65% of Americans support teaching creationism in public schools
 

To me, this begs the question of how seriously Americans value the 1st Amendment. It makes it look like the majority of people are perfectly willing to discard the Constitution whenever it stands in the way their own personal religious agenda. I have no problem with people getting out in public and arguing for or against the matter with their own voice, but when they seem so willing to just toss aside the Bill of Rights as part of their political game I find that more than a bit disturbing.




http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_st...%3fformat=html

Erm,

I am a staunch supporter of evolution and I generally sneer at teaching intelligent design, but WTF does the story you posted have to do with the First Amendment??

When you inject religious doctrine into science class when there's no scientific basis for it, that's respecting an establishment of religion. If you support that then the only reason you're putting it there is to push a religious agenda.

Oh, ic.

Carry on, then.

I'm seriously considering supporting removal or circumvention of the first ammendment just so these idiots can see what they're asking for. People think they can live under stricktly protestent rule? Let them see what would really happen. I'll be in Sri Lanka.

There's no scientific basis for treating boys and girls as the same, yet does anyone make a peep? No.

There are scientifically documented difference between boy and girls, yet the NEA and the DofE insist to ignore difference and teach them as unisex. For example, a PA HS took some students out West for a summer trip a few years back. During the trip, the students met with some sort of "get in touch with your feelings" sort of scavenger hunt (my memory is not what it used to be, so please bear with me). Anyways, they were all told to split up and find this or that and write their feeling about the item into their journal. Then they would meet at a certain point, where they would discuss what they wrote in their journals.

Somewhere along the way, the boys found each other and decided to just do their own thing. In the process, they ended up making a campfire out of their journals. When they meet with the girls and the counslers, they told them what happened. Of course, the counslers (all women of course) were furious and sent them back to their hotel early.

The moral of the story? Boys and girls are different. Thus, we should not require boys to learn to stich and sew (as a NY HS recently required out of their students). Nor should school admin crush the spirit of boys who show a certain aggressiveness in their behavior (ie...take the anti bullying policies and apply them not universally, but by gender). I could go on and on, but you get the pic.

Public schools may very well treat boys and girls differently. What's important is that they don't do so for religious reasons. The different kinds of treatment you speak of here don't have anything to do with religion, therefore that doesn't cause any problem with the 1st Amendment.

I honestly don't see why people get so uptight about religion. It seems that people on BOTH sides are willing to ignore parts of the constitution when it fits their needs, not just people who have religious beliefs. If people want to have schools teach their children creationism, let them.

Sure, as long as it's in a religion class.

But if it's in a biology class in a public school, then that's state-sponsored religious indoctrination, not science.

So you would agree to a religion class taught in public schools?

The schools are public, supported by taxing people who have specific religious
beliefs, and people who don't. If the majority of the people who live in a public
school district are in favor of requiring female students to wear veils and to
"beef up" the school curricculum with teachings from the Quran, would you
not imagine how non-muslim taxpayers might react to that? Here is what
is happening in Iraq's post democratic election climate,,,,,don't you see how
our first amendment restrains the religious majority here ?

This is what is being communicated from the factions in Iraq who apparently
garnered the most votes in the democratic election of Jan. 30:

If they forced females to wear veils, that's one thing. But if they decided to have muslim creationist beliefs (and I profess my ignorance on what those might be, i assume similar to christian beliefs) i would have no problem with that. I don't see this as some indoctrinization, I see it as parents having the right to decide their schools curriculum.

Um...It has it's similarities to the general Christian theory of creation, thought the book of Genesis from the Christian Bible is considered corrupt by Muslims (they think it is not the word of Allah, and therefore is wrong). Allah created humanity through Adam, for example. I think a lot of creation is in chapter 38 of the Qur'an if you want to check it out.

Maybe they should teach an entire class of "world religions" as a social studies class. In the classs they learn about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Agnostic, and any other major world religion. If a parent get's mad, they simply say, "We'll get to your faith along with all the others, so shut the f**k up." Maybe they'll say it nicer, but you get the idea.

These people would probably still object to a "world religions" class since it might turn little Johnny into an Arab or something.
Some people enjoy hiding from reality and that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to hide their chidren or other people's children from it as well.
This is more important than a 1st ammendment issue, this is about making sure the next generation of Americans will be able to move our country forward again (or at least stop the freefall)

You didn't ask me, but I feel like answering....

Sure. As long they devote equal time to all the 'major' religions and not just the religions where Jesus died for my sins.

I learned quite a bit about world religions in high school through various social studies and history classes. Not a lot, but quite a bit and always respectfully taught. Maybe my high school was the exception to the rule or maybe we just weren't progressive enough. After all, I was only taught 'evolution' in science class and we all know how today that's considered 'just a theory.' ;)

I couldn't agree more.

i've always abvocated a world religions class in highschool, probably in the sophomore/junior year. I think it would give a different perspective on the world in general. Most highschool people i know at the moment can't tell many of the fundamental differences between judaism, christianity and islam, and in today's political landscape, that can get you in a world of trouble. It can also broaden horizons and maybe someone will learn something.....

now, i have no idea how so many in america could support creationism. Simply put, how can you really teach that, "God put this in motion, here we are' "why are _____" fill in the blank, "Bc god made it that way" ...yeah, that will go over well...

Why don't they allow parents to choose what class their child attends. I know in Germany during religion class you are either in the Catholic or Protestant class (they also learn about other religions in these classes). A third option could be introduced such as just a study class where the children can do homework.

Of course I do. Religion classes are taught in public schools, and have been for as long as this country has existed, as far as I'm aware.

well I remember ap comparative religion at my high school was awesome
very good class.

and on the topic at hand...
does it really matter of 65% of Americans want creationism to be taught?
what percentage of those parents know what they are talking about? Why can't we just leave this issue to science and let it die as it should have done a long long time ago.

The problem is that you can't disregard the voice of the majority and still remain a democratic country. People should be able to decide what their children are taught in schools.

The issue is that religion has no place in a science class.

Teach comparative religions...

If you don't want your child to learn evolution in a science class, find a private school that meets your needs. The minority *is* protected from the "tyranny of the majority" in Canada by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the US by the Bill of Rights.

So yes, you can disregard the voice of the majority in many cases...

But then what protects the majority from a "tyranny of the minority"?

When it comes to a hard science, yes you CAN disregard what people want their children taught.

It's science class. We teach facts there. ID has no facts. The absolute bedrock of science if the ability to be falsible. ID cannot be falsified.

Democracy doesn't work for something like this. We can't just go and ask all the parents, "Give us the details of this bit of science" They don't know, they didn't spend their lives gaining a graduate degree in a field of science and studying something to find out what the truth is. Science doesn't work through majority opinion.

Children should be taught the truth, not what parents want to teach them. Schools have a duty to educate.

Tolerance....

Well there are a lot of things we teach in science that aren't facts. A lot of physics that I was taught in my serior year of high school through college were theory. There was some evidence to support it, but there was no proof yet. The same is true of evolution. There is some evidence to support it, but it has yet to be proven. Recently, though, intelligent design has seena reemergance in scientific circles. Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. In those cases, we see a possible contradiction to evolution and we see evidence of intelligence in design. To not include ID in schools is to exclude a valid theory. ID casn bee falasified in my eyes as can evolution. It's a matter of proof. I know not all scientists accept ID a a valid theory, but a lot of scietists don't accept evolution as valid as well.

Personally, I'd like to have ID taught in science classes, and religion taught in social studies classes. They are an integral part of human histroy. It doesn't make sense not to teach them.

So you're saying that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights amount to tyranny?

willravel... just because it's a theory doesn't make it less true...

Science has a lot of theories. These theories are subjected to peer review. They prodded, tested and deemed plausible.

Are you suggesting that our Theory of Gravity is somehow less because it is a theory?
Our theory of light? Etc.

ID is not really a scientific theory. It is creationism with a sheen of science.

We can test the theories of science... you can't test faith you either have it or you don't.

I was trying to point out that difference between ID and religion. Religion is faith based, ID is based in some evidence. Check out an interesting article on ID evidence in physics at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aege...prfcosmos.html.

Also, famous atheism champion Antony Flew (philosophy professor) recently changed his mind. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

People asssume there is no proof or evidence for God. There is at least a possibility.

I'm just wondering where this idea came from that "society" gets to decide what children learn, and that their parents have no say in the matter. I believe in Evolution myself, but if a parent wants their child to learn ID, Creationism, or whatever, they's no skin off my nose. Either the kid will learn other ideas later on through natural exposure, and will make up their own mind and adapt, or they won't; either way, it will ultimately be THEIR decision.

"Society" does not own you, and "Society" does not own your kids. I agree that ( being unverifiable ) ID and Creationism have no place in a science classroom. However, the notion that "society" must "protect" kids from dangerous ideas is simply disgusting. For one thing, it posits that the Parent has no special place in the educational life of the child; for another that the individual is OWNED by the Group: a line of thought which is both Immoral and frightening, IMO. This is the kind of mentality which produces good little Hitlerjungen who spy on their parents and then turn them over to the State: after all, they've been taught from age 4-5 that their parents are just people they live with. When I was in DARE, back in Elem. School, I was emplicitly encouraged to rat on my parents "for their own good" if they were using drugs ( which the program defined as everything from Coca-Cola to Heroin ).

The real cure for all this nonsense, of course, is to get the State out of the education business. Gov't schools are nothing more than Statist indoctrination and "Re-education" facilities anyway: why do you think the State raises such hell about home-schooling and makes it so difficult for private schools to be accredited? Privatize the entire mess: with the associated drop in property/income taxation, parents could afford to send their kids to the school of their choice, where they could be taught the values and ideas that their family not the Bushes, Clintons, or Stalins held.

Science exists because we don't know all the answers. Yet. To use an analogy, there are many "black boxes" that scientists are trying to open up. That's called research. That's what scientists do.

What creationists do is to put "GOD" inside of every black box, and stop there. Intelligent design is just another fancy word for "GOD". It it not science, in fact it is consciously, deliberately anti-science. It does not guide research, it halts research. All ID proponents are saying is, "Beats me. Somebody smarter than me must have done it."

The only place for intelligent design (ID) in biology is in a course in history or philosophy of biology.

The fact that there are black boxes in science is not evidence for anything except that humans are not omniscient.

Evolution and Creationism are both theories neither have been proven correct and there is scientific evidence on both sides. So if you are going to teach evolution teach it as a theory then teach the facts on both sides. Don't stop at just the pro but also present the con.

I will call you on the statement "there is scientific evidence on both sides"

Please provide some scientific evidence of ID.

Rekna, do you believe that a round earth is a theory just like the flat earth and both theories should be taught?

You might want to consider that people have observed evolution happening, just like they have observed the round earth. Evolution is a fact, just like a round earth is a fact.

See people, this is what happens when you don't pay attention in high school history class, you come out with the mistaken impression that the US is a democracy. We're not. We're a constitutional republic/democratic republic. The republic part is key.

As for Creationsim and ID, check out www.talkorigins.org

Maybe you should get the facts straight before going off and spewing nonsense:
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

false.
creationism ist not a scientific theory, it is a fairy tale.

false,
evolution has made correct predictions, chance of species has been observed.

cite a single evidence for creationism.

Evolution takes a lot of time (billions of years).

The moon is recieding from the earth at a fixed rate. around 50,000 years ago the moon would have been touching the earth. The sun is shrinking (about 5 feet a day or something like that). Under a million years ago the earth would have been inside the sun. Lunar dust falls on planets at a fairly fixed rate. There was a huge concern about this on the first moon landing. All the scientists did calculations and they determined that there would be around 52 feet of lunar dust on the moon (which has no atmosphere so the dust hits and stays). However there was a fraction of an inch. I could list many more.

Evolutionary theory, ideally is a body of knowledge that is not constrained
by the limits that a religiously originated belief system presumably adheres to.
I found the following helpful when posts in this thread challenged me to
re-examine whether my reflexive opinions are reasonable.

Also notice I did not say teach creationism. However I said if you teach evolution then teach both the evidence for and against it because if it is a scientific theory then it needs to stand up against all evidence. We can't simply choose the evidence that supports our theory and discard anything else.

Isn't it possible that the difference between teaching in public schools compared
to schools sponsered or affiliated with other organizations, is that in truly
public schools, a competition of ideas, not unlike in an evolutionary process,
will lead to the promotion of the best ideas at the expense of the ones that
are most difficult to examine, using scientific methods ?

Darwin's theory of natural selection grew to be dominate because it makes
the most sense. It simply observes that life forms, living in a given environment,
have the most success reproducing when they are influenced by their
environment to change physical characteristics and behavior, changes that
are then passed on via heredity. The validity of this idea can be confirmed
using scientific methods. These same methods can be used to evaluate any
competing idea, or theory, including intelligent design. If intelligent design
can better explain how things work in the physical world than Darwin's
theory does, it will follow that the study of ID will receive more time and
focus in school curriculum, than other ideas.

If ID is not competitive when studied using scientific methods, but holds
a place in public school curriculum disproportionate to it's value as a
scientific explanation for how things work, then it intrudes on the competition
of ideas, and weakens and confuses the school's mission to pass along
the best ideas of the sciences to students.

The moon currently moves away from the Earth at a hefty 3.82±0.07 cm/year. The current Earth-Moon distance is 38,440,000,000 cm (384400 km). If we boldly assume that this rate of recession has held constant for 4,500,000,000 years, the moon would have moved 17,190,000,000 cm, about 44.7% of the overall distance. This does not seem at all consistent with the creationist claim, which would have the moon sitting on Miami.

The sun is neither shrinking nor expanding at any observable rate. The false claim is carelessly based on the premise of a paper that was once read as a meeting abstract, but was withdrawn by the authors before publication, when they discovered that they were in error. It's bad enough that the creationist argument is wrong, but it shows a sloppy and careless approach, that the entire argument is based on a paper that was withdrawn for good reasons. The webpage linked below will provide a more detailed refutation.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp8.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_159a.html

please do, and perhaps add some evidence for creationism, none of your "arguments" above has anything to do with creationism.l

Another indication that the competition of ideas does not favor a creationist
model is this, in the marketplace:

Perhaps because I wasn't trying to throw out facts that directly supported creation but mearly threw doubts on the timeline for evolution to stick with what my suggestion was. I have requested the powerpoint I saw recently that has the facts that a heard recently hopefully have it soon and i'll present you with the evidence.

Now here is some more. There are huge amounts of evidence stating there was huge flood that covered the whole world. This comes from sealife fossils being on mountains, the look of mountain ranges from above (looks like a tributary). The grand canyoun. How could a river so small create a gash so big? It would be one very deep but narrow gash, not a huge one. There was at one time much more water running through there. Over 300 ancheint unrelated cultures have stories of a massive flood. The oldest known tree is around 4300 years old. Guess how long ago the bible says the flood was, 4500 years ago. The oldest known language is around 6000 years old, guess how long ago the bible says the earth was created, 6800 years ago.

I still don't accept your assement on the sun shrinking, space dust, and moon receeding. I need to look into the evidence more and see where the numbers I saw were found.

The earths magnetic feild is decreasing. That means as we go backwards in time it was increasing. It would have been way to strong 2 billion years ago for any life to exist, we would have been living in a catscan machine.

Oil pressure underground is huge, scientists have said that that kind of pressure in the earth can only last for around 10,000 years before it would have created wholes and released the pressure.

The earths rotation is slowing down, ever heard of the leap second? If we go backwards 2 billion years ago we would have been spinning so fast that nothing would have stayed on the earth. Everything would have just flown off.

Population studies done on the world population is consistent with the flood model. That is the population today could have easily been created from 8 people 4500 years ago.

The oldest coral reef is 4200 years old.

There are lots of things that point to the earth being old and their are lots of things that point to the earth being young. We cannot simply ignore one side or the other if we call it science. Science is about standing up under the scruitiny of all evidence. Not just that which agrees with our findings.

I get a kick hearing new "facts" as to why the current models describing the creation of the earth must be wrong and why a Biblical (read Genesis) view is more likely.

Yet with very little effort, I can find sites such as this

http://www.griffithobs.org/IPS%20Pla...eationism.html

That demolish such nonsense as "moon dust" and the "magnetic field".

As to seashells on mountain tops, I know more than a little bit about geology, that being my first major oh so many years ago. And when one understands just a little bit about tectonic uplift and subsidence, then these mysteries too are solved.

Of course, the flood crowd can't answer how a civilization like the Chinese, which was around when the flood supposedly occured, didn't get wiped out. (The real evidence is that there very well might have been some cataclismic event that caused major coastal flooding in the Mediteranian a few thousand years ago...but not a global flood, that being an impossibility.)

just a quick response...

You know Continental Drift, do you?
What is on top of a mountain today was not necessarily alway on top.


yep, floods happen, see tsunami...

oldest known wrintings date 3200 BC many without wrinting system.

Although this question is still being debated, most linguists assume that the full language capacity had evolved by 100,000 BC.
http://www.linguistlist.org/ask-ling/oldest.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_language

come to the german eifel, you will find some fossil (stone) reefs there. this takes more than 4200 years.

The world’s oldest coral reef is the Chazy Reef in Isle La Motte, Vermont. It dates back to the Iapetus Ocean time period approximately 500 mio years old
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...+reef%22&hl=de

what about all that old stones around if the world is just ~6000 years old?

Stones like stalagtites that take millions of years to form yet have formed under US monuments? Let's face it man's ability to date things back is credulous at best. When I get the power point i'll post it and you guys can have a hay day. But conversations like this are pointless, this is why I didn't say teach creationism in schools. I said if you teach evolution make sure you provide both the evidence for and against it. Scientists keep revising their theories on the age of the earth. Now it is something like 4.5 billion years old. Yet many scientists are saying it would take much more than 4.5 billion years for evolution to do what it has. If we teach evolution we should present both sides it is only fair. (and by both sides i don't mean creationism, just present the flaws in evolution also)

The problem is, Rekna, that there is little credible evidence to present.

For example, all of what you have posted to date has been easy to refute and more importantly, none of it has presented a serious challenge to the current theory.

(Oh, and I see we have some how mixed up the theory of Evolution with the theory of how the earth was created...they are somewhat related, but they are NOT the same.)

The only alternative theory that is being offered is one of Creationism, which has too many problems to list and is also immediately suspect from the standpoint that those who propose it are creating a theory based on an assumption (the Bible), which is beyond bad science.

And that is why religion is not a science. Religion isn't about proof it is about faith. But when we are teaching a science let's teach it like a science.

Ok, but please some more than the usual "Carbon-dating doesn't work. It's been shown to be inaccurate for objects older than 30,000 years." claim ;)

sure, as soon as you find an evidence against it.

Yes, that the fantastic tihng about science:
when you get new information you can adapt and rework your theories.
reliogion on the other hand tries to irgnore or, if that fails, distort evidence.

But what if the truth isn't known? For the record, I believe in evolution. But in another thread there WAS a debate over the scientific validity of ID, and many scholoars admited the possibility to be the same as that of evolution theory, so I don't see how it has no facts. There is no conclusive evidence for evolution-it doesn't stand up to the same tests as other well-known theorems.

Honestly, it doesn't seem that they even deal with the same thing: one gives a process (evolution) and one gives the reason for the start of the process (ID).

The Constitution is a series of laws that codifies the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights is something put into place to protect the public from the government. Neither has relevance to what I said.

Obviously we have a political scholar in our midst :rolleyes: . Most people refer to a country with popular elections as democratic in regular discussion. I didn't say our political system was a democracy. If you failed to understand my usage of the word, that is a personal problem and not a reflection on MY education.

In a republic, those elected are put in place to represent the will of the people, not to rule indiscriminatly. If people have a problem with how some public affair is being handled, there are often direct referendums on to what should be done. They are usually labelled as "proposals" on a ballot. Suprisingly enough, these suggestions often become law :gasp:. So if a group of parents are not satisfied with how their publicly-funded school is being run they can make their opinions known to the democratically elected representitives to do something, or make a proposal.

The first amendment prevents creationism from being taught as science. Even though a majority of people want it thus. So the Constitution is allowing what you call a "tyranny of the minority". Hence the Constitution amounts to tyranny, in your view.

It doesn't matter what "scholars" say, the only thing that matters is what works. Electromagnetic theory is an excellent scientific theory. Why? Because every time I turn on my tv, microwave, computer, etc. I am revalidating Maxwell's works. Similarly, everytime I take an antibiotic, an anti-viral, a vaccine, a vitamin, etc. I am revalidating the work of countless biologists and their contributions to Evolutionary Theory.

(the following is not directed at anyone in particular, especially not the poster I quoted above. Just a little rant)

Give me one, just one, example of the use of Creationism or ID in industry. You know what? You can't. Creationsim and ID in their current forms are absolutely useless, and provide no scientific insight into anything. Every single piece of evidence that supposidly "prove" Creationism or ID do nothing of the kind. Evidence such as "irreducible complexity" is used to attack Evolution, but add nothing in support of the "theory" of Creationism/ID.
It's a hoax. It's crap, pure and simple. Conservative Christian groups who feel that the literal interperatation of the Bible is of utmost importance are threaten by real Science. They are exploiting your sence of fair play. "It's all just theories anyway," they say, "There are plenty of scientists who support ID." Bullshit. When the Biology department at Harvard University starts teaching ID in freshman Biology, that's when you can start teaching ID in grade school. Until then, STFU or go take a class in a Real Science.

Where does the constitution mention creationism? Or ID? It states that the state cannot establish a religion. Teaching ID is not establishing a religion.

The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming. Evolution is easily observable and has been documented in many species. Read Darwin's Origin of Species for starters.

There is no doubt that evolution is a fact.

Nowhere. Is this a serious question?

Are you aware of these recent federal court decision?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/ev...tbooks.ruling/

So you see that it is possible to find that the teaching of evolution as a "theory" violates the Constitution, even though evolution is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Is that clearer now?

I appologize, I was a little agitated when I wrote my post, and shouldn't have worded it the way I did. My point is that around the founding of our country, our forefathers didn't think that the population at large was intelligent enough to make many decisions regarding government. That's why we have elections, and politicians. Supposedly, knowledgeble, intelligent people are elected into office to run our country. In practice, there are many flaws with this system, but as is pointed out by many, the system still works pretty well.

I would venture to say that the population at large has no grasp of Science at all. That the so called "average Joe" barely remembers the last Science class they have taken, if they've taken one at all. Why can't the population learn to trust Scientists who have a proven track record of results to determine what should and shouldn't be taught in grade school?

Every time the Creationism topic is brought, there are invariably two or three Scientists from the National Academy of Sciences or some other prestigous organization who try to act as the voice of reason, and try to explain why Evolution is a superiour theory to all that have come before it, and why Creationsim and ID in particular are so lacking as scientific theories. Just as invariably, the Young Earth Creationism Conservative Christians (let's face it, these people are not exactly a diverse group) trot out some crazy from whatever cellar they keep them locked in, who's never published in any respected peer reviewed Journal in their lives, and calls that person an example of the Many-Scientists-Who-Support-Our-Theory.

I can appreciate that this country historically distrusts government and Overriding Authorities, but seriously, this is starting to become a huge problem. In the past, Creationists have been relegated to the shadows, marginalized and ignored. With the rise of power of the Christian Coalition in Washington and their brand of Christian Ultraconservatives, I'm really afraid that this is going to be very bad for the US in general. I think that they are trying to make up for their past marginalization by forcing themselves into the classrooms, and in the process, damage what little educational sanity is left in this country.

Seriously, how is a country who's economy is so dependant on technology supposed to support itself if it's children are graduating high school without understanding the fundamental differences between Science and Psuedoscience? If certain voting blocks in this country keep trying to confuse children by inserting nonsensical and useless garbage into the Science curriculum?

EDIT: inserted some linebreaks for readability

Does it? Well, anything that takes time must exist.

You do realize that you just acknowledged the existence of evolution with that statement.

:thumbsup:

I never said evolution doesn't exist. I believe in micro-evoltion as there is lots of evidence for it. But macro-evolution I haven't seen any evidence for yet.

^regarding macroevolution, see www.talkorigins.org

Well, then this country is doomed, isn't it?

Creationism has absolutely no connection with science, only some bastardized pseudoscience.

I personally agree with the countries originators in the regard of people's ability to rule themselves directly (i posted as much in another thread). The republic system is an elaborate buffer.

And the country doesn't rely upon the masses to lead, only the upper crust. I did a report on this very problem, comparing the differences between American and other industrialized countries school systems. American schools are designed to work well for those who are planning on attending college, and divide their classes likewise. Those are the students who recieve the primary positive attention. The rest are not really worried about, which could be a big problem; this is also different how most countries handle the "masses" for lack of a better term. IMO, America's strength hasn't ever come from the masses, but from the outliers. As long as there are people who don't think the earth is 6000 years old (or whatever it's supposed to be) who create the innovations, things should be fine. Someone doesn't have to understand the intricacies of the internal combustion engine to work an assembly line, the same reasoning should apply for other technologies.

And personally, I was suprised when I first heard that there were people who still thought the earth was only a few thousand years old. Sure, the bible says the earth was created in 7 days, but what's a day to GOD? A day could be millions of years. But if people want their children to be ignorant, it's their problem. I don't see it as a problem of what's the proper view, but what rights people have over their children's education.

the principles are the same, "macro evolution" just takes more time (thus making it more difficult to observe). what kind of evidence you want to see?

edit:

You know what, I just spent several minutes reading over a "refutation" of the famous Scientific American article dealing with creationists and I am embarassed to say that I had to be so forceably reminded that there are people for whom no evidence will ever be enough and that there are people for whom their faith rests in the absolute innerrency of the Bible in matters historical.

I have less and less tolerance for such conversations as I get older, much in the same way I would tire arguing with someone who believed the earth was flat and demanded equal school time to say so, so I think I'll bow out of this one.

Evolution doens't really have much going against it that isn't based ON FAITH, or at least not that i can thing of.everything i can think of is based on "the bible says this, so what evolution is saying can't be true because it doesn't comply with that statement from the bible" and the bible is far from a scientific book. Schools are supposed to teach scientific "truth" as and creationism doesn't really have that going for it. if creationism is to be tought it sould be in SUNDAY SCHOOL and not in public schools. Public schools are way to diverse and it would only start problems for the students. But if it is to be tought it should be tought along with evolution not as a substitution for evolution. and really i dont see what the big deal is about this. I find it way more amazing that God could create something as amazing as evolution...


...but thats just my two cents

The thing is evolution thus far has stood the test of countless peer reviews. Countless articles have been put forward as evidence for evolution, and many survived peer review. I have yet to see a single article in a reputable journal get published that supports ID or creationism. If they want it to be taught in the sciences they need to prove themselves to the scientists.

Here is my problem with not stressing that it is a theory when taught. When I grew up I was taught that the big bang was practically a scientific fact. Now these same scientists that said it was a fact are coming out and saying no we were wrong it wasn't the big bang.

.Actually "They" still back the big bang for the most part....theoretical research is investigating the Cause of it now. I would recommend you research the world of science before commenting further, as this seems to be a somewhat weak area for you. The vast majority of information you put forth is seriously flawed by even the most liberal standards, as you seem to repeat headlines, and avoid details.

If indeed you were taught that the Big Bang was "practically" a scientific fact....would that not mean you were taught it was a theory. Evolution carries far more weight in the community you have decided to go up against (science) than creation for one simple reason...............There is varifiable data to back up much of its conclusions. Creationism has only the faith of people who generally fail to research the science in the first place. Most scientists have read at least one version of the Bible. Few theologians bother to study the world of science. And that is indeed a pity.

Considering i'm a PHD student in a scientific field...I find you commenting on my scientific background a bit insulting. I base my thoughts on what I have learned through life from others but more importantly what I personally have observed. I have observed a lot throughout my life based in God. God was something I struggled with for most of my life until I started seeing his miracles in action. Now I have learned to just trust him. And he has rewarded me in my life for my faith. He has rewarded my friends for their faith. But call me stupid, call me unintelligent, call me whatever you want.

Have you looked for any evidence? It's all around you.

Where are all the missing links? We see similar species but where is the half-man half-ape?

What kind of rewards are you talking about ? Are the rewards that you and your friends attribute to faith in God, similar ? A belated "happy birthday" to you,
BTY.

Rekna:
For a good example of "missing links" look at the evolution of Cetaeans ( Whales, Dolphins, and Porposes. ) You can see the movement of the nostril from the front of the skull to the top, for example, as several intermediate species exist in which the "proto-blowhole" is halfway up the bridge of the nose, moving toward its' current position on the crown of the skull. You can also see the gradual vestigiation of the hind limbs and elongation of the forelimbs in Whales as their ancestors became totally Marine ( whales were originally an otter-like terrestrial mammal ). National Geographic did a very good article on this awhile back.

Another good example of evolution-in-action is the Influenza and AIDS viruses. AIDS can actually be seen evolving inside the body of its' host: drug-resistant strains evolve, survive, and reproduce within the body until the patient no longer responds to drugs. If the medication is withdrawn for a few months, the drug-resistant strains are supplanted by HIV-1 or other non-resistant strains. Flu is much the same; it keeps changing every year or so because it is evolving to be resistant to antibiotics. Tuberculosis, Polio, and Malaria are all doing the same thing.

A further intermediate species are the several species of dinosaurs which we now know to have been covered in feathers.

if you don't mind, i'm curious as to what field you're studying. i'm not calling you unintelligent or stupid, but for someone who is a 'PhD student in a scientific field" you seem rather ignorant of science. faith is great, but blind faith in opposition to logic, reason and that which is right in front of your face is not so good.


there's really no such thing as a 'missing link.' every living thing from the first cell to modern life (including us humans) are 'missing links.' one day, humanity will evolve and we will be their transitional form. everything is a transitional form between the form species that evolved into it and the species it evolves into (with the exception of species that die out and end their branch).

also, there no half-man half-apes. but if you look back in the evolutionary tree, you will find a creature that splits off in two directions, one path leading to modern man, the other to apes/monkeys/chimps/etc. i think you really should do some research into evolution (from credible non-creation/ID sources). if you are really studying a scientific field, you should have no problem finding information on evolution that isn't suspect (ie. from a peer-reviewed journal).

Evolution theory does not predict half-man, half-ape creatures. It predicts a gradual succession of creatures that look like men but are progressively more hairy, less intelligent, and less upright as we move back through time (along with other sundry reshaping issues such as foreheads sloping back etc).

Look at a australopithecus fossil thats not just "a hunched-over, small-brained, hairy man".
That is the "missing link" you're looking for.!

I'm still looking for a reason (see. evidence in support of) for us to give ID even passing consideration next to Evolution.

Through 2 pages, which include direct challenges, there has not been one whit of evidence given that supports ID.

Rekna, if you are indeed going for your doctorate in the sciences (I would also like to know what your undergraduate, Grad and current field were) you know that there is a process for scientific consideration. ID does not and has never met these requirements.

If they did the scientific community WOULD happily includ it, but there isn't. ID is not falsible, it relies UTTERLY on faith. There is no evidence to support it, never has been. It relies completely on badmouthing the evolutionary process. It doesn't say (The eye is too complicated to evolve, here is why...) No, it just says the eye is impossible to evolve so God had to do it.

It's utter bunk and until ID even TRIES to be intellectual about this, it belongs in the gutter. I don't want the upcoming generation to have it's head filled with armchair theology when these arguments had been decided over 60 years ago.

http://ydr.com/story/opinion/58516/
This is the school I attended for my undergrad and that I am at now at for graduate. My field for both, Geoenvironmental Studies.

These people know what they are talking about, they devoted their lives to studying it. People who advocate ID have made no such commitment.

1. Humans are apes. We belong to the family Hominidae which we share with gorillas, chimps, and orangs. Hominidae is one of two families in the ape superfamily, the other one being the Hylobatidae containing the gibbons or "lesser apes."

Consider: there is no bone in your body that you don't share with a chimp. Every single chemical known to be produced in the human brain has also been found in the chimp brain. The immune systems, digestive systems, lymph systems, nervous systems of humans and chimps are virtually indistinguishable from each other in fine detail.

Humans and chimps are practically identical in their DNA. The only obvious visible difference is human chromosome 2 evolved by fusion of two chimp chromosomes. Other than that human and chimp chromosomes are indistinguishable. Overall, if you look at any random DNA sequence in humans and chimps, the difference is only about 2%.

Now that the human genome has been sequenced it won't be long before we'll know exactly what genes are different between the two and what their sequence differences are. In the next decades researchers will be converting chimp genes to human genes in embryo by gene therapy, and we'll have chimps that are increasingly similar to humans.

2. There are intermediate fossils galore. New ones are being found all the time. You might start with Ardipithecus.

3. If you're really serious about learning about macroevolution, you should find a book about evolution and take the time to read it and think about it. You will get some wonderful insights into how animals and plants came to be the way they are.

"It is an alternative which we do not seek but as a free people we will not submit to having our rights taken from us by that greatest of all tyrants a numerical majority." ~J.H. Cochran

Is my sarcasm filter not working today or did you actually post that and believe it?

The article you posted begins and ends with Biblical quotes and offers no actual proof of anything. It waves some scientific facts in front of you and talks about how things would be different if these things were not facts. After that is calculates a probability for this happening and calls it a mathematical proof. Junk science at it's worst.

Thanks Host,

Rewards in the form of people around me who do amazing things, lead amazing lifes, have amazing fortune. Here is an example our church is 25k in credit card debt. In addition we got a probably eviction notice in one of our buildings so now we need to find a new place with no money and no way to take loans. So our pastor decided to have amazing faith. He wrote down on paper "God I need 50k for the church today" He sent his kids outside to wait for the mail because he new he would get it. Well that day 2 letters came a check for 25 and a check for 26. Nothing else came that day. So our pastor said to God. It's ok God I know you work on your own time so I'll let you be a day late, I expect the money tomorrow" So the next day rolls around and some guy that he doesn't know calls him up and says let's go have lunch. Our pastor says sure. Over lunch the guys says I heard about the church being evicted and I own a construction company. I have a bunch of extra lumber and i'm willing to give it to you along with some labor to help handle it. So they figured out the amount it was worth and it was around 20k in lumber and 5k in labor. Our pastor was amazed God had supplied half of what he asked for! A few minutes later the guy says "I understand the church is in credit card debt" our pastor says "yes" He says "do you know how much?" My pastor "says i'll go find out". He gets an exact number and tells it to the guy. The guy says ok and writes him a check for the full amount.

Now most of you will probably think big deal this is just a coincedence. But when this kind of stuff happens all the time you stop believing in shear coincedence. Or maybe you think it is a lie (which it isn't, our church now has the money and lumber).

I have seen amazing things from christian people, and while so many of you frown on christians you should really get to know some of them.

Someone made the comment that most scientists have read the bible but most christians have not studied science. My question is how many scientists have studied the bible and church? Simply reading the bible means nothing. Christianity is so much more than the words in the bible.

For those of you who asked here are my degrees.

BS in CS
BS in Math

Now i'm working on a MS/PHD in CS with a focus in scientific computing.

Now to address some of the things people have said (or more specifically assumed I said).

I did not say teach creationism or teach ID. No I said if you teach evolution then make sure you teach it as a theory and if there is any evidence against it present it also.

I have not done a lot of studing on this topic itself (from either the creationist or evolutionist point of view). I actually know more from the evolutionist point of view. But was recently exposed to some information that argued the earth was young. That was the information I posted. My pastor is snail mailing me the powerpoint now which might take some time to get here. When I get it i'll do my best to post the evidence he had in his presentation.

Again I stress, I am not saying teach creationism. I am saying teach evolution as a theory because that is what it is a theory. Today it is being taught as a fact. What happens if a year from now we discover something and we realize we were wrong but yet we said this was a fact.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have, as did my ex.

We both have training in the hard sciences as well pretty extensive church/bible training (she has an associates degree from the Denver Catholic Biblical School. I believe the Associates was through Iliff School of Theology, but I'm not sure.)

This is a semantic argument that I'm sure many of you will disagree with, but science is pretty much just another form of religion. I do not support the teaching of creationism in schools, but at the same time I felt the need to posit my belief of science as another, more universal form of religion.

CS is not near the same as a hard science. programming and physics, biology, etc. are incredibly different, especially in their methodology. in programming you have an outcome you want and program what you need to get it. in science, you make your outcome based on the "programming" that is already there. (probably not the best analogy)

and evolution is a fact. so it should be taught that way. how exactly it happens is still being determined (just like we don't know yet the mechanism for gravity but gravity is still a fact). these contradictions to evolution you want taught aren't contradictions to it. if something were discovered that proved that gene mutation had nothing to do with evolution, then gene mutation would not be taught to kids as a mechanism by which life evolves. i suspect that most, if not all, of the 'evidence' you're planning on supplying us with can and will be easily refuted.


whether it is just a semantic argument or not, it's wrong. religion is based on faith (blind belief). science is based on observation. i believe in science (and have faith in science that is beyond my current knowledge) because i can drop an apple and see it fall (repeatidly, accelerating at the same rate each time), because i can turn on my computer and type this response to you, because i can listen to the radio and hear a news story about something happening on the other side of the world that they heard about through a telephone call or on tv. other than bore me on a saturday morning, god hasn't done anything that i can observe (and i wouldn't hold god responsible for the boredom, damn rabbi). so there's a big difference between the two.

Rekna, I spent 12 years in Catholic school with a period each day for education in the bible and the Catholic faith. So, here is another natural science major who can say, Yes, I have studied the bible and my church.

So, again, how many true scientists, the ones who have degrees in the biological and earth science and other natural fields, are there who are pushing ID? Considering the utter lack of knowledge that most ID advocates in my local paper (I live near the infamous Dover School District), on here and on all the ID websites that answer is "not many". The leaders and followers of ID, by and large exhibit a startling lack of knowlege of what scientific theory, evolution and even the general discipline of science really are.
You may have your religious beliefs. But when it comes to what we teach our children, leave it to people who actually spent time in more than one Basic Biology class during their college education to decide what we teach our kids when it comes to evolution.

Harry, my specialization is scientific computing. In scientific computing we work with all the hard sciences simulating them. Currently my research falls under a group that simulates accidental explosions using many different "hard science" methods. My PHD work is basically along the lines of Math & Science for CS.

As for those of you who spent years in a catholic school, i'm glad the school was able to teach you what you needed. Because I have spent my entire life studing the bible and only recently have I felt like I had the slightest clue, but yet I still feel like I know nothing about it.

There is one truth I have learned throughout my life that holds to everything and that is "The more I know, the more I know I don't know"

I found I learned the most about the bible in religion class when my nuns and priests would give us historical perspective for the bible.
Learning the cultural norms of the hebrews at the time of Moses and the factional battles of the early christians before they put together the several dozen book NT out of the several thousand possible documents taught me alot about how humans and their personal values clouded the core message and altered dramatically what the NT could have been.
When you get that, the actual words IN the bible matter less.

I encourage you to take a late Roman History and Medieval History class that has at least a partial focus on the advent and development of the Christian religion at your university if you have the chance.

Religion was originally an explanation for observed phenomena. Science is also an explanation for observed phenomena. One still has to believe in science and have faith in the method, regardless of how widely accepted it is. Science is not what makes the universe work; it is only a conceptual framework through which we attempt to understand it. In essence, it serves the purpose that religion once fully served.

lol, what the hell are you doing in here, Feyerabend?

gods are originally an explanation for observed phenomena. religion is orginally a framework for societal control.

there are major differences between science and religion. religions says 'whoah, scary lightning! gods must be angry!' science says 'woah, lightning, i wonder what causes it and how it works and what it is.' and then they go and explore it and test it. and then it gets tested over and over agian to see if they were right. that doesn't happen with religion, it's just 'god did it.'

In the speed of posting I missed this. I want to address these false beliefs of yours Rekna. I cut out the stuff that was already adequately addressed.

Grand Canyon Why is there such a big hole for such a small river?
http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/101intro/grand1.jpg This is a cross section of the Grand Canyon. Notice the MANY different rock groups that make up the Canyon. Some are very easily weatherable, like the limestones, others are much less weatherable, those are the shales and the schist and granite.
A very long time ago the Colorado River was at the Kaibab Limestone level (the top) It started weathering down. Initially it cut a narrow channel, but as it went down farther the rock walls started to break up. Why? Several reasons. One is the mechanical weathering process of freeze-thaw. At night the water in these rock groups would freeze and push on their joints in the rock group. With enough of this freeze-thaw the rock face will crumble and wash into the river. The other major way is unloading. Try this. Go stand in a doorway with your arms to your side. Now raise your arms until they hit both sides of the doorway. Put on pressure for about two minutes. Now walk out of the doorway. Do you feel your arms want to lift up? That is the same process. When rock is removed through the channel the rest of the rock doesn't have the resistance against it that it used to have. Now the rock wants to push itself into the stream channel. This is caused by pressure from behind it.
Now, lookng at the cross section you see some faces are vertical and some are slanted. The vertical ones are much more easily weathered. It just all gets weathered away. The slanted ones are much more durable and take more time to wash out so they will stick out more than softer layers above them.
Where is all the stuff that got washed into that tiny stream? Over hundreds of thousands of years anything that has constant water rushing over it will get weathered down and washed down the stream. That's just what streams do.

Flood stories through history:
MOST ancient cultures have flood stories. You are right. But you have to remember that ancient people had to live near large rivers to survive. All cultures were born at the side of a major river. These people didn't have the Weather Channel to tell them when a flood was coming. And most people didn't have the luxury to learn to swim. One culture that has no flood disaster story are the ancient Egyptians. Why? Their flood was a regularly scheduled event and they needed it for productive soil recharge.

Oldest things:
Actually the oldest living tree is a nearly 5000 year old Bristle Cone Pine in eastern Nevada.
But the oldest living thing is not the Bristle Cone Pine. It is the Creosote bush. You can find these in the Mojave Desert. The oldest known Creosote is nearly 12,000 years old.

Earths magnetic field
The field reverses itself periodically. North becomes South etc. In the last 15 million years the planet has about every 250,000 years. We are in the middle of a reversal right now. During a reversal the electromagnetic field loses about ten percent of it's full polarity value. Then bounces back up.

For a lot of your arguments you discuss rates as we see them now and don't seem to understand that nothing is static on this planet. Just because we are decreasing now doesn't mean we have always been decreasing. It goes back and forth.
Just becuase the earth's rotation is slowing down at a certain rate right now doesn't mean it has always been that way. Spin a top and watch it slow down. Initially the slowdown is very gradual but towards the end the slowdown gets very rapid. That is our situation.


You display a startling lack of knowledge of the natural sciences. You REALLY should consider taking some undergraduate classes in these fields to understand what is going on around you.
I am also very eager to hear your arguments from this powerpoint presentation. If they are anything like what I just tore apart, it should be a fun time.

Preface: I went to a Catholic College Prep. I am an agnostic who likes the idea of Deism . I am not religious at all and I am scared of the religious right in this country.

Intelligent design and evolution are not incompatible theories. Christians are allowed to believe in evolution if they think God got the ball rolling, i.e. if it was his plan all along for evolution to occur. We cannot prove either theory to the extent it is more than a theory, so why not teach both?

Because only one of them is science, the other is religion.

Creationism is completely a religious view, not for public schools. Hey, if the parents want kids to see that view, teach them at home or go to church; but it is a separation of church and state issue.

Evolution explains how we came to be humans. It does not explain how life came into existence. The two theories attempt to explain two different parts of our existence. There does exist evidence that supports Intelligent Design, making it more than just religion based. Evidence that supports Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity .

^^
Both of which have been soundly refuted elsewhere in this thread.

On the contrary, evolution does explain how life could have come into existence. This is a very active field of scientific research, called "prebiotic evolution," "biochemical evolution," or "abiogenesis."

If you are seriously interested in this area of science, I would recommend finding a good textbook on biology and evolution, and looking into some of the current journal articles on the subject of biochemical evolution.

Here's a recent study that you could start with. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

ID is NOT a theory. It never has been a theory.

As far as us not being able to prove evolution to the extent that it won't be a theory, it won't happen, not matter how much evidence is discovered. It will always be a theory and it will never be a law. That is not a shot against evolution, it's just the way science works. Gravity will also never become a law, it still doesn't mean it isn't fact.