullet holes... thus, may I suggest the hypothesis that this hole was caused by a bullet."
We note the pattern of genetic similarity shared across all life on earth. Note that the pattern is similar to one known to be produced by evolution... and so have the working conclusion that the pattern we observe is due to evolution.
____________________________________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
It would be a good way to teach the Scientific method, on one hand, there's Evolution, on the other, creationism. Both are conflicting theories that back themselves up in different ways.
|
You're assuming that the average teacher has the skill to make the distinction clear to students that one is science and the other is not. You'd probably end up with teachers mistakenly teaching that they are on equal footing, or simply confusing their students. Plus... well, call ne a cynic, but I don't think school adminsitrators are interested in teaching students to question and think for themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
Each also asks questions of the other (naturally, since they are mutually incompatible)
|
Not really. I mean dogmatic biblical young earth creationism is a bit at odds with reality... but I think they've given up on getting that taught in schools. There are various formulations that mix creationism and evolution in a consistent way. These aren't science, either, but it's not quite correct to say the creation and evolution are incompatible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
If they were taught together in school, children would quickly learn how to rationalise, to think for themselves and would have experience in making judgements on the validity and worthiness of conflicting ideas.
|
So what's going to happen when the kids start critically thinking and making judgements about the authority of school administration and teachers? I'd actually like to see kids which have no representation in government making noise about how their rights are abused for no good purpose... I doubt that opinion is share by those in the business, though.