filtherton

Creationism isn't a theory. A theory is backed by evidence. Calling creationism a theory over and over will never make it a theory, it will only speak to your committal to dogma over reality. That's fine, people do it all the time, it's just another example of what happens when you mix organized religion and people who lack the desire to think critically. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being a creationist. The problem is when you insist that creationism is equal to a scientific theory when clearly it is not.

Until you have some evidence to back up creationism that isn't faith based, it is just a story. Honestly, if you can't be bothered to make the cognitive distinction between theories that are supported by more than decades of critical thought and "theories" that are supported by a few pages in a 2000 year old book, than why do you even bother arguing?

Though i do think it would be interesting to teach them both and let the people decide, only because i think creationism would be roundly rejected by anyone who wasn't completely convinced that accepting evolution would damn them to hell.

Behind door number one: A theory supported by many years of scientific scrutiny.
Behind door number two: A "theory" based on a few pages from a two thousand year old book.

America, you decide.

coash

don't be a baka
evolution doesn't have to mean one animal transforming into another. it's not fking xmen.
simple comparison of rRNA sequences between different invertebrates will show a large % similarity in genotype. ability to SEE the change doesn't mean jack.

coash

so called scientific 'theories' have been proven right over and over and over again. why do you think medicine works? is it because you prayed to God?

your 5 senses - including visual - can only 'sense' a minimal part of the diversity of life. not seeing it does not mean it's not there.
that's why we do experiments, make hypotheses, use microscopes, fluourescent DNA hybridisations - Bible doesn't mention that....why not?

jonjon42

look up the scientific definition of a theory...evolution meets it. Creationism to me would fall more under hypothesis..an unproven guess. I promise you the minute a paper supporting creationism ends up in a reputable journal (ie. science or Nature) and stands the rigourous testing of the scientific community, I will call it a theory able to stand next to evolution.

Evolution has a strong support in science and although flaws do exist. They are not flaws that disprove the entire theory. We need to refine the theory.

I think saying that you are not an animal is a bit egotistical...look at your DNA it matches almost completely with a chimp...also the question is, why do you (assuming male) have a appendix? It is an uneeded organ..even better why do you have a tail bone? These are remanents or what we have come from.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

prosequence

You guys are too much, close minded and unwilling to accept another point of view... Darwin thumpers... insistant on others conversion to your own beliefs. I was once told "Never argue with the ignorant, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience." and only now do I see the truth in that. I will leave you "intelects" to mentally masturbate this topic amongst yourselves, since you are not willing to consider anything I have to say. Rest easy, I will not read or enter this thread again, march on crusaders, march on.

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

hannukah harry

heh, that's really amusing. you've shown yourself to be the ignorant and close minded one. you see, you've closed your mind to the possibility that creation has no place in the science classroom. i haven't closed my mind to that. quite the opposite. i've discredited its validity as a scientific theory and determined that it DOES NOT BELONG being taught as science.

ignorance is ignoring evidence even when it's danza-slapping you in the face. you seem pretty insistant on converting us to your point of view that creation is a valid theory. we've given you arguments against it and evidence for evolution. yet you choose to turn a blind eye to it. that, my friend, is willful ignorance. if there is a god, you've chosen to take his gift of free will and squander it by accepting an ancient book whose authorship and reliability is questionable.

and to call us 'darwin thumpers' is kinda dumb... we're not thumping darwin. we're thumping sciences current best theory to explain how we ended up as we are today. while you choose to not even consider science (yes, science, the wonderful system that also brought you television, computers and halo 2!).

but it's a good thing you're leaving us to mentally masturbate... we wouldn't want you to go blind.

/hope i haven't stepped over the line...

edit: i would love it if you could give us one shred of evidence ("it's in the bible cause jeebus told me so" doesn't count) that points towards creationism... show us that you're not the mentally masturbating us into a "darwin thumpin' frenzy!"

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

1010011010

Is this thing on?

Creationism is "completely unsupported" as far as a claim to being a scientific theory, because no practitioners or advocates of "creation theory" have ever offered any general predictions about the way the world or organism should (and should NOT) be. Without any predictive power, we can't go look at the facts available and go "Ah, see? This is exactly as the creationists predicted... one point for their side." or if we find something that would be improbable in a created world say "Ah, see, this is far too common for creationism to be correct."

It's not falsifiable, which is a requirement for a hypothesis --> scientific theory.

Creationism is "completely unsupported" because it is not outlined in a sufficently rigorous manner to claim any fact as evidence.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

SecretMethod70

Let me say this very simply. Multiple people have posted links to PHYSICAL AND VERIFIABLE evidence for evolution. You have posted no physical and verifiable evidence. What is difficult to understand about this?

As someone who fully believes in a higher power, i.e. God, behind creation, all I'm asking for from you is to show physical and verifiable evidence - like we have done for evolution - that life came to be in a short instant of time.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

coash

it's alright...others will see this thread and laugh at your bakayaro-ness.

run away then, since you have no substantial arguments.

power of knowledge PWNZ j00

Pacifier

show a sinlge piece of evidence for creationism

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Furry

Look Up?

It had to come from somewhere. How long it took is another question. Personally I'm all for a Prime Cause, but instantaneous creation? I think not. Much more elegant to have things evolve.

... which is of course the entire bloody problem in a nutshell.

Coppertop

Anyone else think of this after reading the above post: "I'm taking my ball and going home!"

Bill O'Rights

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

hannukah harry

i don't like the idea of a "Prime Cause." personally i think it's much more likely that man created god than the otherway around. but i don't know if there is or is not a 'supreme being' of one sort or another than started it all. maybe an old white man wiht a long beard snapped his fingers and there was the big bang. and the universe expanded, the planets formed, and we evolved from goo out of luck because he wanted to see what would happen.

the important thing is though, you can teach evolution withoiut mentioning a Prime Cause and it doesn't change a thing. it's like leaving out the pulishers info page in the front of a book. we know the title and the story, just not who published it. it's an unverifiable preamble to the story, but it doesn't change teh story one way or the other.

creationism, on the other hand, requires the big guy to be there and directly responsible for all of it. but he didn't even so much as leave us 'god wuz heer' spray painted on a rock. and without him, there is no story.

oh, i assume you mean Prime Cause as i sorta explained up above. not as in 'intelligent design'. i view prime cause as more of a diest view while ID is just modified creationism to try to get it into the schools.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Tophat665

Now, is that an eohippus, a mesohippus, a merichippus, or an actual dead equus your smiley is beating there?

Or is it a jesus horse?

//playlist: Roger Miller - You Can't Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Lak

I know this is a couple days old now, but I've just finished reading right thru the whole thing and I have to say it was an excellent discussion. I really enjoyed reading that

Prosequence felt he could justafiably call EVERYONE ELSE in this discussion ignorant and close-minded, as I did not see a single post which supported his idea (that idea being that evolution and creationism are both equally theories/not theories/whatever). I have to say to Prosequence that he is the one who appears close-minded. I have much respect for someone who will stand up for thier own beleifs, but maybe in this case Prosequence would like to make some effort to rectify this blind single-mindedness, as it's very unbecoming.

And I'm STILL waiting for someone to provide this large list of physical, testable evidence for creationism. Anyone? Anyone at all, please? I would very much like to see this list.

Ding! I'm sure any christian person would tell you that this is what happened for the Greek, Indian, Norse, Japanese, Maori and Incan gods and systems of gods (and the rest of course). All have equal evidence (none/very little), so I find it highly likely that the Christian idea of God is simply another fabrication created to help people come to terms with stuff that happens.

My opinion, no offense intended to anyone who holds these beleifs.

Lak

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

Charlatan

Debate is good. However, religion has no place in a science class. I have no issue with looking at the theory of evolution from all angles. Any good theory requires it to be tested.

Creationism if it appears in public schools at all should be relegated to courses in religious study. Let's compare and contrast the judeo/christian creation myth with all the other creation myths...

Apples with apples.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

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. 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. 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.

The Prophet

AMEN! All or nothing.

__________________
"The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. " - Theodore Roosevelt

Charlatan

Leo... you've shifted gears on me... To talk about intelligent design is a whole other matter when compared to the creation myths found in the bible.

While I still find the concept of intelligent design high improbable I am willing to allow a small amount of "wiggle room" on some concepts of intelligent design. Creationists love this because it can allow for evolution within the concept of a created universe.

Of course in my theory of intelligent design the Creator set it in motion then went on to another project. Our Universe is collecting dust on the creators craft shelf and we just have to hope like hell that the missus isn't going to toss us in the bin on one of her cleaning binges...

Doesn't really leave a lot of room for God.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

zen_tom

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:

Fibrosa

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?

__________________
D'oh!

Fibrosa

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!

__________________
D'oh!

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. 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.

zen_tom

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

hannukah harry

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.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

kutulu

Great thread. I'm sorry I missed it.

zen_tom

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.

1010011010

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.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

zen_tom

You obviously didn't go to my school!

hannukah harry

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.'

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

welshbyte

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.

__________________
There are only two industries that refer to their customers as "users". - Edward Tufte

Nazggul

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 something has to give then it always will."

-- Editors

hannukah harry

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?'

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

zen_tom

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

hannukah harry

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.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

stingc

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.

Fibrosa

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:

__________________
D'oh!

Fibrosa

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).

__________________
D'oh!

zen_tom

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.