I think it's time to argue the case for teaching Creationism in schools:

It does ask difficult questions that evolution hasn't *quite* answered satisfactorily yet.

If we are interested in finding the truth, then we need to subject our best theories to as much criticism as possible. I think if evolution and creationism were taught side-by-side, each pointing out the weak points inherent in one another, children really would come away with a better understanding of both.

As Jacques Monod said:

The problem with this is that creationism isn't a scientific theory and it doesn't ask nor answer any questions. Sure, there are some questions that biologists still need to uncover, that's true in any field of science.

As for creationism, what exactly would it add to the classroom, aside from confusion?

The big bang was not an explosion.

Additionally creationists don't actually pose any serious questions that challenge evolution.

Also, your insistence in saying that evolution is not a fact, but it's a theory demonstrates a certian illiteracy as far as scientific terminology goes.

In science, a theory is something that explains phenomenon-it does not express reservations on the credibility of the theory.

By your logic, we should be warry of germ theory, heliocentric theory, relativity, atomic theory, etc etc.

Yeah, the bomb exploded in Hiroshima, but it's only a theory, or we get sick because of germs, but it's only a theory or the earth goes around the sun, but that's only a theory!

;)

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. Each also asks questions of the other (naturally, since they are mutually incompatible)

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.

Actually, by applying concepts lifted from Darwinianism, you do.

appearantly you missed the first, oh, 100 posts in this thread. it's been mentioned over and over that A) creationism isn't a theory (in the scientific sense), it's a myth. a story. a fable. B) the only conflict between the two is that one is scientifically testable, has evidence gathered showing it the most likely explanation even if the details haven't been worked out 100% yet while the other has no evidence other than a moldy book.

the only question that is asked by creationism is "and how did that happen?" evolution will give you a variety of answers depending on what exactly is being asked while creationism when asked any question can only respond with "because jesus told me so".

finally, public school age children do not have the mental capacity to rationalize. you'll find very few students under high school age who have finshed devolping their cognitive skills and rational thinking skills. even in high school the younger ages are still going to be mixed in their development.

think back to when you were in elementary school... in kindergarden, a lot of kids still have imaginary friends. how old were you when you stopped thinking there were monsters under the bed, that the tooth fairy, easter bunny and santa claus were real.

Great thread. I'm sorry I missed it.

Harry, how many of those children who believed in the Easter Bunny 10 years ago still do?

At the age that proper Darwinism is taught (guessing at least 16) I think that given the option, most people are going to go with the common sense view. My point is that if both were taught at the same time, Creationism would quickly become as ridiculous as belief in the Easter Bunny. If this thread shows anything, it's that people are not being taught evolution properly. Seriously in this day and age, this sort of discussion really should be moot. And teaching both ideas at the same time really ought to speed that process along. The sooner the better. The people who still believe this kind of fairy story were obviously the victims of a poor and unbalanced education. What's wrong with advocating a more full and worthwhile curriculum? If evolution was taught properly in the first place, this kind of discussion would not be necessary - I honestly believe that children (at whatever age) are capable of reasonable thought - of course, there are always going to be the fundamentalist kind of schools that choose to indoctrinate the youth into believing unpalatable ideas, but given a truely balanced curriculum, I honestly believe that kids would be able to work things out for themselves.

The best way of educating people is for them to be shown the options and let them decide for themselves.

At the end of the day evolution IS still a theory, it's just a better theory than that proposed by the Creationists. The problem is that people are under the false impression that science = fact. The truth is that science is much more subtle and modest than that. There isn't room for fundamentalist thought in science, but instead it is the rigorous persuit of abstract models that are testably closer to the truth.

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).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.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.

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.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.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.

You obviously didn't go to my school!

and yet many/most still believe in god.

proper darwinism isn't taught anymore. it's been shown that he was wrong about somethings. but his ideas of natural selection have been verified.

i'm not sure why you think evolution isn't being taught properly in schools. besides the fact that there is only so much time able to be devoted to it normal biology, let alone AP Bio, to go into such details that you would think it would be undeniable. other than a time constraint, i don't see why you say that.

religion is a powerful thing, especially if you live in a very religious area. and the south and 'heartland' seem to be very religious. that's why we have a problem of people arguing for creation. it doesn't matter what we may say to them. short of a monkey giving birth to a human, or a dog turning into a horse, they wouldn't believe it (and in those instances they'd probably say it's a miracle) (oh, and i know that those are not examples of evolution, but those are arguments that creationists use).

if we were to teach creation and evolution side by side, what would end up happening is fundamentalists would say "see, we told you that they're both equal theories and we believe that god did it is correct." and after having been 'brainwashing' their children all their lives, their children will more than likely go along with creation.

if you'd taught creation at my school, you'd have been laughed at. but teach it in a less diverse, highly religous place, and it probalby would be taken seriously.

i have to disagree with you that the best way of educating people is to give them options and let them decide for themselves. let them do that in college. if they're interested in learning about evolution in greater depth than can be taught in a high school, they can. but there are a lot of kids in high school who will take what you say at face value. going by the kids i went to school with (at a 'natioal exemplary school,' or so the sign said) there are many high school aged kids who will take what you say and not bother thinking about it critically. they'd rather be spoon fed it and then regurgitate it for the test and forget about it. because they arent' intersted in putting in the work to think about it further.

the thought just occured to me that i think you really might just be trying a different approach at pushing the idea of teaching god in school. you say above that "The people who still believe this kind of fairy story were obviously the victims of a poor and unbalanced education." while it seems to be in regards to creation being a fairy story, it sounds like you're saying because we're not teaching religion in class they're only getting half the education. maybe i'm reading too much into it, but with your other posts in mind, it almost sounds like you're saying that not teaching creation is bad because we're only getting half the story, yet you also seem to be saying that creation is wrong. why would anyone want to give a story a false side to it?

i could be wrong about that thought, but i've otherwise never heard a supporter of evolution/critic of creation advocate teaching it in school. especially considering you're last parpagraph shows a bit of a misunderstand of science. science has fact. there are scientific laws which are fact, like the law of gravity. while that methods that gravity works by are still 'theory', that it is there and happening is fact. same with evolution. it is still the 'theory of evolution' but evidence has shown that evolution is indeed happening and a fact. the various mechanics may not be fully worked out yet, but that it is happening is indisputable.

evolution isn't "just a better theory than that proposed by the Creationists." creationists haven't proposed a theory. there is no scientific basis to the 'theory of creation.'

They should do. Teachers make mistakes just like the rest of us and if kids do have some sort of reason and feel for what makes sense and can be proven rather than just take everything at face value then they will grow up to be much better educated and stronger minded individuals than those who take every single piece of information (wrong or right) at face value. Personally, i had some terrible teachers and luckily i was a strong minded kid who liked to pick out every single inaccuracy in what the teachers said. Unfortunately these got to be more numerous as i grew older and i lost faith in the whole system towards the end of my schooling. And looking back, my loss of faith was clearly justified.

So teaching kids all sides of the story and making them aware of alternative beliefs will enable them to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in terms of education.

Just thought I would toss in a somewhat relevant quote I just read on another site regarding a movie review regarding "What the Bleep do we know!?":

Answer Man

if you were lucky you were that strong minded, think of how many aren't.

because most kids will sort it out the way you would? i thought you were 'lucky you strong minded?'

Harry,
I'm not suggesting that Creationism is taught as a theory to be taken seriously or even to have kids tested on their knowledge of it. What I am saying is that The Scientific Method, where every idea is open to negative verification (Including ones that stand up to daily observation such as Gravity or Evolution) should be taught, and that Creationism is a good example for teaching this method. Other real-world examples of varying silliness could be Flat-World Theory, Heat-as-a-Liquid Theory (that underpinned the development of the steam-engine), Earth as Centre of the Universe Theory. All were considered as 'fact' at the time. Gallileo's story is perhaps the best known - and should be taught as part of this too. Newton's laws of motion were considered as fact until Einstein realised that they wouldn't stand up to near speed of light conditions. And Einstein's theories don't hold up at the Quantum level. The truth about Science is that there are no facts.

Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with living in a world with no facts. Newton's laws of motion work perfectly well for us whenever we are building a car, or a bridge or applying them to most situations here on earth or in space. They are a useful model to describe the workings of the universe, but they are not fact.

Likewise, Evolution (and for me, the term Darwinism is synonymous, even if some of his details continue to be ironed out today) is also a theory. It's one I find particularly attractive, and it's perhaps one of the most important ones of the recent 200 years because it allows us to see nature self-organising in a deterministic yet 'organic' way. You can apply the ideas that spring from Darwinism to particles of gas forming galaxies in space, to the operation of businesses and organisations, to the changing political landscape of the planet. Sure, I'm loosening up the concept at little here, but Darwin was the first person ever to suggest a rational explanation for the way things self-organise, which for me makes him one of the most brilliant figures in man's history. All of this is evident, elegant and should be marvelously obvious. However, it is still *only* the best theory we've got until something else comes along that appears to be a better fit to our observations. That time may never come, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to think complacently.

Teaching children 'facts' is perhaps what I disagree with since there are so few real facts around. One man's fact is another man's indoctrination. Sure I think it's better to teach evolution rather than creationism. It's evidently a better, more useful theory that fits the observed phenomena, but it is not fact.

I'm not trying to argue semantics, but want to come back to The Scientific Method, and remind you that worshipping Sacred Cows, of whatever kind, is much more dangerous than having an incorrect view of how the world formed 6000 years ago ;)

hmm... okay, i think we're basically on the same page then. i disagree with you on there not being scientific fact (scientific laws are fact... which explains why there are so few). as in the law of gravity... gravity is a scientific fact... the theory of gravity... ie. how it works is not fact though. anyways, i think that's really not the issue.

breifly mentioning in class that creation is an old and out dated way of explaining the world would be one thing. it'd be okay with that. it would be like when they teach about 'flogistum' in chemistry. but it would have to be in that context. and your previous posts didn't make it seem like that would be the context.

if i'm understanding you right, i think we actually agree.

This is a bit off-topic, but I'm curious what you're calling the "law of gravity." That term is usually used for Newton's equation of gravitational force, which is certainly not fact.

What is considered 'fact' then? Your use of the term theory seems dangerously like the layman's version.

I found this by the way, funny stuff:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpu...isclaimers.jpg

Scientific laws are no more 'fact' then scientific theories. "Laws" are statements about observations, such as the 2 law of thermodynamics.

Theories explain the hows and whys of laws. That's why there is a law of gravity (which doesn't explain the why's and how's of gravity) and the 'theory' of relativity (which explains the laws of gravity).

Why is that? The layman's version has connotations of being wrong, I'm happy to accept degrees of wrongness.

A fact is something that is undeniably true, provable and unshakable. I don't know if there are many facts in the world, or even if there are, in the strictest terms, any at all. Since we are in a Philosophy forum here, usage of the term fact has to be very carefully considered.

We have no clue as to what we are, what energy or matter actually is, where it came from, let alone how it got organised into the way it appears to have done, or anything, we are adrift in a sea of the unknown. To think that there is such a thing as a fact is pretty presumptuous don't you think? That viewpoint may be a little extreme perhaps, but it works for me.

What do you mean? It is a fact that i am typing this on a keyboard. It is a fact that my bluejeans are blue. It is a fact that i am currently being subject to a force that we call gravity. It is a fact that the ratio of a circle circumfrence to its diameter is pi, even though it is impossible for us to precisely define pi rationally. The number of facts in the world is only limited by one's ability to notice them. You could get all nihilist and claim that nothing exists, but if that's how you really felt, why would you waste time arguing with someone who doesn't even really exist?

The layman's version put's theory on a scale between hypothesis and law, needless to say it's completely wrong.

Then the only things that are 'facts' are maths.

How do you know it works for you? That's the problem, you don't really-in fact, you can't. If we were to accept your view of what constitutes facts then we would find ourselves in the hopeless state of solipsism and no knowledge would be attainable.

That's not quite the case - since all the relationships (by relationships I mean things we learn, things we experience, things we associate with one another) we invent are our-own, the only thing that matters is that they are not self-contradicting. Maths is a very good example of a system of tenets that holds up by itself (until you start quoting Gödel that is ;))

You are right, how do I know it works for me? Because somewhere you have to inject faith into the mix. Where you inject faith is up to you. How far you manage to go down the solipsistic rabbit-hole before it gets upsetting is up to you. Those who accept creation myths have probably not gone very far down that particular hole and have accepted something on trust. Some have a very different 'creation myth' that they call Evolution that they too have accepted on trust, its just that they've probably (but not necessarily) gone a little further into the hole first.

There are things we cannot know, it's been proven in multiple fields (by Gödel, Turing, Lorenz, Heisenberg and Einstein - among others) - and that may be the only true fact.

Will that hold up in a court of law? That "we make our own reality- everything is subjective" idea will get you exactly nowhere in the actual world of actual things. You can't assert that nothing can be proven conclusively, because that implies that nothing is certain, which means you are essentially asserting that nothing can be asserted. That doesn't work.

hannukah harry, I think the word you're looking for is "phlogiston".

And I think "Gravity is a fact." would be a statement about the observation that masses exert forces on each other. The quantification of that force (E.G. the math of Newton, Kepler, Einstein, et al.) may not be exact, but someone doing their sums wrong will not suddenly make masses repel. Even more abstraction occurs when we start asking why masses attract each other... and that's where gravitational theory finally comes into play.

Theory shows up relatively late in the game... but it's used to make all the other data coherent. Saying "Ah-ha, this is merely a theory!" doesn't change the simple matter that, even if this theory or that theory is not 100% correct... Whatever theory is 100% correct (and keep in mind, even if a theory was 100% correct, it would still be a theory) will be nigh on indistinguishable to the layman from what it replaces.

It's very baby and bathwater. "Evolution can't explain Z. Therefore it's a lie and Creationism is True." Ignoring the fact that evolution explains A through Y... and that whatever modifications that may be made to formulate a theory that explains A through Y and Z will result in a theory that bears more resemblance to the original evolutionary theory than it does to Creationism. This ignoring the fact that "evolution can't explain Z" type statements generally stem from a shortcoming of a creationist's conception of evolution rather than any shortcoming of evolution as it actually is.

It's not supposed to - a court of law and a philosophical debate are two very different things.

If you haven't already, you should read about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Don't think that I walk around wondering if anything is real, or whether the laws of gravity might suddenly give up - that's not it at all - but we're not talking about the actual world of actual things. I can assert however that nothing can be proven, because I accept that there has to be some element of 'faith' for anything to make any sense - I know it sounds contradictory, but it's not. Proof is not a requirement for truth.

Saying that something can't be proven conclusively does imply that nothing is certain. Yes there is an element of contradiction in that - but one that I'm happy to accept since I'm pointing out that logical reasoning alone isn't ever capable of finding the truth.

I know they are different, it's just that any philospohical debate can be ended simply by claiming that nothing is objective and provable. That isn't a standard by which anything should be measured if one wants to make philosphy about what goes on in the actual world as opposed to the philosophical world. I know that i couldn't prove to you that i exist, for all you know i could be advanced a.i., or a "ghost in the machine". If we wanted to we could negate the act of experience alltogether because no one has ever been able to define conscousness in consistent terms. None of this really matters when it comes down to it, because the fact is that we all have to eat, sleep, shit, and go to work tomorrow. The fact is that you can render any fact meaningless if you raise your standards high enough.

Here are facts that can only be disputed if you deny reality completely: Evolution has been tested and retested by the scientific process, creationism has been tested by no one. There is faith in science, but this faith is in the idea that the universe behaves in a consistent manner than can be figured out based on observation. Creationism relies on a different kind of faith, a faith that the world was created by a supernatural entity in seven days. If you want to believe that these two faiths are equal in value and plausibility, by all means. That's where we'll have to agree to disagree.


So what are you doing in a philosphical discussion? You can't find any truth in it, so what's the point?

I don't believe those faiths mentioned are equal in value and plausability at all, but they ARE faiths. One just happens to be far more elegant and is built on sturdier ground than the other.

The point? That's a whole different can of worms - But I do think that we are doing more than just applying logic. If it was as simple as that, you should be able to program a computer to work it all out for us a la Deep Thought - and that just isn't possible. I'm not denigrating logic, or rationality, but I am pointing out their limits.

If we believe in science and logic without really understanding why, we are just replacing one set of fundamentalist ideas with another.

How could we be doing more than applying logic? I understand intuition, but intuition applies to a philosophical discussion with no relevance.

I understand why we believe in science and logic, because science and logic do a damn good job of explaining the things that we see everyday. In fact, they do such a good job, that we can create technology based on our scientific understanding of the world around us. "The proof is in the pudding", as my old leisure suit wearing sociology professer would say. Creationism has zero value as a predicter of how things will behave or an explainer of why things are the way they are. We believe in science and logic because so far it has paid off for use to believe in science and logic.

Science as a fundamentalist ideology will be a problem as soon as science starts telling people how they can or cannot live. Until then, i think science is the ideal fundamentalism because it is based on adherence to finding accurate representations of our universe. Creationism is based on adherence to a single idea which has little relevance to anything anymore, aside from an "aw shucks look at how powerful our god is" kind of christian machismo.

"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.

talkorigins

As regards the actual teaching of it, and those damn fool stickers on on biology textbooks... Shouldn't the bible carry one too?

You have to keep political and pressure-group influence out of education as much as possible if you want a thoughtful, balanced student populace.

I fail to see exactly how all this became an issue in the first place; could someone please explain exactly who/where/when/what happened to create such an outcome? Was it christian fundamentalist groups or was the legislatative involved?

why are telling me this after quoting me saying that? gravity is a fact. if i hold an apple while standing on my roof and then let go, it will fall. that is a fact. maybe i shouldn't have said 'scientific' fact, maybe that's going a bit too far... but otherwise you're just repeating me.

i never was much at spelling. :) but i mention the 'fact' and theory of gravity in a previous post... in case you missed that. maybe i just didn't specify enough? but i understand and already knew what you're saying. just for clarification.

anyone read the national geographic?

The front page said "Was Darwin Wrong"

Then the head of the article: a big "NO"
AHAHHAAHAHHAHA

Creationism should not be taught alongside evolution in a science class because it is not supported by the body of scientific evidence we have. Evolution theory, imperfect hypothesis as it may be, is supported by our body of scientific evidence and is the most scientifically plausible theory presented to date. Therefore, evolution is perfectly appropriate to a science class.
Creationism, having no grounding in scientific evidence should only be taught in places like churches - where science is supplanted by faith.

This debate rages on and On. Here are a couple of simple truths that I think most of us will agree with.

As human beings we tend to be biased in our thinking. Often we want very hard for things to be true or correct. This bias affects both sides of the creation/evolution debate.

There are scientists who have been tempted to overstate their findings( hell some have greatly overstated thier findings)

Ther are religious zealots who have overstated what scripture says (hell some of them greatly overstate what scripture says)

The truth is that none of us really "know" where we come from.

Christians "hope" is placed in God through his son Jesus Christ.

Many scientists are Christians/Muslims/Jewish.

Evolution is not necessarily directly opposed to scripture... read scripture again with evolution in mind and you will see this is a silly debate Both theories should be allowed for our children to debate in school. All theories should be questioned!

Remember: one of the truths about Statistical analysis... Correlation is not causation...

Therefore Evolution is still just a theory to explain the correlation of facts associated with biological similarities amoung various species. Anyone who tells you differently has not been paying attention in class... including some professors at my university.

Theories do not scare me; whether presented by Christians professing biblical ideas or scientists professing biology ideas based on evolutionary theory. Fundamentalist science freaks or fundamentalist Christians scare me alot, due to their lack of objectivity.

Any one who speaks about knowing the truth absolutely about these topics is making their assumption based on faith (scientist or christian... it doesn't matter)

Therefore .. I am correct... and you are all wrong...


ha ha Have a great day!

What do you mean by 'still just a theory'?

What else would it be? Hell, what else could it be?

RCAlyra,
Creationists take issue with common descent. That's pretty much it. The rest is window dressing.

A while back it was discovered that a brand of lab mice had become contaminated by mutants, and had been for a while. Lab mice aren't just random albino mice from a pet store. They are ridiculously pedigreed like purebred dogs. By having these purebred uniform mice you can do controlled biological research. Otherwise, how would you know if your result is due to what you want to study and not due to some biological difference between your control and test populations? Simple, by having genetically uniform mice in respect to the trait you're studying. Thus, ridiculously pedigreed lab mice. Different brands suited to different purposes.

So what happens when you discover that some of your purebred mice aren't suitable for their advertized purpose, and that the mutant mice may have skewed the results of years of research?

Well, you dig up those preserved specimens, you dig up that ridiculous pedigree, and work out which litter contained your original mutant. Then you track the mutation all the way through your pedigree, and provide the necessary information to allow the data to be corrected for the presence of the mutants. Also, you seperate out your current inventory and relabel the mutants as a new product. Neat stuff.

Here's the really neat thing. This is only possible because the "family tree" generated by genome analysis is identical to the recorded pedigree. The sequence comparison algorithms used in genome analysis have a proven track record in the real world. It's also possible to simulate sequence evolution on a computer for millions of generations. The algorithms prove themselves there, as well. So, not only do we know that the algorithms work, we can quantify how well they work. They can report their own confidence in the "family trees" they generate.

So. What does it mean when we can take genetic sequence data from all sorts of life on earth, run it through these verified and tested algorithms, and have them spit back out a high confidence "family tree"? Correlation is not causation, true, but we have tools that will tell you how slim the chances are that it's not.

Should all that be necessary for highschool biology? Of course not. But all that and more is available underpinning the statement in highschool biology classes that life on earth shares common ancestry. Theories should be questioned, but the questions asked by creationists have already been answered... there is no debate where the creationists wish to debate.

Anyone read this thread? The first paragraph has been quoted ;) http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...65#post1530065 I'll add some more once I gain access to the rest of the article.

Anyway, there's something important that's being forgotten here. Whatever you feel like believing about creationism, I think 99% of us can agree that evolution is, at least, much more scientifically sound and proven. Now, if you want to say that evolution existing is not a fact or that creationism is not proven entirely wrong, it doesn't matter so long as you can understand that evolution is FAR more proven than creationism to the point where we at least know that science is moving towards something like evolution and away something like creationism. (As has been said, when there is an evolutionary theory that explains A through Z, it will look more like the evolutionary theory that explains A through Y and not like creationist theory).

So, with all that in mind comes the simple fact: there is not enough TIME to teach creationism and make an "example" of the scientific method out of it. Many of the posts I've read here could make one think that education takes place in a vacuum of time or something. There are limits. Likewise, there's not enough time to go into details about evolution to "prove" it to students who are not willing to accept it. So, all one really needs to accept is that evolution has a crapload more going for it than creationism. And I don't care WHAT you want to define "theory" as; it does.

Bill Hicks kinda had a point

Creationalism sure would be the easiest class to pass

"And God created the earth and everything on it in 6 days and then on the 7th day he rested... ok, class dismissed"

"really... is this gonna be on the test?"

OK, this...ammused me. :D

What we often forget is that the most important aspect about introducing subjects such as astronomy and evolution in biology at the primary school level is to introduce the applicabilty and history of the "scientific method." From what I recall these classes center around teaching the methods of experimentation and the skills of observation. One can't parallel the teaching of creationism with the teaching of evolution because the basic message is entirely different.
Even many teachers can lose sight of the fact that evolution isn't about "These are all the answers to the mystery of life", but about "These are where our questions are taking us - but we still don't have all the answers."
At higher levels of education this is more readily apparent. Basic science questions itself and accepts that change (with new observation and theory) is a natural part of science itself.

Who knows? Some day an optical telescope might even discover some pearly gates in the clouds - or that Hell exists somewhere beneath the earth's crust - then we might come full circle in our beliefs. The point is that we found it ourselves without passive blind faith. I believe in God (faith)- but I also believe we were created to be inquisitive and intelligent to explore the mechanisms of His creation through science.

some day, but not now. that day may come when we find the origin of life. the best bet to find that would be through the scientific method. right now the scientific method has crap all on proving creationism

:)

edit:hey any admin...can I get an avatar....i can't wait that long....and I want to play the rate my avatar game

Well...let me ponder it for a moment.


Nahhhh.

Fibrosa, I actually agree with you... But to squash the debate would remove the Objectivity. Just remember the Correlation IS NOT causation. even if we both agree

I didnt have the energy to read every post in this thread and I guess what I say here has already been said a dozen of times.

But sure they can teach creationism in school, as long as it's during the religion lessons and not during biology. Creationism is not a scientifically built theory and therefor is not science. I think the distinction is important because the kids should know the difference between fact and belives. There are no facts in creationism at all. Teaching creationism during biology like a scientific theory is basically liyng to the kids. Sure there are flaws in evolution theory but using creationism as a alternartive is not science and not what science is about.

This might be of interest to this thread:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Since so many misunderstand the idea of what a Scientific Theory is and how it stands in relation to a Layman Theory.
Creationsim isn't even a hypothesis it is faith straight through, it has no solid evidence and isn't even a welleducated guess.
Faith shouldn't be taught in schools, religion (objectivly and with equal time to all major religions) should.

I'm still wondering what you could actually teach when teaching creationism/ID...seriously what is their to teach. a high power might have created us all and? This answers absolutely nothing. That is what science is supposed to do! try and answer these questions. To leave it at something stupid like a higher power did it and we will never really know, is giving up.

I think it's really that simple. (sorry to rant just read the 65% of Americans think creationism should be taught in schools...)

and by the way...
creationsim and ID are merely hypotheses if even that.