How should "The Beginning" be taught in schools?

[dcnativenerd]

For over a century now, the debate over how the beginning of the universe and life on Earth should be taught in school has been, to say the least, heated. Scientists, teachers, and religious higher ups just can't seem to agree on how this tricky subject should be approached. Whether in the court or in the classroom, this epic battle has raged on which way is best to teach America's children why they're here.
So, how should our origins be taught?
Personally, I don't see why both evolution and creative design can't be taught at the same time. They're both theories, after all, both with evidence for and against them. After all, we'll never really KNOW how we got here since we weren't there to see it happen. Speaking as a student in this country, I don't know why I can't have the opportunity to make up my mind. Why should the Superintendent do it for me?

[ACW]

Evolution IS a theory, not intel. design. That is a scientific term meaning something that's been proven.

Oh, and :munchout:

[One Shot]

im too lazy to find it, so.....popcorn eating smiley.

and i'm calling it, at least 100 posts in this thread.

[zoony]

Only the scientific aspects of the beginning should be taught, unless of course it is a religion or philosophy class. And no, Intelligent Design is not science.

Matters of faith or personal belief have no place in public schools. That is what Sunday School is for, or Saturday School if you're Jewish :silly:

[PeterMP]

For over a century now, the debate over how the beginning of the universe and life on Earth should be taught in school has been, to say the least, heated. Scientists, teachers, and religious higher ups just can't seem to agree on how this tricky subject should be approached. Whether in the court or in the classroom, this epic battle has raged on which way is best to teach America's children why they're here.
So, how should our origins be taught?
Personally, I don't see why both evolution and creative design can't be taught at the same time. They're both theories, after all, both with evidence for and against them. After all, we'll never really KNOW how we got here since we weren't there to see it happen. Speaking as a student in this country, I don't know why I can't have the opportunity to make up my mind. Why should the Superintendent do it for me?

I'm going to assume you mean intelligent design.

Intelligent design isn't a theory. There is no useful prediction that flows from it that can practically be tested.

Evolution has suggested several things that have been proven to be true. Most substantially Darwin predicted that there would hederitary information, that information would capable of being changed, and that would result in different traits in the organism. Today we understand all of those things are true w/ DNA. Of course, Darwin didn't know anything about DNA.

[twa]

Evolution IS a theory, not intel. design. That is a scientific term meaning something that's been proven.

Oh, and :munchout:

A theory is something that has been proven??? ....Oooooo K :chug:

[One Shot]

Evolution IS a theory, not intel. design. That is a scientific term meaning something that's been proven.

Oh, and :munchout:'

hmmm, I'm pretty sure a theory is something that HASN'T been proven...you're thinking of a law.

[SpringfieldSkins]

Only the scientific aspects of the beginning should be taught, unless of course it is a religion or philosophy class. And no, Intelligent Design is not science.

Matters of faith or personal belief have no place in public schools. That is what Sunday School is for, or Saturday School if you're Jewish :silly:



No. The earth is only 6,000 years old. Carbon dating is hugely inaccurate. Dinosaurs did live with man. The world was created in 6 days. All that mumbo jumbo.:laugh:


I can't wait for the, "There is an intelligently designed order to things. How could such a world be created without a higher power overseeing everything? This ultimately proves intelligent design." comments to roll in. :insane:

[SpringfieldSkins]

'

hmmm, I'm pretty sure a theory is something that HASN'T been proven...you're thinking of a law.


In science, a theory is something that has been proven and can be verified with scientific testing. A hypothesis is something that hasn't been proven, kinda like creationism.

[PeterMP]

A theory is something that has been proven??? ....Oooooo K :chug:

Evolution, at the molecular level (e.g. mutations in DNA can cause changes in phenotypes that are advantagous) are as proven as things that we commonly accept as fact (e.g. the sun is yellow).

Most things that we consider fact are in fact unprovable.

Yet nobody runs around talking about how we need to explain the color of the sun is a theory and not a fact.

[dcnativenerd]

I'm just not sure why I can't have a choice. It seems as if a lot of people are keen on both ideas and they both seem like they have their strengths and weaknesses. I'd just like a bit of choice is all. Like I said, no one really knows how we actually got here; so if there's more than one explanation, why not teach us all of them and let us make our own decision based on what we've been taught?

[One Shot]

Evolution, at the molecular level (e.g. mutations in DNA can cause changes in phenotypes that are advantagous) are as proven as things that we commonly accept as fact (e.g. the sun is yellow).

Most things that we consider fact are in fact unprovable.

Yet nobody runs around talking about how we need to explain the color of the sun is a theory and not a fact.

Only when it interferes with the existence of God does it become a problem.

For instance, if the Bible said the sun was green, a large sum of the human population would proceed to say the sun is green, not yellow.;)


I'm just not sure why I can't have a choice. It seems as if a lot of people are keen on both ideas and they both seem like they have their strengths and weaknesses. I'd just like a bit of choice is all. Like I said, no one really knows how we actually got here; so if there's more than one explanation, why not teach us all of them and let us make our own decision based on what we've been taught?

who's taking your choice away from you?

[PeterMP]

I'm just not sure why I can't have a choice. It seems as if a lot of people are keen on both ideas and they both seem like they have their strengths and weaknesses. I'd just like a bit of choice is all. Like I said, no one really knows how we actually got here; so if there's more than one explanation, why not teach us all of them and let us make our own decision based on what we've been taught?

You do have a choice. You clearly know about them both. Make up your own mind.

Why not teach them all?

Well, in terms of science, as I've already stated, intelligent design isn't science, and therefore should not be taught as such.

You wouldn't teach social studies in a math class.

You shouldn't teach something that isn't science (intelligent design) in a science class.

[Drockvb]

This may sound stupid and obvious, but why not teach all of the different ideas.

Give them the option to make their own choice. None can be proven, so make sure they know all of the different theories. :2cents:

[One Shot]

You do have a choice. You clearly know about them both. Make up your own mind.

Why not teach them all?

Well, in terms of science, as I've already stated, intelligent design isn't science, and therefore should not be taught as such.

You wouldn't teach social studies in a math class.

You shouldn't teach something that isn't science (intelligent design) in a science class.

right, you learn about science in a science class and religion in a religion class.

I guess he's wondering why more schools don't have religion classes.

[SpringfieldSkins]

I'm just not sure why I can't have a choice. It seems as if a lot of people are keen on both ideas and they both seem like they have their strengths and weaknesses. I'd just like a bit of choice is all. Like I said, no one really knows how we actually got here; so if there's more than one explanation, why not teach us all of them and let us make our own decision based on what we've been taught?


As far as the "beginning" is concerned, I don't think we will ever know how it all started. Scientific thought supports the "big bang", which I never really got into because I always said to myself, "what was there before the big bang?", but the evidence is there to support the "big bang".

The universe is expanding at an exponential rate as we speak, this has been observed and is thought to be because of the big bang.

The existance of "dark matter". Dark matter is believed to be remnants of the big bang and makes up a large majority of the matter in the universe. I don't know how much it actually makes up, but I do know that there is dark matter that has been proven to actually exist.


I have yet to see anything scientifically compelling to support the 6 day creation theory. I have no choice but to accept the big bang as truth due to lack of any better explanation.

[dcnativenerd]

I know I have a choice, but I know there are others that do not. They know one thing or they know the other. Just like some kids may think it's preposterous that we evolved from apes, some may think the same thing about an undefined divine being creating the world and everything in it. All I'm saying is that we give students choice by letting teachers lay down all the evidence and then let them decide for themselves. If that means starting a new (probably not mandated) class about the World's origins, go for it. If it means extending lessons on the beginning of the world in Biology classes, why not?
Besides, wouldn't shut SOME of the creationists people up that everyone seems to be annoyed by?

[PeterMP]

I have no choice but to accept the big bang as truth due to lack of any better explanation.

Can't you accept it as the best possible explanation based on the existing information?

[Bang]

I'm just not sure why I can't have a choice. It seems as if a lot of people are keen on both ideas and they both seem like they have their strengths and weaknesses. I'd just like a bit of choice is all. Like I said, no one really knows how we actually got here; so if there's more than one explanation, why not teach us all of them and let us make our own decision based on what we've been taught?

You do have a choice. You're welcome to go to any of the fine religious schools that are in the area.
It may cost more, but that is something you have to take up with the church.

~Bang

[SpringfieldSkins]

Well then you can't have stephen hawkings books in that book list cuz he talks about god all the time.

Scientists are allowed to talk about god as they see fit. Stephen Hawking has done great things in the theories of black holes, a lot of it over my head, but he is a brilliant man.

This is about science class, not about god or religion.


This may sound stupid and obvious, but why not teach all of the different ideas.

Give them the option to make their own choice. None can be proven, so make sure they know all of the different theories. :2cents:

However, one hypothesis does at least have scientific facts to back it up. I'll leave it up to you to decide which one does.

Unless there is some scientific method to verifying written word that I don't know about.

[PeterMP]

All I'm saying is that we give students choice by letting teachers lay down all the evidence and then let them decide for themselves.

All the evidence for what?

I believe the sun is really blue and a shield is shifting the light so that it appears to be yellow. If it were only observed by true believers, it would appear as its true blue color. The only evidence I have is my belief.

Does my belief get taught?

[SpringfieldSkins]

Can't you accept it as the best possible explanation based on the existing information?

You worded it way better than me. That's what I meant.:)

[dcnativenerd]

This may sound stupid and obvious, but why not teach all of the different ideas.

Give them the option to make their own choice. None can be proven, so make sure they know all of the different theories. :2cents:
Exactly! Like I said, it's all speculation in the end (though with evidence backing it up) since we don't know what really happened.

Another thing to consider: I do believe in creation, personally, because of my faith; but isn't it possible that the whole "six day" thing isn't literal, but perhaps a way to put things in a way people could understand; and that perhaps, there was a creator that oversaw and allowed the evolution of species to progress? Not saying that's how it happened, but just something to consider.

[ACW]

Definition of theory:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
From wiki:
a theory is a testable model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29) of the manner of interaction of a set of natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_world) phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena), capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) or otherwise verified through empirical observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). For the scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist), "theory" is not in any way an antonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonym) of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_gravitation) (see also gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation)), and the general theory of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity).

[PeterMP]

Exactly! Like I said, it's all speculation in the end (though with evidence backing it up)

So is the color of the sun.

[dcnativenerd]

So is the color of the sun.
If you stare at it long enough, it turns LOTS of different colors :)

[PeterMP]

If you stare at it long enough, it turns LOTS of different colors :)

Well, I think the color of the sun is taught before evolution and beginning of the Universe so maybe we should reconsider we are teaching things at the very bottom and work our way up.

[One Shot]

If you stare at it long enough, it turns LOTS of different colors :)

and then it just becomes black

[SpringfieldSkins]

Exactly! Like I said, it's all speculation in the end (though with evidence backing it up) since we don't know what really happened.

Another thing to consider: I do believe in creation, personally, because of my faith; but isn't it possible that the whole "six day" thing isn't literal, but perhaps a way to put things in a way people could understand; and that perhaps, there was a creator that oversaw and allowed the evolution of species to progress? Not saying that's how it happened, but just something to consider.


It is all speculation. The big bang theory does have scientifically proven evidence to back it up. It does not have conclusive evidence, but I think at this point in time, it will be nearly impossible to come up with conclusive evidence about something that happened billions of years ago.


As far as creation theory. There is no scientific evidence. Why teach something in a science class that contains nothing but opinions based on writings from thousands of years ago? It's a science class, not a debate class.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Exactly! Like I said, it's all speculation in the end (though with evidence backing it up) since we don't know what really happened.

Another thing to consider: I do believe in creation, personally, because of my faith; but isn't it possible that the whole "six day" thing isn't literal, but perhaps a way to put things in a way people could understand; and that perhaps, there was a creator that oversaw and allowed the evolution of species to progress? Not saying that's how it happened, but just something to consider.

I like to think of it like this, God created Adam all ready grown, so who's to say God didnt create the Earth with some wear and tear?

[dcnativenerd]

and then it just becomes black
Ahh...stupid things we do as kids. Staring at the sun, eating play-doh, beating our classmates to bloody pulps with a variety of violent games. Good times, good times.

Anyway, I'm not here to tell you my stance on the orgin of the world, though I guess I did do that a bit earlier. I just though...there are different ways to explain an algebra problem or why certian war start or how to pronouce a word...why not the same thing with the beginning of the world?
I dunno...I'm not a scientist or a science teacher. I'm sure most of those that teach evolution or creative design have perfectly sound reasons as to why.

[Ellis]

How about... no one was there to see the beginning of everything... but we know what's goin' on NOW... so let's just concentrate on that. Go to college and pay for the truth.

[Coach Williams]

This is gonna sound odd coming from a level 99' thumper but it should be taught to the best of sciences ability to rationalize it......

Since evolution and creation harmonize quite simply I see it as the school responsibility to explain the science and the (parents/ individuals) job to (teach/discover) the creation version.

[DjTj]

I like to think of it like this, God created Adam all ready grown, so who's to say God didnt create the Earth with some wear and tear?And if God has created the Earth with wear and tear that makes all evidence show that the Earth is billions of years old, maybe God also created the earth in a way that makes all evidence point towards evolution.

Maybe God WANTS us to believe in evolution. :D

[PeterMP]

Let me try and realistically answer your question.

Hopefully, everybody is being exposed to evolutionarily related concepts during their schooling. Whether they accept the evidence behind that or reject it is their personal opinion. Evolution is different because it is science and can be expressed in scientific terms in the absence of non-evidence based faith beliefs.

In terms of creation/intelligen design, the goverment and therefore school cannot be biased towards a religion. Now each religion has their own stories/beliefs and then w/ in that people have their own individual beliefs. You can't practically teach them all so you by default are going to have to discriminate against some people. At that time, you've broken the law.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

And if God has created the Earth with wear and tear that makes all evidence show that the Earth is billions of years old, maybe God also created the earth in a way that makes all evidence point towards evolution.

Maybe God WANTS us to believe in evolution. :D

Believe what you want, but the way our human body is put together - its too perfect to be just by chance. :2cents:

Especially if you're looking at Jessica Alba :laugh:

[SpringfieldSkins]

I'm sure most of those that teach evolution or creative design have perfectly sound reasons as to why.


The one's teaching creationism being that they go to church every sunday and pray to god every night. Teaching the big bang theory would go against their religios beliefs. Ever notice how there are no creationists that aren't Christian?

[dcnativenerd]

I dunno...I know a fellow who's far from a Christian and is a staunch believer in Creative Design. I don't think of it as something that's exclusive to a certain religion or to religion in it of itself. It doesn't say we have to WORSHIP this "creator".

[SpringfieldSkins]

As skewed as their views are, Penn and Teller at "Bullsh*t" did a real good episode on Creationism. I urge all the fans of that show to check that one out.

[dcnativenerd]

Believe what you want, but the way our human body is put together - its too perfect to be just by chance. :2cents:

Especially if you're looking at Jessica Alba :laugh:
I think that's proof enough that SOMEONE is making us...and that they have very good days :D

[SpringfieldSkins]

Believe what you want, but the way our human body is put together - its too perfect to be just by chance. :2cents:

Especially if you're looking at Jessica Alba :laugh:



And as far as Rosie O'Donnell?

God must've been on break during that one.:silly:

[zoony]

e?

explain that creation theory and the big bang aren't mutually exclusive unless you believe jesus may have rode a dinosaur.


Your homework is to find out who first proposed the Big Bang Theory, and what his occupation was.

Then you want you to look up the Catholic Church's position on the BBT.

Or not.

[One Shot]

Ahh...stupid things we do as kids. Staring at the sun, eating play-doh, beating our classmates to bloody pulps with a variety of violent games. Good times, good times.

amen dude, amen

[dcnativenerd]

And as far as Rosie O'Donnell?

God must've been on break during that one.:silly:
Naw....just having an off day. :laugh:

[zoony]

Well then you can't have stephen hawkings books in that book list cuz he talks about god all the time.


Which ones have you read? :munchout:

...

[SpringfieldSkins]

I think that's proof enough that SOMEONE is making us...and that they have very good days :D


Someone is making us. I my case, it was my mom and dad. That can also be explained by scientific theory. But that's a little off topic.



It also shows that drugs are bad and makes you have ****ed up kids that don't believe in god.

[PeterMP]

I dunno...I know a fellow who's far from a Christian and is a staunch believer in Creative Design. I don't think of it as something that's exclusive to a certain religion or to religion in it of itself. It doesn't say we have to WORSHIP this "creator".

But you are still teaching the concepts of the religion that believes in that creator.

Why do we get to hear about your creation story and not my blue sun beliefs?

Or somebody else's flat Earth beliefs?

Or somebody else's HIV doesn't cause AIDS belief?

Or somebody else's that people of African descent are less intelligent beliefs?

And it isn't creative design, it is intelligent design.

[DjTj]

Believe what you want, but the way our human body is put together - its too perfect to be just by chance. :2cents:It's not just by chance; it's in response to stimuli through an evolutionary process. It may even be directed by God, but all evidence points to the fact that God uses evolution as his tool for designing species.


Especially if you're looking at Jessica Alba :laugh:Of course, sometimes you look at Rosie O'Donnell and you question His ways...

[SpringfieldSkins]

Well, as I understand it -- conclusive evidence -- scientists reserve for god.

Moreover, we don't have math capable of handling infinite numbers. I have my doubts that we will ever be able to comprehend that...


It's funny. Through 4 pages of this thread, nobody has offered up any scientific evidence to support creation theory.


While I have offered 2 bits of proven scientific fact (expanding universe and dark matter), nobody has bothered to mention anything scientific regarding creation theory.

[zoony]

The Universe In a Nutshell is much better. Start with that one, work your way backwards.

(and btw, Hawking capitalizes God. You should too :) )

[dcnativenerd]

But you are still teaching the concepts of the religion that believes in that creator.

Why do we get to hear about your creation story and not my blue sun beliefs?

Or somebody else's flat Earth beliefs?

Or somebody else's HIV doesn't cause AIDS belief?

Or somebody else's that people of African descent are less intelligent beliefs?

And it isn't creative design, it is intelligent design.
Well, I was taught that the suns like isn't an actual color; but actually has all the colors in the spectrum...plus close up, it's kind of a dark brownish orange.
Flat Earth can be proven without a doubt with our own eyes, can't it? We have pictures that prove that the world is definatly flat. We don't photos of the beginning of the world.
If there is a credible explination for someone's belief that HIV not causing AIDS, I'll be MORE than happy to hear it. The same thing for people from Africa being inferior. That more so since I am of African descent.

[PeterMP]

Well, I was taught that the suns like isn't an actual color; but actually has all the colors in the spectrum...plus close up, it's kind of a dark brownish orange.
Flat Earth can be proven without a doubt with our own eyes, can't it? We have pictures that prove that the world is definatly flat. We don't photos of the beginning of the world.
If there is a credible explination for someone's belief that HIV not causing AIDS, I'll be MORE than happy to hear it. The same thing for people from Africa being inferior. That more so since I am of African descent.

It isn't possible to prove anything beyond strict mathematical expressions.

The pictures were faked.

What credible explantion do you have for a creation story?

Do your beliefs get one standard and everbody else's another?

[zoony]

It's funny. Through 4 pages of this thread, nobody has offered up any scientific evidence to support creation theory.


While I have offered 2 bits of proven scientific fact (expanding universe and dark matter), nobody has bothered to mention anything scientific regarding creation theory.

Dark matter has been proven? I didn't know that. Last I heard it was far from it, but I admit that it's been more than a year since I've read anything on it.

Dark Matter is a bit hokey if you ask me. Scientists observations aren't following predicted behaviors based on current scientific knowledge, so they theorize that the Universe is made up mostly of matter you cannot see.

Seems like the equivalent of adding some sort of smoothing constant to Newton's laws of motion in order to explain the curvature of light rather than explaining it thru Relativity.

I personally think that there is something BIG that science is missing in all this... and I've often thought that dark matter will be looked upon as the Space Ether of our time... but I realize that is not popular with scientific types who know more about it than I do :)

Do you have any info on Dark Matter being proven? I'd be interested to read it.

[dcnativenerd]

Listen, I'm not here to say which theory is right or wrong. That's not what this is all about. This is just about giving American students the choice to believe in whatever they want, not just because their parents said so, but through they're own research.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

As a Biology and Earth Science teacher, I'm not touching this thread.

[PeterMP]

there are different ways to explain an algebra problem or why certian war start or how to pronouce a word...why not the same thing with the beginning of the world?

I'll come back to this because it make the larger point:

Hagee (I believe that is the spelling of his last name, and I don't remember the first, but he is a prominant preacher in the religious right community) has said that God caused WWII to force the Jewish people back to Israel.

Should that be taught in History class as a possible cause of WWII?

[zoony]

Listen, I'm not here to say which theory is right or wrong. That's not what this is all about. This is just about giving American students the choice to believe in whatever they want, not just because their parents said so, but through they're own research.


I think what you're asking is whether or not a Philosophy or World Religions class should be offered in Public Schools.

I think it's a fine idea personally. It's part of general ed requirements in college. So somebody sees some value in it besides me.

[DjTj]

Moreover, we don't have math capable of handling infinite numbers. I have my doubts that we will ever be able to comprehend that...Infinity is very well understood these days.

The Greeks had trouble with it, but Galileo made some good progress, and with the development of Calculus, and especially modern Set Theory, mathematicians comprehend infinity very well, and it is the basis for a lot of modern Physics.

[PeterMP]

Listen, I'm not here to say which theory is right or wrong. That's not what this is all about. This is just about giving American students the choice to believe in whatever they want, not just because their parents said so, but through they're own research.

But nobody is preventing them from doing their own research.

You want something taught because it fits in with your own beliefs irrelgardless of the evidence to support it.

Think about what would happen to the school system if we applied that same tests to teaching every subject/lesson.

[SpringfieldSkins]

']As a Biology and Earth Science teacher, I'm not touching this thread.


Puuhhlllleeeeaaasseee!!!! :excited:


It'd be nice to have the insight of a teacher in this thread.

[dcnativenerd]

']As a Biology and Earth Science teacher, I'm not touching this thread.
Might be a good idea.


I'll come back to this because it make the larger point:

Hagee (I believe that is the spelling of his last name, and I don't remember the first, but he is a prominant preacher in the religious right community) has said that God caused WWII to force the Jewish people back to Israel.

Should that be taught in History class as a possible cause of WWII?
I think it could be touched upon to demostrate already exsisting tensions with the Jewish community and the creation of the Israli state. Not to say that I believe it's legitimate by any strech of the imagination, but I can see how it could be at least touched upon.

[PeterMP]

I think it could be touched upon to demostrate already exsisting tensions with the Jewish community and the creation of the Israli state. Not to say that I believe it's legitimate by any strech of the imagination, but I can see how it could be at least touched upon.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your answer. We are talking about a Christian preacher discussing at as a cause of WWII.

Does God causing WWII make it into a history textbook as a cause of WWII?

[zoony]

And since my question above went unanswered, here it is, in case anyone is interested.

I post this because it would be incredible to have a conversation about science and the beginning of the Universe without all of the stone-throwing from both sides. With a little bit of education, it is possible to learn enough to understand that belief in both Creation and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive, and in fact are a fairly logical match.

So without further ado, here is your answer to who originally proposed the BBT:


Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[5]
In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the universe into a single point, a "primeval atom", at a point in time before which time and space did not exist. As such, at this point, the fabric of time and space had not yet come into existence. This perhaps echoed previous speculations about the cosmic egg origin of the universe.[6]


And the Catholic Church also has officially adopted the Big Bang Theory. Not sure about the rest of Christianity or Judaism.

[PeterMP]

And the Catholic Church also has officially adopted the Big Bang Theory. Not sure about the rest of Christianity or Judaism.

The Catholic Church also accepts evolution.

Much of the Christian community does not.

[zoony]

i thought dark matter has gravity... its just that they can't "see" it. so...............


Galaxies are behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with their observable mass.

Therefore, to explain what science has observed, scientists have theorized that galaxies are made up largely of 'dark matter'.

Like I said, a bit hokey if you ask me. But I admittedly know very little.

[dcnativenerd]

But nobody is preventing them from doing their own research.

You want something taught because it fits in with your own beliefs irrelgardless of the evidence to support it.

Think about what would happen to the school system if we applied that same tests to teaching every subject/lesson.
Yes, but why not have it there at school? I know there are some ideas I've learned at school that I wouldn't possibly dream of unless I was there, like evolution. Before that, it was "God created the earth and everything in it...period."
And of course there may be a degree of prevention on the part of the parents, which I have seen first hand and have EXPERIENCED first hand; and even at this part of my life, there is a great deal of influence in my life by my parents. So, why not teach these things in a place where ideas of all kinds SHOULD be exchanged freely?

[DjTj]

Listen, I'm not here to say which theory is right or wrong. That's not what this is all about. This is just about giving American students the choice to believe in whatever they want, not just because their parents said so, but through they're own research.But how many theories should they teach? If we teach Genesis in public schools, should we also teach the Hindu creation story? Or the Buddhist belief? American Indian myths?

We are currently teaching evolution as the best theory with the most scientific evidence available. If we start teaching other theories solely for the reason of giving students a choice, how many choices do we have to give?

[zoony]

The Catholic Church also accepts evolution.

Much of the Christian community does not.


According to wiki, the Catholic Church has no official position on evolution, either way.

[SpringfieldSkins]

Dark matter has been proven? I didn't know that. Last I heard it was far from it, but I admit that it's been more than a year since I've read anything on it.

Dark Matter is a bit hokey if you ask me. Scientists observations aren't following predicted behaviors based on current scientific knowledge, so they theorize that the Universe is made up mostly of matter you cannot see.

Seems like the equivalent of adding some sort of smoothing constant to Newton's laws of motion in order to explain the curvature of light rather than explaining it thru Relativity.

I personally think that there is something BIG that science is missing in all this... and I've often thought that dark matter will be looked upon as the Space Ether of our time... but I realize that is not popular with scientific types who know more about it than I do :)

Do you have any info on Dark Matter being proven? I'd be interested to read it.



After consulting my trusy Wikipedia, it appears you are right and dark matter is just a hypothesis at this point. I do remember watching something on the Science Channel about a lab buried deep in the ground trying to detect dark matter. To me it's very interesting. Also the Large Hadron Collider may find further evidence to support the hypothesis among other things that I'm sure the religious fanatics will not want to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter



In astrophysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysics) and cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology), dark matter is a hypothetical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) form of matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter) that does not emit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_%28electromagnetic_radiation%29) or reflect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28physics%29) enough electromagnetic radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation) to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity) effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxies), as well as Big Bang cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang), dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_the_observable_universe). The observed phenomena consistent with dark matter observations include the rotational speeds of galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem), orbital velocities of galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxies) in clusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_cluster), gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing) of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster), and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation) and galaxy evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution), and has measurable effects on the anisotropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropy) of the cosmic microwave background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background). All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron): the remainder is called the "dark matter component."




Here is an interesting graph on the estimated mass of the universe.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/DarkMatterPie.jpg

[PeterMP]

Yes, but why not have it there at school? I know there are some ideas I've learned at school that I wouldn't possibly dream of unless I was there, like evolution. Before that, it was "God created the earth and everything in it...period."
And of course there may be a degree of prevention on the part of the parents, which I have seen first hand and have EXPERIENCED first hand; and even at this part of my life, there is a great deal of influence in my life by my parents. So, why not teach these things in a place where ideas of all kinds SHOULD be exchanged freely?

Because you can't do it in away that doesn't discriminate.

You can't teach beliefs that have no evidence behind them unless you teach all beliefs that don't have evidence supporting them, and you can't practically do that.

As I've alread asked:

Why teach your creation story (or anything resembling it) and not my blue sun belief?

[dcnativenerd]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your answer. We are talking about a Christian preacher discussing at as a cause of WWII.

Does God causing WWII make it into a history textbook as a cause of WWII?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. In my history textbook, the role of religion in world events was discussed regularly, whether directly or indirectly. Some of the ideas discussed were, to say the least, far fetched, but you bet we talked about it and considered it seriously.

[zoony]

. Also the Large Hadron Collider may find further evidence to support the hypothesis among other things that I'm sure the religious fanatics will not want to see.


That's not true at all

[PeterMP]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. In my history textbook, the role of religion in world events was discussed regularly, whether directly or indirectly. Some of the ideas discussed were, to say the least, far fetched, but you bet we talked about it and considered it seriously.

We aren't talking about the role of religion in terms of people's motivation. We're talking about the actual role of God in a historical event.

But let's assume you believe that should be taugh.

Okay, it was believed that the Empereor of Japan was a living God.

Therefore every action taken by Japan leading up to and during WWII has religious implications as the actions of a god.

Should WWII as the actions of a god via the actions of the nation of WWII be taught in school?

[SpringfieldSkins]

That's not true at all


The part about religious fanatics not wanting to see the results? Yeah, I admit that was a little harsh.

[dcnativenerd]

We aren't talking about the role of religion in terms of people's motivation. We're talking about the actual role of God in a historical event.

But let's assume you believe that should be taugh.

Okay, it was believed that the Empereor of Japan was a living God.

Therefore every action taken by Japan leading up to and during WWII has religious implications as the actions of a god.

Should WWII as the actions of a god via the actions of the nation of WWII be taught in school?

If it was the belief of certian people, yes, though perhaps as no more but a footnote. Not as THE reason, but to get into the minds of those that lived during that day. I can safely say that there hasn't been a class I've been in without a hint of philosophy or religion put in there somewhere as open discussion that pretained to the curriculum; whether it was my freshman Algebra class or my Junior year history class.

[One Shot]

']As a Biology and Earth Science teacher, I'm not touching this thread.

no, no...please do, we could use it.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: it hasn't even been 2 hours and this thread's already got 82 posts...leave it to this topic to get this place flowing.

[dcnativenerd]

no, no...please do, we could use it.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: it hasn't even been 2 hours and this thread's already got 82 posts...leave it to this topic to get this place flowing.
Hahaha! Yeah, no kidding. And here I thought no one payed attention to me. :)

[SpringfieldSkins]

And another thing, for those who think creationism should be tought in schools. Which version should we teach?


There are 5 major creation theories as listed on wikipedia.

1. Young Earth Creationism
2. Gap Creationism
3. Progressive Creationism
4. Intelligent Design
5. Theistic Evolution


They all differ on how humans and other biological species were created as well as the age of earth and the universe. Which one of those should we teach kids?

[techboy]

The part about religious fanatics not wanting to see the results? Yeah, I admit that was a little harsh.

Especially since many theistic philosophers argue (quite persuasively, in my view) that the Big Bang is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God.

[dcnativenerd]

And another thing, for those who think creationism should be tought in schools. Which version should we teach?


There are 5 major creation theories as listed on wikipedia.

1. Young Earth Creationism
2. Gap Creationism
3. Progressive Creationism
4. Intelligent Design
5. Theistic Evolution


They all differ on how humans and other biological species were created as well as the age of earth and the universe. Which one of those should we teach kids?
Touch on all five. Give us the basic run down of what goes into them.

[techboy]

Anyway, you guys need to leave poor Tom alone. Do you want him to lose his job? :silly:

Besides, PeterMP is (or was, I'm not sure with the change in position) a professor at the college level, so you're already getting input from a teacher.

[PeterMP]

If it was the belief of certian people, yes, though perhaps as no more but a footnote. Not as THE reason, but to get into the minds of those that lived during that day. I can safely say that there hasn't been a class I've been in without a hint of philosophy or religion put in there somewhere as open discussion that pretained to the curriculum; whether it was my freshman Algebra class or my Junior year history class.

Why as a footnoe?

Why not as THE reason?

Do you want me to go on?

There has been multiple speculations that the recent Chinese earthquake was caused by God (or god) as punishment for the Tibetan crack down?

Should the actions of God be taught in Earth science classes as a valid cause for Earth quakes?

[PeterMP]

Anyway, you guys need to leave poor Tom alone. Do you want him to lose his job? :silly:

Besides, PeterMP is (or was, I'm not sure with the change in position) a professor at the college level, so you're already getting input from a teacher.

Well, for the purposes of this thread, I teach Biochemistry at the college level.

[dcnativenerd]

Why as a footnoe?

Why not as THE reason?

Do you want me to go on?

There has been multiple speculations that the recent Chinese earthquake was caused by God (or god) as punishment for the Tibetan crack down?

Should the actions of God be taught in Earth science classes as a valid cause for Earth quakes?
We can go on for as long as you want. I don't have school in the morning :)
See, you're thinking too much in the context of the Judeo-Christian "God". I'm not saying this is "God" or "Allah" or any sort of named spirit, but an unkown being that had a hand in the creation of the universe.
Listen, it's pretty clear to me that you're not going to budge from your position and I'm not going to budge from mine. The only thing I'm asking for is all bases covered and, in the end, someone, ANYONE, whether religious or not, to tell me that we really don't know how we got here and all we can do is make a guess through the evidence we've been given.
Really, in the end, that's all I want.

[techboy]

Well, for the purposes of this thread, I teach Biochemistry at the college level.

There you go. That's one science teacher in this very thread where it was so requested.

Two if you count me, which you shouldn't, because I haven't written anything on the topic. :)

[DjTj]

The only thing I'm asking for is all bases covered and, in the end, someone, ANYONE, whether religious or not, to tell me that we really don't know how we got here and all we can do is make a guess through the evidence we've been given.
Really, in the end, that's all I want.It's impossible to cover all bases and all belief systems, and for creation stories, there are too many to count. Also, your disclaimer could be given before every class ever taught at any level. The pursuit of knowledge, whether evolution, astronomy, or art history, is always just our best guess based on the evidence we are given.

[dcnativenerd]

And that's all I really want, but there seems to be so much emphasis on the origin of the universe.

[Toe Jam]

I don't know about the rest of ya'll but I know how I got here...

One hot, boring summer night, two people in Ohio made their way to the back bedroom of their tiny apartment...

[PeterMP]

See, you're thinking too much in the context of the Judeo-Christian "God". I'm not saying this is "God" or "Allah" or any sort of named spirit, but an unkown being that had a hand in the creation of the universe. I'm not saying this is "God" or "Allah" or any sort of named spirit, but an unkown being that had a hand in the creation of the universe.


Actually, I'm not. The Japanese case was a Shinto religious belief. I just than flipped back, but I'll happily ask you if XXX should be taught because it was the belief of some religion at some point in time in history, and there is no evidence to support it.

Actually, my next question is should we teach the ancient Greek belief about Apollo riding the sun chariot across the sky.

However, I'll even modify that:

Should we teach it is possible that there is some unknown "hand" moving the sun (or Earth) and that our idea of gravity is irrelevant and just the by product of the actions of this unknown "hand"?

My question after that was even going to leave "gods" completely and go back to HIV/AIDS that you really never addressed.

Some people don't believe that HIV causes AIDS (http://www.virusmyth.com/). They really don't have any evidence to back up their claim that hasn't been thoroughly debunked, but they still insists they are right.

Should we teach that belief?

I've made the point before, but will make it again:

There are a huge number of beliefs that people have that can't be backed up with evidence. You have one of them (i.e. there is a creator that plays some role).

Why should yours be taught and not others (keeping in mind there is no practical way to teach them all because they are so numerous)?


The only thing I'm asking for is all bases covered and, in the end, someone, ANYONE, whether religious or not, to tell me that we really don't know how we got here and all we can do is make a guess through the evidence we've been given.



Touch on all five. Give us the basic run down of what goes into them.

First, I'm confused. The top doesn't seem to be written by somebody that wants 5 different theories behind creation taught.

Second, I would have thought the first (i.e. the "we really don't know how we got here...." part) was self-evident and really be surprised if somebody actually had to be taught that in school or if somebody walked out of a class on evolution or the big bang thinking that we REALLY know how we got here.

However, if you really want to seriously continue this, you need to address the question I asked above:

There are a huge number of beliefs that people have that can't be backed up with evidence. You have one of them (i.e. there is a creator that played some role in creation).

Why should yours be taught and not others (keeping in mind there is no practical way to teach them all because they are so numerous)?

[RocketCitySkins]

I dunno...I know a fellow who's far from a Christian and is a staunch believer in Creative Design. I don't think of it as something that's exclusive to a certain religion or to religion in it of itself. It doesn't say we have to WORSHIP this "creator".

This is my view exactly. Whose to say that an intellegent designer doesn't exist who created the universe with a Big Bang just like the scientist believe. I don't see why the two theories can't suport each other. The evolutionist fall short for me because they can't explain the origin of the little piece of matter or where the energy started. But I have no problem recognizing that a creator could have made the universe in a way that the scientist would agree with.

[techboy]

And that's all I really want, but there seems to be so much emphasis on the origin of the universe.

Really? At one time or another, I've taught every core science my High School offers with the exception of Chemistry, and while we definitely touched on the Big Bang in Geosystems, it was quick, and I'd hardly call it an area of emphasis in any of the classes.

[PeterMP]

According to wiki, the Catholic Church has no official position on evolution, either way.

What wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

"Today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_of_2007), the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy) and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) and scientific findings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) regarding human evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution) are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) is required to explain the spiritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality) component of human origins."

And that's human evolution. Not evolution in general.

[dcnativenerd]

I'm not saying just MY belief should be taught. I'm opening things up to anything and everything. I would hate it if just one explanation is taught, which is why I brought this up. The whole reason why I even brought up intelligent design is because I think if there are alternative explanations, that will not stuff religion down the throats of students (And as far as I can see, intelligent design, TAUGHT PROPERLY, does not), they should be addressed and given to the students, not as fact, but as something to consider. That, to me, is what our education system should be: things taught not as fact, but just as things to consider for later application. I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was biased towards intelligent design. That's really not the case, despite my personal beliefs.

[PeterMP]

I'm not saying just MY belief should be taught. I'm opening things up to anything and everything. I would hate it if just one explanation is taught, which is why I brought this up. The whole reason why I even brought up intelligent design is because I think if there are alternative explanations, that will not stuff religion down the throats of students (And as far as I can see, intelligent design, TAUGHT PROPERLY, does not), they should be addressed and given to the students, not as fact, but as something to consider. That, to me, is what our education system should be: things taught not as fact, but just as things to consider for later application. I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was biased towards intelligent design. That's really not the case, despite my personal beliefs.

You want your belief on this topic taught (i.e. there are other explanations).

That's one topic.

Another topic is the movement of planets. Should we teach alternatives there (even very general ones and not specifically Apollo)?

Another is that HIV causes AIDS. Should we teach alternatives there (even if they aren't specific to one set of beliefs)?

Another is the moon landing. Should we teach alternatives there?

Historically there have been various "theories" about comets (e.g. Hale-Bop). Should we teach alternatives about comets (even if they are general)?

Historically, there hasn't been a topic there hasn't been an alternative "theory" for so should we essentially teach related to each topic that there are alternatives?

[joeknows]

Evolution IS a theory, not intel. design. That is a scientific term meaning something that's been proven.

Oh, and :munchout:


what kind of crack are you on?

seriously

evolution is a theory and creationism isnt?

this is a prime example why the beginning SHOULD NOT be taught in public schools!!!

[techboy]

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning. Evolution happened after the beginning.

[dcnativenerd]

what kind of crack are you on?

seriously

evolution is a theory and creationism isnt?

this is a prime example why the beginning SHOULD NOT be taught in public schools!!!
Seems like a reasonable solution as well.

[PeterMP]

Seems like a reasonable solution as well.

Well other than his rational is wrong because evolution is a theory and creationism isn't (go back and see post 5 for the difference).

[PeterMP]

Seems like a reasonable solution as well.

It also does give you essentially the same problem I was trying to make the point of as well.

You aren't going to teach this because of some conflict with some other belief.

Are you going to teach gravity and the movement of the planets?

Are you going to each HIV causes AIDS/

Are you gonig to teach commets are made of interstellar debris and water?

Why throw out one perfectly good scientific idea and not others?

[Enter Apotheosis]

dcnativenerd, the beginning is taught in a variety of ways at most high schools. You just have to sign up for the right classes to experience it all.


what kind of crack are you on?

seriously

evolution is a theory and creationism isnt?

this is a prime example why the beginning SHOULD NOT be taught in public schools!!!

Evolution is a scientific theory whereas creationism is far from scientific. If science is taught in schools it makes perfect sense to teach evolution in a science class. If religion and/or philosophy is taught in schools it makes perfect sense to teach creationism in a religion/philosophy class.

Intelligent design is essentially a compromised version of creationism that is a little bit closer to evolution but is still not actually based on the scientific method. If intelligent design is taught it should be taught in a religion, philosophy, or psychology class.

[Titaw]

Especially since many theistic philosophers argue (quite persuasively, in my view) that the Big Bang is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God.

This is absolutely correct. Hopefully, I get the jist of their argument.

The Big Bang Theory goes AGAINST the one of the laws of physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Which can also be stated that for every reaction there is an equal an opposite action. If the Universe is constantly expanding because billions of years ago a massive ball of matter exploded, an action had to occur to cause that reaction.

They also ask the simple question, where did the matter come from? Everything has an origin, even the original matter that exploded billions of years ago had to come from something. In science matter does not just appear, but when you look to the origin of the matter something greater than the universe itself had to begin the creative process.


On the subjuct of should or shouldn't it be taught in schools. I think that evolution does have it's merits. However, it should not be taught as "this is right and intelligent design is wrong" because intelligent design has to exist to support the Big Bang Theory.

[joeknows]

It also does give you essentially the same problem I was trying to make the point of as well.

You aren't going to teach this because of some conflict with some other belief.

Are you going to teach gravity and the movement of the planets?

Are you going to each HIV causes AIDS/

Are you gonig to teach commets are made of interstellar debris and water?

Why throw out one perfectly good scientific idea and not others?




ummm prolly because evolution and creationism are both theories and the examples you gave are fact.

[PeterMP]

I think that evolution does have it's merits. However, it should not be taught as "this is right and intelligent design is wrong" because intelligent design has to exist to support the Big Bang Theory.

No (third time tonight this is all I really wanted to say, but can't because of character limits).

[Titaw]

No (third time tonight this is all I really wanted to say, but can't because of character limits).

I really would like to see more than just No. Why is it so hard for people to grasp that the universe was created by something. If the universe is limitless then is it within the relms of possibility that there is something that created it?

[Enter Apotheosis]

They also ask the simple question, where did the matter come from? Everything has an origin, even the original matter that exploded billions of years ago had to come from something. In science matter does not just appear, but when you look to the origin of the matter something greater than the universe itself had to begin the creative process.

The big bang does not really try to explain the creation of everything that ever was or ever shall be, it just explains the creation of the current state of the universe as we know it.

[PeterMP]

ummm prolly because evolution and creationism are both theories and the examples you gave are fact.

First, creation isn't a theory. Go back and read post 5. What experiment can be carried out that is suggested by creationism?

Second, they aren't facts.

An unseen and all powerful being is in fact controlling the planets. His actions make it appear as the Law of Gravity is real, BUT if he wanted to change things so that it wasn't the case he could. Prove I'm wrong.

Comets are in fact space ships designed to carry an extremely intelligent species across the Universe as they are in suspended animation. They've created their ships to give off signatures and move as if they were naturally occuring things. They are so much more intelligent than us that our technology has no hope of uncovering the truth. Prove I'm wrong.

HIV is just a common retrovirus. We all have parts of much older retroviruses in our genome. We didn't/don't die from them. The goverment has just used HIV and AIDS as a cover to kill off parts of undesireable populations. HIV is a nonlethal virus designed to infect those same populations, but AIDS is really caused by a toxin specifically desinged to react with certain DNA sequences that occurs frequently in the unwanted populations. The toxin has been placed in water sources and various foods. Prove I'm wrong.

It is impossible to prove things that don't have mathematical foundations. It is always possible that there is some (maybe extremely unlikely) alternative.

[PeterMP]

I really would like to see more than just No. Why is it so hard for people to grasp that the universe was created by something. If the universe is limitless then is it within the relms of possibility that there is something that created it?

I'm not saying that it isn't possible. I'm saying that the Big Bang explanation and therefore evolution have mechanisms independent of that.

[Vicious]

In schools? Whatever they teach it better not involve Religion.

[joeknows]

this guy saw the big bang maybe he can help...........

http://bethe.cornell.edu/index.html

[SpringfieldSkins]

ummm prolly because evolution and creationism are both theories and the examples you gave are fact.


The big bang is a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis with no scientific support.


Creationism should not be tought in science classes because there is no scientific basis for it. Untill it has a scientific basis, creationism should not be mentioned in any public science classes. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Does everyone understand that after over 100 posts in this thread, the best answer so far for teaching creationism in a science classes is "To give the students a choice of what to believe."??? This is rediculous, quite simply. Why do you want to introduce something that has nothing to do with science into a science class?


It's like teaching communism or socialism to American government students. They are there to learn about American government. Communism or socialism may have a place in a classroom, just not one designed to teach students about American government.

[joeknows]

First, creation isn't a theory. Go back and read post 5. What experiment can be carried out that is suggested by creationism?

creation and matter and all that is IS in fact THEORY..... PROVE you exist.... you contradicted yourself here because if you cant do an experiment..... then it has to remain theory forever .... duh

Second, they aren't facts.

An unseen and all powerful being is in fact controlling the planets. His actions make it appear as the Law of Gravity is real, BUT if he wanted to change things so that it wasn't the case he could. Prove I'm wrong.

because of you UNSEEN ENTITY.... this is the reason it shoulcne bt taught....... better yet..... prove you are right

Comets are in fact space ships designed to carry an extremely intelligent species across the Universe as they are in suspended animation. They've created their ships to give off signatures and move as if they were naturally occuring things. They are so much more intelligent than us that our technology has no hope of uncovering the truth. Prove I'm wrong.

once again prove you are right........

HIV is just a common retrovirus. We all have parts of much older retroviruses in our genome. We didn't/don't die from them. The goverment has just used HIV and AIDS as a cover to kill off parts of undesireable populations. HIV is a nonlethal virus designed to infect those same populations, but AIDS is really caused by a toxin specifically desinged to react with certain DNA sequences that occurs frequently in the unwanted populations. The toxin has been placed in water sources and various foods. Prove I'm wrong.

no need to prove you are wrong.... you just proved you are an idiot

It is impossible to prove things that don't have mathematical foundations. It is always possible that there is some (maybe extremely unlikely) alternative.

[SpringfieldSkins]

I really would like to see more than just No. Why is it so hard for people to grasp that the universe was created by something. If the universe is limitless then is it within the relms of possibility that there is something that created it?


Sure as soon as you prove to me scientifically that it's possible. Untill then, no. Why is it so hard to grasp that science can explain everything. The universe is limitless, science doesn't have the answers for everything yet.

But, anything is possible... so long as it fits the scientific method.

[Vicious]

It's pretty clear from the rulings on the Constitution. Don't like no Christianity in our public schools, send your kids to private school or gtfo of America.

[One Shot]

The big bang is a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis with no scientific support.


Creationism should not be tought in science classes because there is no scientific basis for it. Untill it has a scientific basis, creationism should not be mentioned in any public science classes. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Does everyone understand that after over 100 posts in this thread, the best answer so far for teaching creationism in a science classes is "To give the students a choice of what to believe."??? This is rediculous, quite simply. Why do you want to introduce something that has nothing to do with science into a science class?


It's like teaching communism or socialism to American government students. They are there to learn about American government. Communism or socialism may have a place in a classroom, just not one designed to teach students about American government.

thread closed.

[Titaw]

The big bang does not really try to explain the creation of everything that ever was or ever shall be, it just explains the creation of the current state of the universe as we know it.

So do you agree that something created the matter that ended up becoming the matter that exploded billions of years ago?

[joeknows]

The big bang is a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis with no scientific support.


Creationism should not be tought in science classes because there is no scientific basis for it. Untill it has a scientific basis, creationism should not be mentioned in any public science classes. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Does everyone understand that after over 100 posts in this thread, the best answer so far for teaching creationism in a science classes is "To give the students a choice of what to believe."??? This is rediculous, quite simply. Why do you want to introduce something that has nothing to do with science into a science class?


It's like teaching communism or socialism to American government students. They are there to learn about American government. Communism or socialism may have a place in a classroom, just not one designed to teach students about American government.


why the hell are yall addressing me like i supoort creationism.... how did i confuse you all?

[Vicious]

So do you agree that something created the matter that ended up becoming the matter that exploded billions of years ago?

Is that something made of matter? How did that matter get made?

[Slacky McSlackAss]

Ill stick with the scientific backing to the beginning. This may be because im not a religious person, or maybe its cause i dont like the idea of believing in something that there is no concrete proof in. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are fine by me.

[SpringfieldSkins]

Let me re-emphasize the difference between theory and hypothesis for the newcomers to the thread.

Theory: Proven by scientific method and can be recreated time and time again following the scientific laws that it was proven by.

Hypothesis: Not proven by scientific method. Still needs to be tested and recreated by scientific laws to prove the hypothesis to be a theory.


The big bang is a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis.

[Titaw]

Sure as soon as you prove to me scientifically that it's possible. Untill then, no. Why is it so hard to grasp that science can explain everything. The universe is limitless, science doesn't have the answers for everything yet.

But, anything is possible... so long as it fits the scientific method.

It is sceintifically possible because of those great things we call imaginery numbers. In order for certain equations to work imaginery numbers are used. Therefore, if we are using an imaginery number to prove a theory then something beyond our metal capacity (as it stands now) could have created a limitless universe.

[PeterMP]

quotes

Please indicate where I ever said that I could prove anything was "right" except for strictly mathematical expressions. You asserted that all of those things were facts. I gave you alternative explanations to each one. If they are facts, then you should be able to prove that my alternative explanations are false.

If you can't prove that my alternatives are wrong, that puts them in the same boat as evolution (I can't prove the alternative to evolution (i.e. Creation) is wrong).

You stated don't teach evolution (or something down that line).

Why pick on evolution (because it has an alternative that can't be demonstrated to be false) when a whole collection of other things that you accect as facts are in the same situation?

[SpringfieldSkins]

why the hell are yall addressing me like i supoort creationism.... how did i confuse you all?


You had me confused, sorry. PeterMP is pro-big bang and as I was scanning through the pages, it seemed like you were trying contradict him.


I think you may have the definition of "theory" mixed up with "hypothesis". See my above post.

[Titaw]

Is that something made of matter? How did that matter get made?

That something may be made of matter that is beyond comprehension OR that something may not be made of matter.

[joeknows]

Let me re-emphasize the difference between theory and hypothesis for the newcomers to the thread.

Theory: Proven by scientific method and can be recreated time and time again following the scientific laws that it was proven by.

Hypothesis: Not proven by scientific method. Still needs to be tested and recreated by scientific laws to prove the hypothesis to be a theory.


The big bang is a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis.



scientific theory
nouna theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"


hy·poth·e·sis
1.a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. 2.a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument. 3.the antecedent of a conditional proposition. 4.a mere assumption or guess.

[joeknows]

scientific method
–noun a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.


since we are defining ****.... lets get them accurate

[Enter Apotheosis]

So do you agree that something created the matter that ended up becoming the matter that exploded billions of years ago?

Yep, something probably preceded the big bang and I'd be willing to bet that something else preceded the thing that preceded the big bang and something else came even before that... ad infinitum.

It is entirely possible that there is a creator if you go all the way back but it is very likely that we lack the comprehension to even understand who or what that creator is, much less actually trace that far back.

[SpringfieldSkins]

It is sceintifically possible because of those great things we call imaginery numbers. In order for certain equations to work imaginery numbers are used. Therefore, if we are using an imaginery number to prove a theory then something beyond our metal capacity (as it stands now) could have created a limitless universe.


Even if I concede that point to you, having an equation with an imaginary numbers is better than having no equation, with no numbers, just "something". That's just my opinion though.

[Vicious]

That something may be made of matter that is beyond comprehension OR that something may not be made of matter.

So it's magic


Creators of the Universe

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/46/27146-004.jpg

[joeknows]

That something may be made of matter that is beyond comprehension OR that something may not be made of matter.


just so we all understand.... there is no solid,,,, there is no gas and there is no liquid....

everything at the nuclear level is merely information and energy

[SpringfieldSkins]

scientific method
–noun a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

To form a theory.


scientific theory
nouna theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Meaning, you must have all the necessary data available to prove a theory may be false.

[joeknows]

Please indicate where I ever said that I could prove anything was "right" except for strictly mathematical expressions. You asserted that all of those things were facts. I gave you alternative explanations to each one. If they are facts, then you should be able to prove that my alternative explanations are false.

If you can't prove that my alternatives are wrong, that puts them in the same boat as evolution (I can't prove the alternative to evolution (i.e. Creation) is wrong).

You stated don't teach evolution (or something down that line).

Why pick on evolution (because it has an alternative that can't be demonstrated to be false) when a whole collection of other things that you accect as facts are in the same situation?


when the hell did you get the idea i was against evolution? i have not in any way supported creationism in my life ..... much less this thread....

lemme go get some of my posts.... jeez

[joeknows]

what kind of crack are you on?

seriously

evolution is a theory and creationism isnt?

this is a prime example why the beginning SHOULD NOT be taught in public schools!!!



ok where the hell is the confusion???

[RocketCitySkins]

Does everyone understand that after over 100 posts in this thread, the best answer so far for teaching creationism in a science classes is "To give the students a choice of what to believe."??? This is rediculous, quite simply. Why do you want to introduce something that has nothing to do with science into a science class?


I think I got it now. You just want the "what" of what the scientist believe occured during the Big Bang and the aftermath taught in school. Nothing to do with the why. If inquring students want to know anything more about how the Big Bang did or didn't start, they need to go take a class on Creationism or Cosmological Principle or some other hypothesis on where the ball of matter came from and what caused it to explode.

I'm okay with that as long as if a student asked they are told not the theories but just that there are different theories on the why to explore.

[PeterMP]

scientific theory
nouna theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

This get backs to my point before that you seemed to disagree. For Creationism to be a theory, it has to falsifiable. That means it has to make a prediction that I can tests to see if it the prediction is correct (i.e. carryout an experiment).

What prediction does creationism (or has creationism) made that can be tested to show that creationism isn't false?

[joeknows]

ok ok ok lemme just make a statement and clear the air.....

i DO NOT believe EITHER should be taught in school.

if either is to be taught it would be evolution because creationism inherently credits a diety.....

for the record I BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM but as a buddhist i guarantee that my view is vastly different than any christian idea of either a diety or creationism

[PeterMP]

ok where the hell is the confusion???

So it would seem in that comment that you were suggesting that evolution AND creationism are both theories.

And as they were both acceptable theories rather than just teach evolution or try and teach them both, you would perfer to see neither taught.

I will point out that the person that started the thread and CLEARLY wanted to see some sort of Creationims (e.g. intelligent design) taught agreed with you.

[SpringfieldSkins]

I think I got it now. You just want the "what" of what the scientist believe occured during the Big Bang and the aftermath taught in school. Nothing to do with the why. If inquring students want to know anything more about how the Big Bang did or didn't start, they need to go take a class on Creationism or Cosmological Principle or some other hypothesis on where the ball of matter came from and what caused it to explode.

I'm okay with that as long as if a student asked they are told not the theories but just that there are different theories on the why to explore.


Certainly one day, maybe science will be able to determine why the big bang occured. Right now, nobody, is able to scientifically prove the "why". Any class that tought why the big bang occured would meerely be teaching unproven hypotheses better suited for a philosophy class.

I firmly believe that science will be able to prove your "why", doubt it will be anytime soon, but certainly before creationism activists will.

[PeterMP]

ok ok ok lemme just make a statement and clear the air.....

i DO NOT believe EITHER should be taught in school.

if either is to be taught it would be evolution because creationism inherently credits a diety.....

for the record I BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM but as a buddhist i guarantee that my view is vastly different than any christian idea of either a diety or creationism

Okay, then I really don't see your problem with the general gists of the comments directed at you.

Evolution is a perfectly good scientific idea. There are other "unscientific" explanations (i.e. they can't be falsified). However, that is true for essentially anything taught in science classes in schools (e.g. HIV causes AIDS and the planets move the way they do because of gravity).

Why remove evolution and none of those ideas?

[joeknows]

evolution theory......... falsible because of missing link.........

creationism......... falsible because we have seen animals evolve in our modern times

so therefore they are both in fact ........ theories

[Enter Apotheosis]

evolution theory......... falsible because of missing link.........

creationism......... falsible because we have seen animals evolve in our modern times

so therefore they are both in fact ........ theories

You missed his point completely. :doh:

[Vicious]

Lets just show kids this thread, it'll teach them the valuable lesson that humans don't know wtf is going on.

[RocketCitySkins]

I'm just curious. In science classes where the Big Bang theory is taught as a verifiable theory do the teachers also bring up the evidence against the Big Bang such as this research http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm


Or the book by Bill Mitchell
"The Cult of the Big Bang: Was There a Bang?"

Do the teachers teach that there is also verifiable evidence that the Big Bang just might not have happened that way?

[PeterMP]

evolution theory......... falsible because of missing link.........

creationism......... falsible because we have seen animals evolve in our modern times

so therefore they are both in fact ........ theories

1. Falsifiable means being able to prove it false. A missing link doesn't prove evolution false. It means we are missing information. To prove something false requires, if we do A than B should happen, and then go out and do A and have C happen. Then you've proven it false.

2. We have seen evolution in modern times. There was a whole thread here not long ago on this topic, but here is the news story:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Before that there were well documented cases of evolution including antibiotic resistance in bacteria and evolution of resistance of drugs in Plasmodium (the organisms that causes malaria).

Is creationism false?

[joeknows]

Okay, then I really don't see your problem with the general gists of the comments directed at you.

Evolution is a perfectly good scientific idea. There are other "unscientific" explanations (i.e. they can't be falsified). However, that is true for essentially anything taught in science classes in schools (e.g. HIV causes AIDS and the planets move the way they do because of gravity).

Why remove evolution and none of those ideas?

at 1230 am you really want me to exlpain physics and gravitational forces?

you want me to explain that hiv is an organism that causes aids.... a syndrome...

really?

you want me to explain that there have been readings made in the last 20 years of comets and most recently in the late 90s when the earth passed through a comet tail?

these things have scientific merit.....

i personally dont disagree with evolution because i believe that is part of the process of creationism........

i just feel that if people feel that in order to teach one the other must be taught...... i say that since we can prove neither......... dont teach either... simply because of the dangers of teaching religion to support or deny either theory

[SpringfieldSkins]

joeknows...


A hypothesis is something that hasn't been proven yet. Basically, some guy says "Hmm... I think this is what happens." That is a hypothesis. That is creationism.

A theory is the end of the process after a hypothesis has been tested and been proven to be true. Some other guy says, "Hmm... I think this is true. I'm going to do some tests in a controlled environment to see if it acutally is. Hey, it worked. Now let me try it again and again and again. Hey it worked all of those times too. My hypothesis is a theory." This is what the big bang is.

[PeterMP]

at 1230 am you really want me to exlpain physics and gravitational forces?

you want me to explain that hiv is an organism that causes aids.... a syndrome...

really?

you want me to explain that there have been readings made in the last 20 years of comets and most recently in the late 90s when the earth passed through a comet tail?

these things have scientific merit.....

i personally dont disagree with evolution because i believe that is part of the process of creationism........

i just feel that if people feel that in order to teach one the other must be taught...... i say that since we can prove neither......... dont teach either... simply because of the dangers of teaching religion to support or deny either theory

Well, I'd be happier if you conceded the point and admitted that you can't prove that my alternatives are false.

They do have scientific merit, but really no more merit than evolution.

We can "prove" evolution, and we have at least to the extent that we can prove HIV causes AIDS and comets aren't space ships for aliens with far superior intelligence and technology.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/46/2/267

[joeknows]

joeknows...


A hypothesis is something that hasn't been proven yet. Basically, some guy says "Hmm... I think this is what happens." That is a hypothesis. That is creationism.

A theory is the end of the process after a hypothesis has been tested and been proven to be true. Some other guy says, "Hmm... I think this is true. I'm going to do some tests in a controlled environment to see if it acutally is. Hey, it worked. Now let me try it again and again and again. Hey it worked all of those times too. My hypothesis is a theory." This is what the big bang is.


theory.... a + B PROBABLY = c

hypothesis ........ in this experiment i am going to add A to B and should come up with C

law .... i have added A + B and it is IN FACT .... C so therefore my theory has been hypothesised and proven so therefore it is law

[SpringfieldSkins]

From wikipedia


The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge), depending on their methodologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology) and the context of discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate).

In science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) a theory is a testable model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29) of the manner of interaction of a set of natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_world) phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena), capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) or otherwise verified through empirical observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). For the scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist), "theory" is not in any way an antonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonym) of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_gravitation) (see also gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation)), and the general theory of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity).

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture), an opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion), a speculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation), or a hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis). In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact); in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) descriptions of reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality). This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.






A physical law or scientific law is a scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific) generalization based on empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) of physical behavior (i.e. the law of nature [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_laws#cite_note-0)). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing the observable laws. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community).



A law, as I understant it, usually deals with physics exclusively. I see what you mean with "theory", I was using it in a strictly scientific sense basically meaning that a theory is in fact true for the purpose of this argument.

[joeknows]

Well, I'd be happier if you conceded the point and admitted that you can't prove that my alternatives are false.

They do have scientific merit, but really no more merit than evolution.

We can "prove" evolution, and we have at least to the extent that we can prove HIV causes AIDS and comets aren't space ships for aliens with far superior intelligence and technology.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/46/2/267


ok ok ok

evolution CANNOT be proven in human beings...... ie missing link....

creationism CANNOT be proven because it inherently refers to a belief in a diety we CANNOT prove exists.....


bodies in motion stay in motion until acted upon another force.... ie gravity for planets.....

comets are large chunks of matter with a tail of ice and matter.... proven by use of telescopes and scientific data recorded by....... satelites that use the principals as stated before.....have performed readings of a comet tail that passed through our orbit......

hiv does cause aids the syndrome ..... people with hiv.... lose their ability to fight disease and infection.... this has been proven.........

[joeknows]

From wikipedia

A law, as I understant it, usually deals with physics exclusively. I see what you mean with "theory", I was using it in a strictly scientific sense basically meaning that a theory is in fact true for the purpose of this argument.


ok i am simply going by what i was taught in school........damn my public education

i was taught you theorize a law........ you hypothesize the result by gathering relevent data <if i do A and b i should get c

you test a hypothesis to determine if it is still theory or if it is law



besides EVERYTHING at the nuclear level IS IN FACT physics because there is no such thing as non motion except at absolute zero and since non motion contains POTENTIAL energy i guess that would fall into physics too

[PeterMP]

ok ok ok

evolution CANNOT be proven in human beings...... ie missing link....

creationism CANNOT be proven because it inherently refers to a belief in a diety we CANNOT prove exists.....


bodies in motion stay in motion until acted upon another force.... ie gravity for planets.....

comets are large chunks of matter with a tail of ice and matter.... proven by use of telescopes and scientific data recorded by....... satelites that use the principals as stated before.....have performed readings of a comet tail that passed through our orbit......

hiv does cause aids the syndrome ..... people with hiv.... lose their ability to fight disease and infection.... this has been proven.........

Well, we can't prove that HIV causes AIDS either.

And people do experiments on human evolution all of which agree with general evolutionary theory (go to www.pubmed.com (http://www.pubmed.com) and search terms like:
hominid evolution computer simulation).

You'll get pages of results.

[joeknows]

Well, we can't prove that HIV causes AIDS either.

And people do experiments on human evolution all of which agree with general evolutionary theory (go to www.pubmed.com (http://www.pubmed.com/) and search terms like:
hominid evolution computer simulation).

You'll get pages of results.


we CAN prove that hiv causes aids we just cant prove that it is the only thing that creates the syndrome aids.........

i can morph a house cat into a dog by use of a computer ...... it doesnt prove dogs came from cats

[PeterMP]

we CAN prove that hiv causes aids we just cant prove that it is the only thing that creates the syndrome aids.........

i can morph a house cat into a dog by use of a computer ...... it doesnt prove dogs came from cats

1. No we can't. We can do experiments that rule out reasonable and likely alternatives. There is no way to prove that a superior force/organization (like a goverment that is capable of creating toxins that specifically recognize unique (to a group of people) and specific DNA sequences that the rest of the world doesn't know exists) isn't doing something that is interfering with your results.

2. You probably could, but you wouldn't get it published in a peer reviewed journal- much less introduce enough vartions in the idea that you'd get pages of peer reviewed journals on the subject.

[joeknows]

1. No we can't. We can do experiments that rule out reasonable and likely alternatives. There is no way to prove that a superior force/organization (like a goverment that is capable of creating toxins that specifically recognize unique (to a group of people) and specific DNA sequences that the rest of the world doesn't know exists) isn't doing something that is interfering with your results.

2. You probably could, but you wouldn't get it published in a peer reviewed journal- much less introduce enough vartions in the idea that you'd get pages of peer reviewed journals on the subject.


the only thing i can say about #1 is that hiv/aids came about before the genome project discovered DNA

other than that i beginning to feel we are arguing for the sake of argument and imsorry im just to tired .... my wits are way to dull right now and i dont think i have communicated things in a light that i might be able to at a much more rested time soooo............

httr :cheers:

[Titaw]

Lets just show kids this thread, it'll teach them the valuable lesson that humans don't know wtf is going on.

THANK YOU!!

[Titaw]

So it's magic


Creators of the Universe

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/46/27146-004.jpg

There is no such thing as "Magicians" they are merely illusionists, They are kinda like Magic Eye posters once you know how to do it, it's not fun anymore.

Just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[PeterMP]

the only thing i can say about #1 is that hiv/aids came about before the genome project discovered DNA


No.

We've known about DNA going back before we knew about HIV.

[PeterMP]

ok ok ok

evolution CANNOT be proven in human beings...... ie missing link....

creationism CANNOT be proven because it inherently refers to a belief in a diety we CANNOT prove exists.....

I'll come back to this:

Evolution in humans can not be proven, BUT evolution in humans could be falsified (and has not).

For example, it is possible that humans did not even DNA, but they do.

It is possible that human DNA was so different than what is found in any other organism that it could not have possibly involved in the required time frames, but that doesn't appear to be true (we are very very similar to chimps at the DNA level).

It is possible there was no fossil evidence for no other hominid species, but there is.

As such, human evolution mets the criteria as a theory. It made multiple predictions that have been verified.

There is no competing idea that can say the samething (and therefore they do no rise to the level of being science).

[Corcaigh]

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (here in Loudoun County) offers a DVD of Prof Ken Miller lecturing on evolution and ID for free to North Americans.

http://www.hhmi.org/catalog/main?action=product&itemId=323

Watch it and then see if you have any further questions.

One of the points that came out of the Dover trial, was that the proponents of ID admitted under oath that if if you redefined science in such a way so that ID could be taught in the classrom, then so could astrology. :laugh:

Who thinks astrology should be taught in science classes?

[Kosher Ham]

It shouldn't be taught as fact. It should be taught as scientific theory.

[Zguy28]

Only the scientific aspects of the beginning should be taught, unless of course it is a religion or philosophy class. And no, Intelligent Design is not science.You're right. ID is a conclusion.




infinite matter in an infinitely small place exploding to produce the current universe?

explain that creation theory and the big bang aren't mutually exclusive unless you believe jesus may have rode a dinosaur.Last time you posted crud like this, I chalked it up to ignorance. I explained it to you before that not all people who believe in creationism believe in a young earth.

So, as my middle school Social Studies teacher used to say, if you aren't ignorant, does that make you dumb or stupid?

[Zguy28]

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (here in Loudoun County) offers a DVD of Prof Ken Miller lecturing on evolution and ID for free to North Americans.

http://www.hhmi.org/catalog/main?action=product&itemId=323

Watch it and then see if you have any further questions.

One of the points that came out of the Dover trial, was that the proponents of ID admitted under oath that if if you redefined science in such a way so that ID could be taught in the classrom, then so could astrology. :laugh:

Who thinks astrology should be taught in science classes?You're right. It shouldn't be taught as fact, no more than clay theory, space seeding, or any other hypothesis.

I agree with you. :)

[techboy]

explain that creation theory and the big bang aren't mutually exclusive unless you believe jesus may have rode a dinosaur.

People keep misunderstanding this, I think, so I'll clarify.

This phrase indicates that ChocolateCitySkin believes (rightly) that creationism and the big bang are consistent, as long as one does not hold to a rigid Young Earth Creationist model.

I'm not sure why people are responding to this like an attack on Creationism as believing that Jesus rode a dinosaur. The "unless" is pretty blatant.

[Corcaigh]

It shouldn't be taught as fact, no more than clay theory, space seeding, or any other hypothesis.



I'm not sure what your point is here. If people investigating abiogenesis can describe what conditions would be required for self-replicating molecules and primitive life to emerge (whether that was on the surface of clay, a heated under water vent or some other set of conditions), I don't see how this is the same as ID. It's only a hypothesis but eventually one that could be tested.

You are also neglecting the fact that the ID movement is in no way interested in truth and just wants to impose Christian Creationism in science in place of evolution. Read the judge's summation in the Dover trial if you have any doubt on that.

[PeterMP]

You're right. It shouldn't be taught as fact, no more than clay theory, space seeding, or any other hypothesis.

I agree with you. :)

The difference is one set of hypothesis are being and can be tested in the future. The other can't. The clay theory was never largely accepted and essentially has been set aside because of various issues from experiments.

Space seeding is something that we will better be able to make a statement about as we understand the frequencey of life in the Universe (and even our solar system) and what if any relations it has to life on Earth.

ID is something that can't really be tested in the same manner.

[talk show host]

what is this "space seeding" that has been referred to? the term is not in wikipedia and a msn search yielded nada.

[CrabR]

evolution is a fact, it stopped being a theory years agao, it is the religious people who like to call it a theory


creationism is a religious theory
Keep it out of public schools and keep it in Sunday schools

Example evolution
Threesets of goats, striped,speckled and spotted, lions only eat spotted goats so speckled and striped becomes the dominated goats for survial,

the creation way

Gen 30:37Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods.

38He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink.

39So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

[PeterMP]

what is this "space seeding" that has been referred to? the term is not in wikipedia and a msn search yielded nada.

The idea that life did not originate on Earth. This has gained some popularity because evidence seems to show life as we know it came to the Earth pretty quickly after the Earth cooled, and there is now a time crunch between what is the expected time for life that would leave indications of being alive as we think of it evolving, the time that such life appears to have occurred on Earth, and what the geologist think is the time frame for the Earth cooling that it could support such life. There are essentially two different ideas:

1. That some superior race of beigns travelled the Universe seeding life. From a scientific perspective, this is essentially an untestbale idea.

2. That life traveled here via an asteriod, meteor, or comet. This has some backing in that multiple meteors that are believed to have come from Mars show some signs that they did contain life. At this time, there is controversy/discussion of how good the evidence is. Clearly, the discovery of life on Mar (or elsewhere) with similarities to life on Earth would support this idea.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_meteorite_020320.html

[techboy]

the creation way

Gen 30:37Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods.

38He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink.

39So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

As usual, you quote out of context, and with a version deliberately chosen in order to obfuscate. We don't live in the 16th century, so why use 16th century English? There's only one reason I can think of, and it's not clarity.

Here's the whole section (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=30#n84), in nice clear modern English, with copious footnotes.


30:25 After Rachel had given birth 49 to Joseph, Jacob said to Laban, “Send 50 me on my way so that I can go 51 home to my own country. 52 30:26 Let me take my wives and my children whom I have acquired by working for you. 53 Then I’ll depart, 54 because you know how hard I’ve worked for you.” 55

30:27 But Laban said to him, “If I have found favor in your sight, please stay here, 56 for I have learned by divination 57 that the Lord has blessed me on account of you.” 30:28 He added, “Just name your wages – I’ll pay whatever you want.” 58

30:29 “You know how I have worked for you,” Jacob replied, 59 “and how well your livestock have fared under my care. 60 30:30 Indeed, 61 you had little before I arrived, 62 but now your possessions have increased many times over. 63 The Lord has blessed you wherever I worked. 64 But now, how long must it be before I do something for my own family too?” 65

30:31 So Laban asked, 66 “What should I give you?” “You don’t need to give me a thing,” 67 Jacob replied, 68 “but if you agree to this one condition, 69 I will continue to care for 70 your flocks and protect them: 30:32 Let me walk among 71 all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb, 72 and the spotted or speckled goats. 73 These animals will be my wages. 74 30:33 My integrity will testify for me 75 later on. 76 When you come to verify that I’ve taken only the wages we agreed on, 77 if I have in my possession any goat that is not speckled or spotted or any sheep that is not dark-colored, it will be considered stolen.” 78 30:34 “Agreed!” said Laban, “It will be as you say.” 79

30:35 So that day Laban 80 removed the male goats that were streaked or spotted, all the female goats that were speckled or spotted (all that had any white on them), and all the dark-colored lambs, and put them in the care 81 of his sons. 30:36 Then he separated them from Jacob by a three-day journey, 82 while 83 Jacob was taking care of the rest of Laban’s flocks.

30:37 But Jacob took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond, and plane trees. He made white streaks by peeling them, making the white inner wood in the branches visible. 30:38 Then he set up the peeled branches in all the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink. He set up the branches in front of the flocks when they were in heat and came to drink. 84 30:39 When the sheep mated 85 in front of the branches, they 86 gave birth to young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 30:40 Jacob removed these lambs, but he made the rest of the flock face 87 the streaked and completely dark-colored animals in Laban’s flock. So he made separate flocks for himself and did not mix them with Laban’s flocks. 30:41 When the stronger females were in heat, 88 Jacob would set up the branches in the troughs in front of the flock, so they would mate near the branches. 30:42 But if the animals were weaker, he did not set the branches there. 89 So the weaker animals ended up belonging to Laban 90 and the stronger animals to Jacob. 30:43 In this way Jacob 91 became extremely prosperous. He owned 92 large flocks, male and female servants, camels, and donkeys.


And so we see, in context, that the Bible actually affirms the principles that you claim it denies. Laban attempts to cheat Jacob by using those very principles!

God helps Jacob undo Laban's betrayal with a miracle, but so what? That's clearly a miraculous exception to a natural rule (that the Bible affirms), and if your objection is that the Bible records miracles, well duh... :laugh:

[Zguy28]

what is this "space seeding" that has been referred to? the term is not in wikipedia and a msn search yielded nada.

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ancient_humanoid

[talk show host]

The idea that life did not originate on Earth. This has gained some popularity because evidence seems to show life as we know it came to the Earth pretty quickly after the Earth cooled, and there is now a time crunch between what is the expected time for life that would leave indications of being alive as we think of it evolving, the time that such life appears to have occurred on Earth, and what the geologist think is the time frame for the Earth cooling that it could support such life. There are essentially two different ideas:

1. That some superior race of beigns travelled the Universe seeding life. From a scientific perspective, this is essentially an untestbale idea.

2. That life traveled here via an asteriod, meteor, or comet. This has some backing in that multiple meteors that are believed to have come from Mars show some signs that they did contain life. At this time, there is controversy/discussion of how good the evidence is. Clearly, the discovery of life on Mar (or elsewhere) with similarities to life on Earth would support this idea.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_meteorite_020320.html

Thanks for the reply. I do have some thoughts though.

Option 1 sounds to me like its basically a sci-fi version of God. As you indicated, it can't be tested. Also, while it would explain where we came from, it doesnt explain where the "alien seeders" came from. how did they come into existance?

Option 2 is something I had actually heard of before. Again, while it would explain where life on earth came from, it doesnt explain how the mars meteor life came into existance.

To me, both theories to me seem to be ideas designed to "put off" or "side-step" answering the question about how life came into existence from lifeless matter. Whether a person beleives God created Man directly from the dust, whether God created man using evolution, or whether there is no God and evolution is just some amazing naturally occurring phenomena, one can't get around the truth that at some point, some form of life emerged from non-living matter. Obviously, any intelligent design theory will provide a simple answer to that question. I'm curious whether there is a consensus on the current best non-ID theory as to how life arose from non-living matter.

[PeterMP]

To me, both theories to me seem to be ideas designed to "put off" or "side-step" answering the question about how life came into existence from lifeless matter. Whether a person beleives God created Man directly from the dust, whether God created man using evolution, or whether there is no God and evolution is just some amazing naturally occurring phenomena, one can't get around the truth that at some point, some form of life emerged from non-living matter. Obviously, any intelligent design theory will provide a simple answer to that question. I'm curious whether there is a consensus on the current best non-ID theory as to how life arose from non-living matter.

Well from a scientific stand point, where life first came to be is an important point in studying how it came to be. I don't actually know much about the science behind what was on Mars or the atomosphere there etc., but if it is believed to be very different than the early Earth's than it makes more sense to look for conditions that would produce life under those conditions than early Earth's.

[talk show host]

Well from a scientific stand point, where life first came to be is an important point in studying how it came to be. I don't actually know much about the science behind what was on Mars or the atomosphere there etc., but if it is believed to be very different than the early Earth's than it makes more sense to look for conditions that would produce life under those conditions than early Earth's.

my thinking may be off on this, but from a strictly scientific perspective (and removing God or any sort of intelligent design from the picture), the mars thing makes no sense. Just thinking about it logically, it seems perposterous for several reasons:

1. Ifind it highly unlikely that life which originated on Mars, billions of years ago, could not only survive for more than a few minutes in the cold of space.

2. If this life was so hardy that it COULD survive the cold of space, then it seems to follow that that life would have evolved and into all sorts of complex life on Mars - its "native" environment. Instead, it seems obvious that no complex organisms ever lived on mars. there are no signs of it, atleast.

3. If this life could survive the cold of space, could it also survive entry through the earths atmosphere? or are we saying earth had no atmostphere when the life got here?

4. Our current planet is MUCH more conducive to life than Mars. It seems far more likely that if life did evolve from nothing, it all happened here. Also, the conditions for life to come from lifeless matter should be much more prevalent now, than in any sort of primordial soup. life should be coming from lifeless matter all the time, but we simply dont see it.

[PeterMP]

my thinking may be off on this, but from a strictly scientific perspective (and removing God or any sort of intelligent design from the picture), the mars thing makes no sense. Just thinking about it logically, it seems perposterous for several reasons:

1. Ifind it highly unlikely that life which originated on Mars, billions of years ago, could not only survive for more than a few minutes in the cold of space.

2. If this life was so hardy that it COULD survive the cold of space, then it seems to follow that that life would have evolved and into all sorts of complex life on Mars - its "native" environment. Instead, it seems obvious that no complex organisms ever lived on mars. there are no signs of it, atleast.


3. If this life could survive the cold of space, could it also survive entry through the earths atmosphere? or are we saying earth had no atmostphere when the life got here?


From what we know about here, there are pretty basic organisms that do okay w/ cold and heat. The radiation is a different question, but buried deep in a meteor that wouldn't be an issue.

In terms of complexity, I believe that current thinking here is that life stayed as single cells for a billion years or more before we saw multicellular organisms. Again, I'm not familiar with what is believed about Mars. Is it possible life evolved there, but the step from single cells to multicellular is so difficult that it didn't happen there before the planet cooled substantially and losts its atmosphere greatly reducing the ability of Mars to support life?



4. Our current planet is MUCH more conducive to life than Mars. It seems far more likely that if life did evolve from nothing, it all happened here. Also, the conditions for life to come from lifeless matter should be much more prevalent now, than in any sort of primordial soup. life should be coming from lifeless matter all the time, but we simply dont see it.

In terms of in any real enviroment, anything "evolving" from nothing would be in competition with an already evolved life form for those resources (e.g. whatever the energy source is there is going to be something else living that is also competeing for those energy sources). The already evolved life form is going to use those resources quicker and in a more effecient manner than something evolving into life, hence in natural enviroments you don't see new life forms. In other words, the existance of life in facts make the planet inhospitable to the evolution of new life.

In man made sterile environments, it is possible, but that experiment hasn't been conduced over a few thousand years, much less millions and billions.

[talk show host]

From what we know about here, there are pretty basic organisms that do okay w/ cold and heat. The radiation is a different question, but buried deep in a meteor that wouldn't be an issue.

Not to prod you too much if you don't know specifics, but i didnt think we knew of any organisms that could live in a vacuum. Or is the assumption that the organisms lived extremely deep in the meteor and so only had to deal with extreme heat and cold?



In terms of in any real enviroment, anything "evolving" from nothing would be in competition with an already evolved life form for those resources (e.g. whatever the energy source is there is going to be something else living that is also competeing for those energy sources). The already evolved life form is going to use those resources quicker and in a more effecient manner than something evolving into life, hence in natural enviroments you don't see new life forms. In other words, the existance of life in facts make the planet inhospitable to the evolution of new life.

To a point, your logic here makes sense to support the theory. However, i would question whether any sort of life which could hypothetically evolve from non-living matter would use resources so simple compared to what other complex living organisms needed that there would not be such a competition for the same resources. also, the idea that living creatures adapt to their environment to evolve is logical. but what caused non-living matter to "evolve" into living matter? what was the imperative?



In man made sterile environments, it is possible, but that experiment hasn't been conduced over a few thousand years, much less millions and billions.

on a purely conceptual level, i find that any experiment which requires intelligent men to create "ideal" environments to support an evolutionary theory which "disproves" an intelligent designer to be full of irony. the experiment can't be carried out without an intelligent designer, but the conditions which we are trying to duplicate happened on their own without one?

[dockeryfan]

Do we really need to teach "The Beginning" at all? I find no reason to actually teach something that simply isn't proven. This isn't college level thought experiment, it's primary school. Life from nothing is a theory and it cannot be proven. Do we really need to teach this at all? Creationism same. No need to teach either IMO. There are plenty of other practical things to teach our students.

[DGreenistheBest]

Teach both, advocate neither. Or teach the Family Guy version. I can totally believe all of existence being god's fart.

[PeterMP]

Not to prod you too much if you don't know specifics, but i didnt think we knew of any organisms that could live in a vacuum. Or is the assumption that the organisms lived extremely deep in the meteor and so only had to deal with extreme heat and cold?

Even radiation isn't such a big deal for some organisms:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17630840?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum



To a point, your logic here makes sense to support the theory. However, i would question whether any sort of life which could hypothetically evolve from non-living matter would use resources so simple compared to what other complex living organisms needed that there would not be such a competition for the same resources.

There is no known niche that does not contain life on Earth. Essentially whatever the conditions and whatever the energy source when, no matter how unlikely people think it is, when we go looking we find life.



also, the idea that living creatures adapt to their environment to evolve is logical. but what caused non-living matter to "evolve" into living matter? what was the imperative?

Well let's be careful w/ definitions here. Most people wouldn't consider a self-replicating molecule alive, but a population of self-replicating molecules (assuming there were some differences, which would be likely because VERY VERY few (I can't actually think of anything) are free of variation) would be susceptable to Darwinian style natural selection.

What makes a self-replicating molecule?

Random chance. Surprisingly, many molecules can participate in reactions involving themself. In known cases (that aren't designed or selected by man), it isn't self-replicating, but all you need is one.



on a purely conceptual level, i find that any experiment which requires intelligent men to create "ideal" environments to support an evolutionary theory which "disproves" an intelligent designer to be full of irony. the experiment can't be carried out without an intelligent designer, but the conditions which we are trying to duplicate happened on their own without one?

I think this is bogus. The environment occurred on its own randomly. Life then changed that environment. To reproduce the enviroment, will require the work of man.

The hardest thing for humans to replicate is in fact randomness. Even with computers there are constant changes in how to model randomness.

[PeterMP]

Do we really need to teach "The Beginning" at all? I find no reason to actually teach something that simply isn't proven. This isn't college level thought experiment, it's primary school. Life from nothing is a theory and it cannot be proven. Do we really need to teach this at all? Creationism same. No need to teach either IMO. There are plenty of other practical things to teach our students.

Many things can't be proven that we teach our students.

You can't prove the sun is yellow.

[NoCalMike]

When people say "in schools" what exactly does that mean? Are they talking about in science class, specifically or what?

When I went to school the only time this was every discussed was in my earth science class, and naturally the scientific explanation was used.

It wasn't a "school position" it was a science book explanation....

[artmonkforHOF]

I don't think "The Beginning" should be taught in our schools. M. Night Shyamalan movies are not for kids.

[Big Mac Patty Wack]

Only the scientific aspects of the beginning should be taught, unless of course it is a religion or philosophy class. And no, Intelligent Design is not science.

Matters of faith or personal belief have no place in public schools. That is what Sunday School is for, or Saturday School if you're Jewish :silly:

Well, then evolution has no place in public schools either. It's not proven science, far from it. Today's liberal aetheists are shoving evolution down children's throats so that people who don't believe it are considered religious freaks. I am in the same situation, and I don't hesitate to say I believe in the Creation of the world by God.

[PeterMP]

Well, then evolution has no place in public schools either. It's not proven science, far from it. Today's liberal aetheists are shoving evolution down children's throats so that people who don't believe it are considered religious freaks. I am in the same situation, and I don't hesitate to say I believe in the Creation of the world by God.

I can inject you w/ some antibiotic resistant TB than?

http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/46/2/267

[DCsilentSkins92]

Use stories from bible..

[zoony]

Well, then evolution has no place in public schools either. It's not proven science, far from it. Today's liberal aetheists are shoving evolution down children's throats so that people who don't believe it are considered religious freaks. I am in the same situation, and I don't hesitate to say I believe in the Creation of the world by God.


you do realize that very little science IS proven, don't you?

I'm thinking you don't know what science is.

......

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Well, then evolution has no place in public schools either. It's not proven science, far from it. Today's liberal aetheists are shoving evolution down children's throats so that people who don't believe it are considered religious freaks. I am in the same situation, and I don't hesitate to say I believe in the Creation of the world by God.


Did you go to public school or a christian school?


BTW, Jesus was a liberal :silly:

[SpringfieldSkins]

Well, then evolution has no place in public schools either. It's not proven science, far from it. Today's liberal aetheists are shoving evolution down children's throats so that people who don't believe it are considered religious freaks. I am in the same situation, and I don't hesitate to say I believe in the Creation of the world by God.


So you'd rather shove religion down kids throats in classrooms that are supposed to be teaching science? Nice, real nice...


You can have your way and teach religion in my taxpayer funded classroom when you can prove to me that Earth was created by God. Untill then, I'll just go on and say that you are wrong. Thank you.

[Seabee1973]

This is gonna sound odd coming from a level 99' thumper but it should be taught to the best of sciences ability to rationalize it......

Since evolution and creation harmonize quite simply I see it as the school responsibility to explain the science and the (parents/ individuals) job to (teach/discover) the creation version.




Therin lies the problem the parents went to school and were taught evelution and do not believe in creation.

[Seabee1973]

In science, a theory is something that has been proven and can be verified with scientific testing. A hypothesis is something that hasn't been proven, kinda like creationism.


Is that why teh ACLU objected to in Georgia i believe it was science books that had stickers stating that evolution was a theory?

[SpringfieldSkins]

Therin lies the problem the parents went to school and were taught evelution and do not believe in creation.


How is that a problem? They were taught the correct information.

[Morneblade]

right, you learn about science in a science class and religion in a religion class.

I guess he's wondering why more schools don't have religion classes.

There are a heck of alot of religions you would have to teach. And what would all the Catholic schools do then?

But I.D. isnt science and it should not be taught as science. Nor does it have much if any evidence to support it.

And, there is that whole "seperation between chruch and state" thing. Public schools are state funded.

[SpringfieldSkins]

Is that why teh ACLU objected to in Georgia i believe it was science books that had stickers stating that evolution was a theory?


Theory can be used in either sense of the word, either to mean something is proven (like in the scientific model) or that you think something is true. I'll admit, I don't know about what happened in Georgia, so I don't have an answer for that.

[SpringfieldSkins]

Just a reminder:


14 pages and not one shred of scientific information that intelligent design has any sort of sceintifc backing so that it should in fact be taught in a science class.

[PeterMP]

Is that why teh ACLU objected to in Georgia i believe it was science books that had stickers stating that evolution was a theory?

The problem is that the sticker singles out evolution when the vast majority of the information in the text book is a theory.

The idea the sun in yellow is a theory.

[Morneblade]

"Theory" and Law" are being lumped together buy alot of people here and they are not the same things.

"Laws" are proven.

"Theories" are not. What they are is the best discription for something with the information that we have at this time. Pending new discoveries.

However not all theories are created equal and some theories are much closer to Laws than others. Evolution is close.

[DCSaints_fan]

I'd be careful of throwing out big words like "Proof". Proofs are for mathematicians (and philosophers, on occasion :hihi: ). Everyone else is a bit fuzzier land concerning The Truth.

In my view, a scientific theory must have at least some notion of contrary evidence. In other words, observations which if made create problems for the theory. You'll hear alot of people claim that a single observation is enough to discard a theory, but historically that hasn't been the case.

As good of a theory has it has been, the current theory of evolution does actually some problems. For example, the origin of the New World monkeys remains somewhat of a mystery to evolutionary biologists (the oldest species they've found in South America is dated to well after South America and Africa split apart tens of millions of years ago, and rafting seems implausible at that great distance) But the problems aren't so insurmountable that the evolutionary biologists throw up their hands and discard the theory.

[DjTj]

"Theory" and Law" are being lumped together buy alot of people here and they are not the same things.

"Laws" are proven.

"Theories" are not. What they are is the best discription for something with the information that we have at this time. Pending new discoveries. "Laws" shouldn't necessarily be placed on a pedestal. "Laws" are generally just what arrogant scientists call their theories ... or sometimes the popular media just uses the words wrong.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are both somewhat incorrect, and have been replaced by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. The only difference is that back in the 1600's, people liked to call things "laws," but in the 20th century we are usually more careful to use the word "theory."

Then there are things like "Moore's Law" that isn't really a scientific theory at all, but is just an observation that become a nearly accurate prediction.

...of course, maybe the most relevant for this topic would be "Murphy's Law."

[Corcaigh]

Is that why teh ACLU objected to in Georgia i believe it was science books that had stickers stating that evolution was a theory?

I can't speak for the motives of the ACLU (if they were involved in this case) but the author of the textbook wrote this:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/globe.html

The stickers were advancing creationism in science class, not because evolution is a 'theory'.

Another way of looking at a scientific theory is a framework that explains a collection of facts.

Henri Poincare wrote something along the lines of:

"Science is based on facts. But a collection of facts is not science, any more than a collection of bricks is a house."

A scientific theory is that 'thing' that takes a set of facts and organizes them, and explains their interrelationship.

[Zguy28]

But I.D. isnt science and it should not be taught as science. Its a conclusion that many have reached based on scientific evidence. Others conclude that life came from space, or clay, or thermal vents.

I.D. does not exclude evolution as a mechanism. Nor does it require it.


Nor does it have much if any evidence to support it.Elaborate please.

[PeterMP]

Its a conclusion that many have reached based on scientific evidence. Others conclude that life came from space, or clay, or thermal vents.

I.D. does not exclude evolution as a mechanism. Nor does it require it.

Elaborate please.

Zguy, it is different because it doesn't suggest experiments. I'll take thermal vents as an example. The thermal vent theory was proposed. People came out and said, well this is ridiculous because you can't get the chemistry you need and the stability of certain molecules at that temperature (based on a distance from the thermal vent) even at that pressure.

So the people that support the idea went back and did an experiment, they moved back from the thermal vent where temps are lower and asked can we see similar chemistry at these lower temps w/ more stability for certain molecules. The answer is yes. Then people raised other issues.

That's the way science works: hypothesis, criticism, testing, repeat.

For ID, there can't really be any testing. It is a hypothesis that doesn't suggest any practical experiments.

[Smoot Point Really]

ID is not the same as "Creationism"... Creationism is religion... ID is based on scientific observations and logic... ID probably should be mentioned in science class, but explained in philosophy/logic classes.

I have a problem with people who say ID shouldn't be taught anywhere in school...

Here is a classic apology of ID by CS Lewis:

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

[Baculus]

Evolution should be taught in the science classroom, and Creationism left for after school theology and bible class. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory and has no business being taught side-by-side with Evolution, of which we have to understand has a huge body of science-based data.

We also have to understand that "theory" does not simply mean "speculation." At this point, evolution is more then an idea that is being bantered about by scientists - it is accepted as de facto fact, due to its body of supporting evidence, by most scientists.

[Corcaigh]

Its a conclusion that many have reached based on scientific evidence.

ID is creationism 2.0. The Dover trial proved that. The ID movement was founded and funded by creationist lawyers once it became clear that the establishment clause prevented creationism being taught in science class.

There is no scientific evidence supporting ID as an alternative to evolution. Michael Behe is the poster child for ID and he has nothing that stands up to scrutiny.

Belief in a supernatural origin for the universe, or life on Earth is not ID.

[Zguy28]

ID is creationism 2.0. The Dover trial proved that. The ID movement was founded and funded by creationist lawyers once it became clear that the establishment clause prevented creationism being taught in science class.

There is no scientific evidence supporting ID as an alternative to evolution. Michael Behe is the poster child for ID and he has nothing that stands up to scrutiny.

Belief in a supernatural origin for the universe, or life on Earth is not ID.Am I reading this right, or did you just contradict yourself within this post? :)

[Zguy28]

Zguy, it is different because it doesn't suggest experiments. Undoubtably.:)

[Corcaigh]

Am I reading this right, or did you just contradict yourself within this post? :)

No, ID is only about a creationist alternative to evolution.

[Corcaigh]

Zguy, it is different because it doesn't suggest experiments.

Worse, it offers no knowledge. It doesn't identify any shortcomings in evolution, nor offer anything that is testable or new.

[Smoot Point Really]

Intelligent Design is totally unrelated to evolution... It doesn't even have to refer to a particular view on creation. ID also isn't "new" and wasn't a phenomena created by the Discovery Institute to combat the teachings of Darwinism in school.

ID could refer to Aliens creating time/space/matter as easily as it could God. The confusion between Intelligent Design/Creationism/Religion is propagated by both Creationists and Materialists alike.

[Corcaigh]

Intelligent Design is totally unrelated to evolution...

That's plain wrong. Intelligent Design with a capital I and capital D is something that was made up by creationists in the last few years in an attempt to get creationism into school biology classes in an attack on evolution.

Sure, people have talked about a designer or guiding hand for much longer, but ID and the aggressive promotion of it is the progeny of American creationists, conceived after their attempts to push creationism into science class were rebuffed on religious grounds.

Read the findings of the Dover trial if you are unclear. Findings made by a Republican Christian judge appointed by George W Bush.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

This is how it should be taught. :2cents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ2o0FP3ESY

[Corcaigh]

This is how it should be taught. :2cents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ2o0FP3ESY

That captures the typical creationist's understanding of evolution quite well. :laugh:

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

That captures the typical creationist's understanding of evolution quite well. :laugh:

It should be taught this way so each side gets its way :laugh:

[Corcaigh]

It should be taught this way so each side gets its way :laugh:

Just curious, why are creationists/evangelicals so obsessed with butt sex? :)

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Just curious, why are creationists/evangelicals so obsessed with butt sex? :)

Because it inflicts pain on one individual while giving pleasure to another?

[81artmonk]

Both should be taught in schools as to which is side believes and let the kids make up their minds. I don't think one should be favored over the other.

[Baculus]

Both should be taught in schools as to which is side believes and let the kids make up their minds. I don't think one should be favored over the other.

If either of these "theories" are being taught in science, of course one is favored over the other. Again, Creationism is not science-based and has zero excuse to be taught in such an environment.

[Smoot Point Really]

That's plain wrong. Intelligent Design with a capital I and capital D is something that was made up by creationists in the last few years in an attempt to get creationism into school biology classes in an attack on evolution.

Sure, people have talked about a designer or guiding hand for much longer, but ID and the aggressive promotion of it is the progeny of American creationists, conceived after their attempts to push creationism into science class were rebuffed on religious grounds.

Read the findings of the Dover trial if you are unclear. Findings made by a Republican Christian judge appointed by George W Bush.

Intelligent Design isn't a couple of years old... This debate is as old as Darwinism and the concepts of Intelligent Design can even be found in what the Masons call "The Great Architect" dating back to the founding of our country... I provided a quote earlier from CS Lewis who died many years ago. In fact, I wrote a college paper on "Intelligent Design" (with a capital I and a capital D) nearly two decades ago.

If you want to say that "Intelligent Design" didn't exist as a "scientific" movement, then I won't argue with you.

[Smoot Point Really]

Because it inflicts pain on one individual while giving pleasure to another?

How do you know? And which is which?

[zoony]

Both should be taught in schools as to which is side believes and let the kids make up their minds. I don't think one should be favored over the other.


fine. but one in science class, the other in philosophy/world religions

[SUSkinsFan]

Evolution should be taught in science classes.

If schools decided they wanted to offer an elective course about the different beliefs about how the world began (Christian, Greek, Roman, Native American etc) I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

How do you know? And which is which?

The gay is the catcher while the evangelical is the pitcher...duh