Creation vs. Evolution

[Smallhorses]

^ These guys are feeling left out of the whole "feathered yet flightless" discussion.

 

[niky]

Am I the only atheist who didn’t go to Catholic school? I swear, there seems to be nothing better at making atheists than Catholic schools.

Since it would be political suicide to say anything more about atheism (my boss might read this... and I work at a Catholic School)... let's just say I went to a Catholicc School, too.

quote me saying a theory can become a law. a theory can become a fact though.

No it can't. Once again, you are deliberately mis-interpreting the word "theory". Rinse, re-read all of our posts, and repeat. You cannot graduate from theory to anything else.

Facts are the datum that are used to support theories. Nothing more. The fact is that a ball thrown into the air will always fall down. This is gravity in action. Gravitational theory describes how the ball will fall. Note... I say gravitational theory... while it is commonly called a "law", gravitational theory is not 100% accurate. Just 99.9%.

The fact is that speciation does occur. If you bother to go do what Darwin did and observe the world, you'd note various species that are in the process of becoming distinct (Darwin's finches... which can still freely interbreed)... species that are nearly distinct (Horses and donkeys, or Lions and Tigers, or certain Bears, which can still interbreed, but whose offspring are genetically unstable and often sterile)... and species that are already completely distinct yet obviously borne from a common ancestor.

Fossil records show speciation and evolution over time. Of course, call them into question, but prove that such evidence is spurious, tainted or incorrect. .. yes... a zip file would be nice... and show me that the thousands of paleontologists, students and various assistants, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, communist, republican, etecetera... were all in on some grand conspiracy to defraud the world.

So far, Creationism = semantic argumentation with no physical proof. Evolution = a hypothesis, based on observation, backed up by reams... actually, gigabytes or even terrabytes, of empirical data over the past 100 years... and confirmed as a "Theory".

And as a Theory, it describes the process of speciation quite nicely. And that's where Creationism/ID = fail. They don't describe the process. They merely assign a reason for speciation, without giving the mechanism.

Science does not go into the "why did we evolve" (or, in other words, what is man's purpose in life)... it just explains "how". And just because the Intelligent Design advocates don't have enough IQ points to understand the explanation, they think it's all bogus.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

Since it would be political suicide to say anything more about atheism (my boss might read this... and I work at a Catholic School)... let's just say I went to a Catholicc School, too.



No it can't. Once again, you are deliberately mis-interpreting the word "theory". Rinse, re-read all of our posts, and repeat. You cannot graduate from theory to anything else.

Facts are the datum that are used to support theories. Nothing more. The fact is that a ball thrown into the air will always fall down. This is gravity in action. Gravitational theory describes how the ball will fall. Note... I say gravitational theory... while it is commonly called a "law", gravitational theory is not 100% accurate. Just 99.9%.

The fact is that speciation does occur. If you bother to go do what Darwin did and observe the world, you'd note various species that are in the process of becoming distinct (Darwin's finches... which can still freely interbreed)... species that are nearly distinct (Horses and donkeys, or Lions and Tigers, or certain Bears, which can still interbreed, but whose offspring are genetically unstable and often sterile)... and species that are already completely distinct yet obviously borne from a common ancestor.

Fossil records show speciation and evolution over time. Of course, call them into question, but prove that such evidence is spurious, tainted or incorrect. .. yes... a zip file would be nice... and show me that the thousands of paleontologists, students and various assistants, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, communist, republican, etecetera... were all in on some grand conspiracy to defraud the world.

So far, Creationism = semantic argumentation with no physical proof. Evolution = a hypothesis, based on observation, backed up by reams... actually, gigabytes or even terrabytes, of empirical data over the past 100 years... and confirmed as a "Theory".

And as a Theory, it describes the process of speciation quite nicely. And that's where Creationism/ID = fail. They don't describe the process. They merely assign a reason for speciation, without giving the mechanism.

Science does not go into the "why did we evolve" (or, in other words, what is man's purpose in life)... it just explains "how". And just because the Intelligent Design advocates don't have enough IQ points to understand the explanation, they think it's all bogus.

And that is your personal (with many others) fallacy. You assume that anyone who believes anything other than what you believe, is less intelligent.

Funny thing, IQ points are mostly based on, Education! From an educational system that teaches evolution!

Now, the more important part, since evolution believers actions of intellectual superiority are nothing new, nor hidden.

How exactly can't a theory become a fact?
A scientific theory is that A evolved from B, and B from C, and C from D, and D formed out of J.
Now let's suppose we witness, record, and analyze this all happen, after we theorize it. And It proves itself 100% accurate.

Did theory not become fact?

 

[niky]

And that is your personal (with many others) fallacy. You assume that anyone who believes anything other than what you believe, is less intelligent.

No. We believe that anyone who believes one thing in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is either less intelligent, plain stubborn or misguided.

Funny thing, IQ points are mostly based on, Education! From an educational system that teaches evolution!

While it's hard to remove culture bias from IQ tests, no IQ tests focus on evolution or empirical science. They focus on the ability to perform abstract reasoning and mathematical abstractions. IQ points measure your ability to approach a logical abstraction and solve it. It's not perfect. It doesn't have a direct real-world application. But a high IQ indicates that you are able to use logic properly... not how many books you've read, or whether you're Catholic, Jewish or Atheist.

In fact, if you want, you can even test your dog for I.Q.

Now, the more important part, since evolution believers actions of intellectual superiority are nothing new, nor hidden.

There's no such thing as an "evolution believer". Just people who understand and accept science. There is no "church" of evolution. And intellectual superiority over whom? Over people who insist the Earth is still flat? And that's the whole crux of the debate. Understanding evolution does not connote a "belief" or "disbelief" in anything. I posted... gads... nearly thirty pages ago how many paleontologists were avowed Christians. Does their "belief" in evolution connote "disbelief" in God? Uh. No. It just means that they accept the fact that the Bible is not a historical or scientific record of the world. It's a spiritual guide. Period. And lets not get started on the self-contradictions and conflicting portions of the Bible. That'll take an entirely different thread. I think ours on another board was closed after a hundred pages or so... just because of the flame wars.

Pope John Paul himself said so. That nothing in the teaching of evolutionary theory that discredits the existence of God.

And while the religious nature of some scientists might seem to run contrary to what I said earlier about people believing in things in light of evidence to the contrary, let me paraphrase Jesus: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, Render unto God what is God's"... which effectively separates the spiritual church from the earthly state... but even more... he tells Pontius Pilate at his trial that his kingdom is "not of this world". Which brings us to how most people reconcile science with their religious beliefs. They don't even try. They regard religion as dealing with matters of the spirit, not matters of the mundane.

In the meantime, those zany fundamentalists trying to get schools to stop teaching evolution might as well try to get us to stop eating pork and stop working on the Sabbath. Come on... it's in the Bible...

How exactly can't a theory become a fact?
A scientific theory is that A evolved from B, and B from C, and C from D, and D formed out of J.
Now let's suppose we witness, record, and analyze this all happen, after we theorize it. And It proves itself 100% accurate.

Did theory not become fact?

Nope. We witness, record and analyze that A evolves from B, B from C, etcetera. Those are the facts that we've witnessed (in your example). The theory is the description of the processes that produce those facts.

It proves the Theory is 100% accurate. Hallelujah. Stop playing semantic games, it's getting old. And it's nothing we haven't discussed 1,000,000 times before in this very same thread.

 

[Touring Mars]

How exactly can't a theory become a fact?
A scientific theory is that A evolved from B, and B from C, and C from D, and D formed out of J.
Now let's suppose we witness, record, and analyze this all happen, after we theorize it. And It proves itself 100% accurate.

Did theory not become fact?

No, if anything, fact becomes theory! Theories predict or anticipate facts - a theory itself remains largely unchanged whether new facts support said theory or not, but theories are adapted/updated to accommodate the observation of a new fact that the theory did not anticipate or could not previously explain...

What you seem to be doing here is mistaking hypothesis with theory... a theory is a collective explanation for a set of existing facts... A hypothesis is a prediction about what new facts we can expect to observe, based on existing theory, and testable by experiment. For example, Facts A,B and C exist, and make up the basis of our theory. From our theory, then, we can hypothesize (or predict) that, if facts A,B and C are real/true, then we'd also expect to observe D. If we do observe D, then our hypothesis was correct and D becomes part of our theory. However, if we did not observe D, and observed Z instead, then our hypothesis was incorrect, and Z becomes part of our theory... so theory does "change", but only insomuch as it takes a new direction i.e. the theory now would include facts ABCZ rather than ABCD... notice that facts A,B and C are still as much a part of the theory as before.

So in this regard, theory never becomes fact, because theory is a higher level of explanation than fact. Theories (ironically) evolve, but facts remain facts - but hypotheses - new ways in which theories are interpreted and used to make predictions are where the legitimate controversies in science really exist. As a new fact (either D or Z in this example) can change the way in which we view a set of existing facts (A,B and C), you could say that a theory is only as good as its last observation. In this regard, however, the theory of common descent has never failed...

 

[Danoff]

Quote me saying dinosaurs needed to fly if they had feathers. Or, read a post before you reply to it.

Here.

Who even said dinosaurs were feathered? most feathered creatures fly, most dinosaurs didn't, I wouldn't expect them to have feathers.

or here:

No, most creatures with feathers fly, nearly all, so again, I would not expect a creature that cannot fly to have feathers.

I just think it's funny that you stick to this point despite the fact that the bird the dinosaur was being compared to genetically actually doesn't fly and has feathers.

I put in bold the only part of this that is not a run-on.

If you're going to criticize my English, at least get the criticism correct. They were incomplete sentences, not run-ons. Also, is it really necessary to criticize me here? Was it at all difficult to read my post?

Yes, you are right, scientific law and fact are different. Who said they were the same? I know I didn't. Read before you post.

Well you can see my confusion by reading your post below...

I'm looking now, but seriously, you don't believe in scientific law or fact?

It all depends on how you interpret the word "or" - whether it means "either or" or it means "in otherwords". Both are common uses of the word "or", and I wanted to be sure there was no miscommunication. No need to get belligerent about it.

Really? there are no scientific facts? then why bother stating that --- and I quote "Scientific law and fact are two seperate things"?

I didn't say there are no scientific facts. I said that it was unclear exactly what you meant by it and I attempted to substitute a more accurate word - evidence. You seemed to be using "scientific fact" to mean "scientific law" (see above). Again, I wanted to be clear.

Also I said that all evidence, or scientific fact, (or even scientific law for that matter) can be called into question. That doesn't mean they don't exist, only that they don't exist as some foolproof absolute truth.

Is it not scientific fact that testes produce sperm? Is it not scientific fact that my heart pumps blood? can't these things be scientifically proven? How about anything else?

No, these things cannot be proven beyond any doubt. They are observations (also describable as scientific fact), but observations can be incorrect. For example, perhaps your heart doesn't pump blood - perhaps God forces your blood to move and makes it appear as though your heart is doing to work. Our observation is that the heart is doing the pumping, but our observation could be mistaken because we might be deceived.

Quote me saying a theory can become a law. a theory can become a fact though. It would benefit you greatly to read and comprehend posts before you respond.

I'll show you the myriad of thoughts I was replying to (and no, a theory cannot become a fact). Here's an earlier statement by me:

As for the solidity of scientific theories, that's all science has. It never gets any more concrete, science has no greater approval stamp than the word "theory". There is no graduation from that label.

Here's your response:

Seriously? There is no scientific fact? No scientific law? None? I've never heard such a thing in my life.

Now think about that for a moment. I said theories do not graduate to something else, and you assumed that meant that fact and law did not exist (because obviously that's what a theory becomes). That response implies a misunderstanding about the nature of scientific law. If you properly understood the nature of scientific theory, you'd have said "of course theories never get any more concrete". Instead you bumbled something about laws and fact as if they were more concrete.

Here's a quote from later in the thread that continues to suggest that you think a theory can graduate into something more concrete:

How exactly can't a theory become a fact?

It can't.

Then, in your next post before my response that you think is so inappropriate, you went on to quote an article that says this:

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the concept of theory and law. You can see why I was concerned that you didn't understand the difference - what with you quoting an article that is so obviously confused on the nature of "theory" and "law".

Hopefully that clears things up for you and you can see now that my response was based on actually reading your posts.

Another phrase from you that indicates that you still don't understand that a scientific theory is different from the common usage of the word theory:

If science only had theories, it wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. It would be as important to general populous as phillosophical discussions.

I'll re-iterate in case it was lost in the noise - it doesn't get any better than theory. Theories really are all science has when it comes to explaining a sequence of observations. So yes, theories are all science has, and it is taken seriously by people who understand that scientific theories are much more rigorously tested and supported than hypothesis - which is what you seem to be confusing them with.

Are you saying you didn't find it the slightest bit amusing?
But notice how the science side bites into semantics now.

I found it amusing that you would post an excerpt from such a confused article.

And don't mistake this for a discussion about semantics. Each of these words has a specific meaning behind them, and we need to refer to the same meaning when we're discussing this or we're not going to get anywhere. You need to understand what people mean by scientific theory and scientific law - or you're going to keep saying misguided things like this:

If science only had theories, it wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

Moving on.

There are some unarguable truths in there, no matter how angry it makes anyone.

Please, point them out.

How exactly can't a theory become a fact?... Now let's suppose we witness, record, and analyze this all happen, after we theorize it. And It proves itself 100% accurate.

Did theory not become fact?

Now, after you've suggested that I read your posts about 16 times in a row, I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread.

No amount of evidence or proof will ever change the "Theory" of evolution into anything else. It will always be a theory. If we could go back in time and observe evolution in high definition time-lapse video it would still be a theory.

Just in case it was missed... one final time... in bold... Scientific Theory is as good as it gets. Theories will never graduate into anything else. "Theory" is the end of the road. Theories cannot become fact, they cannot become law, they cannot become ANYTHING considered to be more "solid" than theory. Theories are tested, supported by evidence, and heavily scrutinized before they are accepted as anything more than hypothesis.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

holy crap dude, you just corrected yourself, argued with yourself, pointed out your own mistakes, pointed out when I was right, and I don't even know what else. Very good luck to you.

As for niky, your very long post full of the very things you JUST complained about "creationists" doing, was bar-non ethe most hypocritical piece I've ever seen in this thread, if not my life.

 

[Sage]

If you’re not going to actually read the posts and reply constructively, then don’t post. You clearly have no intent of actually holding a constructive debate.

Dan probably put a half hour of work and thought into that post, and all you post is 30-seconds’ worth of BS. Could you possibly have been more rude?

 

[Danoff]

holy crap dude, you just corrected yourself

Nope.

argued with yourself

Nope.

pointed out your own mistakes

Nope.

pointed out when I was right

Nope.

Try again.

 

[Touring Mars]

You assume that anyone who believes anything other than what you believe, is less intelligent.

Now, the more important part, since evolution believers actions of intellectual superiority are nothing new, nor hidden.

This is a point that should be addressed, and it is a charge commonly levelled at scientists/evolutionists, and is seriously unwarranted in my opinion - and here's why I think it is...

There is a major difference between intellectual ability and intellectual rigour... that is to say, there is a big difference between being capable of understanding what the scientific method is, and actually using it. The principle proponents of Intelligent Design are great examples of this - some of these guys are extremely intelligent, and there is no doubt that they are intellectually capable of understanding the scientific method, yet they purposefully elect not to apply it to their own claims because they know that Intelligent Design "theory" doesn't even begin to stand up to the rigours of such a process.

However, what they choose to use their intellectual prowess to specialise in is pseudoscience, and as the paper discussed the other day by Stephen Meyer illustrates well, ID proponents use ignorance as a chief weapon in their arsenal.

In a heated debate such as this, it is often a bad idea to use words like "ignorant" and especially more offensive phrases like "stupid" etc. But ignorance, in this context, has a subtly different connotation - taken literally, it can mean "a purposeful neglect to consider" - or more like "ignoring" than how the word "ignorance" is usually taken to mean (i.e. a lack of knowledge)... ID proponents like Meyer, Behe and Dembski are certainly not ignorant (lacking in knowledge) of many of the scientific facts and principles they challenge - but they are ignorant (neglecting to consider) of a vast body of evidences that contradict their claims.

In this regard, I categorically do not think ID proponents are "less intelligent" or "more stupid" than scientists* - ironically, if they were, they could be forgiven for their errors. But these guys are not making "errors" - they are not doing what they do out of a lack of brains - they are solely motivated by pushing their religious doctrine no matter what the cost or who the casualties are (i.e. the scientific reputation of US academia and the proper education of children in US schools)...

Indeed, the education of our children is really the key point here - children are (obviously) lacking in knowledge and this is the very purpose of school - to educate and fill our children with knowledge that they can go on to use in their future lives. Proponents of ID and Creationism, although not lacking in intellectual ability, do exploit the lack of (scientific) knowledge of others and are all too ready to fill that knowledge gap with their pseudo-scientific garbage, with the goal or promoting a specific religious doctrine. For that reason, I think what they are doing is abhorrent...

(Note that it is not the idea of promoting a religious doctrine per se that I find abhorrent (although I don't think it should be allowed in schools personally)... it's the way the ID movement think that attacking the education system and undermining scientific research is the right way to go about it...)


* At the risk of sounding hypocritical, I do think, however, that certain Creationist groups do make some outrageous, unjustified and frankly idiotic statements (like Ken Ham, founder of Answers In Genesis, for example - who claims that T. rex was vegetarian!), but I still wouldn't call him "stupid". It is debatable whether his misuse of logic is wholly intentional, wholly accidental, or a mixture of the two. I suspect the former, but reading some of his stuff, it is sometimes hard to tell...

 

[Famine]

Also, chickens can fly. Though they're not about to hop onto major migration routes.

 

[Sureboss]

Apart from to the dinner table.

 

[Danoff]

Just some musings of mine on this subject.... I hope I didn't mess the biology up too much.

==============================

I think it's interesting that the laws of gravity and natural selection are so different in terms of modeling. Gravity fields are readily measurable and modelable - whereas there's a great deal of chaotic interaction that goes into natural selection. That makes it difficult to generate an accurate natural selection model of a particular environment.

This means it's easy to show the layperson validation of a gravity model "we said the spacecraft would be at these coordinates at this time, and it is", versus showing them validation of natural selection "see, we were pretty sure that this horse would be fast because his parents were." There's obviously some chance in genetic combination - which explains why I'm so different from my sisters - but that sort of thing just makes it much more difficult to show that the model is accurate.

The irony there is that natural selection is on much firmer ground in terms of evidence and proof than any models of gravity. We know that Newton's law has problems, and Einstein's solutions to those problems will likely need further updating. But I don't remember hearing about any instances that natural selection simply doesn't cover, or can't explain.

I just find it fascinating that people don't question gravity even though we can't even find a cohesive law for it that covers everything (let alone a theory). But because of the religious implications of natural selection and because of it's chaotic nature, it gets attacked left and right.

Perhaps I'm not being fair by translating attacks on the theory of genetics onto the law of genetics but, from my point of view, they imply each other.

 

[niky]

If you’re not going to actually read the posts and reply constructively, then don’t post. You clearly have no intent of actually holding a constructive debate.

Dan probably put a half hour of work and thought into that post, and all you post is 30-seconds’ worth of BS. Could you possibly have been more rude?

Well... considering he's been deliberately misreading and arguing semantics for the last five pages, I can say that the empirical evidence supports your hypothesis. We can now call it the RecklessAbandon Theory.

 

[Alex.]

In my opinion creation just seems hollow.

'and god created the world in 7 days'

'oh ok that sounds cool, lets worship him"

or

"and god created the world in 7 days"

" how the hell did he do that?, what materials were involved is it even remotely possible?"

Which sounds more like the humans who have pushed and pushed and pushed the limit to give us technology and sciences we are lucky to have? Whereas all religion has done is give us a social control and something to cling on to. Our civilization has advanced past the requirement of religion.


Edit: Sorry that I killed your thread

 

[Touring Mars]

Edit: Sorry that I killed your thread

Ha ha, fat chance of that I'm afraid...

A news article in this week's Science discusses the fact that politicians in five U.S. states are "pushing bills to enable educators to teach alternatives to evolution by protecting their "right" to discuss with students the idea of intelligent design (ID)"... timely in the light of Ben Stein's new film, "Expelled" which raises this very issue.

This raises a very interesting and relevant point - does anybody and everybody have the "right" to discuss/teach/preach whatever they want in schools? I'd argue not. Should schools be allowed to teach people how to make heroin, or how to make a really good porn movie? Arguably not...! But by the same logic as the ID movement think they have the "right" to teach religious doctrine in science classes across America, surely we should have the "right" to teach these other things to?

Is it really a question of "academic freedoms" or "rights" to allow the the dissemination of misinformation in our schools?

Another point came to me while I was thinking about the discussion I'm having with Danoff in the Global Warming thread, and a point that Dan himself made just a few posts ago in this thread, which although it didn't elicit a response, it certainly didn't go unnoticed! (nor does any post in this thread!!)... and that is, if disinformation is being used to challenge a scientific theory as robust, consistent and thoroughly supported by evidence as Evolution Theory, what chance do other fledgling scientific theories or genuine scientific controversies have of being examined legitimately if we allow disinformation to be taught from school level upward?

edit: apologies for the rushed/sloppy post, but I'm off to the pub in 5 minutes!

 

[Sage]

If teachers want to teach disinformation, I’m more than happy to let them do it at private schools. There’s no reason to do it on my dime though.

 

[Pako]

Here's the definition I found for disinformatiom - Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or propagation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence. ....

I don't think disinformation should be taught in schools either. The question is who decides what is and what isn't disinformation and that is the core of this debate.

No one wants to deliberately teach false truths so that is not the concern here.

 

[Danoff]

No one wants to deliberately teach false truths so that is not the concern here.

Trying to pass religion of as part of the science curriculum is a deliberate attempt at falsehood.

 

[Famine]

I think the "fabricated intelligence" catches it too.

 

[Pako]

Trying to pass religion of as part of the science curriculum is a deliberate attempt at falsehood.

We're talking origins, not religion. But as it has already been discussed at length, it's hard to discuss one without the other. Let's keep science out of history classes to. Lots of room for the life of Christ in History classes, but I suppose there would be a debate on that to.

I think the "fabricated intelligence" catches it too.

Your thought is your opinion but not substantiated. I have more substantiated proof that God is who he says he is, than any proof that you might have that he is not who he says he is.

 

[Danoff]

We're talking origins, not religion. But as it has already been discussed at length, it's hard to discuss one without the other. Let's keep science out of history classes to. Lots of room for the life of Christ in History classes, but I suppose there would be a debate on that to.

We're talking scientific explanations for origins vs. religious explanations. The scientific explanations belong in science class. The religious explanations belong in religion class.

Both science and religion play a role in history. When I was in school, I learned about the life of christ as part of history, I also learned of scientific influences throughout history. But the scientific and religious details were omitted in favor of concentration on the historical significance. I think that's as it should be.

 

[Famine]

Your thought is your opinion but not substantiated. I have more substantiated proof that God is who he says he is, than any proof that you might have that he is not who he says he is.

You misunderstand - in science classes the "fabricated intelligence" of ID (or any other non-scientific explanation) would class as misinformation under your quoted definition.

 

[Joey D]

I never understood why more schools don't offer religion classes that takes a look not just at Christianity but they other four main religions in the world. I don't know nearly enough about them which is perhaps why I never considered following them.

I agree that creation myths should be left out of science class because it can not be looked at with the scientific method nor can it be backed up with observations and tests. However, creation shouldn't necessarily be left out of schools, I would love to learn more about all the different ways various cultures said we got here. This is especially so since I am attempting to study anthropology.

As for history classes, I see no problem including religious figures since they have had some of the biggest impact on the world and how it is today.

 

[Touring Mars]

I never understood why more schools don't offer religion classes that takes a look not just at Christianity but they other four main religions in the world. I don't know nearly enough about them which is perhaps why I never considered following them.

I agree that creation myths should be left out of science class because it can not be looked at with the scientific method nor can it be backed up with observations and tests. However, creation shouldn't necessarily be left out of schools, I would love to learn more about all the different ways various cultures said we got here. This is especially so since I am attempting to study anthropology.

As for history classes, I see no problem including religious figures since they have had some of the biggest impact on the world and how it is today.

We're talking scientific explanations for origins vs. religious explanations. The scientific explanations belong in science class. The religious explanations belong in religion class.

Both science and religion play a role in history. When I was in school, I learned about the life of christ as part of history, I also learned of scientific influences throughout history. But the scientific and religious details were omitted in favor of concentration on the historical significance. I think that's as it should be.

These two posts sum up my experience/opinion too... ironically, I have been "taught" alot more about Jesus that I was ever taught about Darwin.. As a matter of fact, I don't remember any teacher at my school ever mentioning Darwin, especially since I never studied Biology, as it was 'elective' (unlike R.E., which was compulsory!! )

 

[niky]

RE: "Expelled" - Rottentomatoes carries exactly 33 reviews of it from the major sources. Apparently a lot of critics didn't even bother watching it...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/#synopsis

And of those who did, only 3 out of 33 actually liked. Even those who didn't disagree with ID (and, to be honest, the only reason you'd watch this movie is if you were an ID zealot) thought it was weak sauce.

For a film about American freedom of expression and the necessity for open dialogue, it's hard to imagine Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed being more one-sided, narrow-minded, and intellectually dishonest.

----

Many schools don't teach about international religions in religion class because religion class is indoctrination to your region's dominant religion. Kinda sucks if you're a Muslim or Jewish student in a Catholic school, but them's the breaks.

We did learn about other religions in other classes, though. Literature, History, etcetera. It's interesting, because learning about them this way, you learn about their negative sides and positive sides. You don't often learn much about the sordid history and theological and sociological problems of your own religion this way, as they're often glossed over in religion class.

 

[FoolKiller]

Many schools don't teach about international religions in religion class because religion class is indoctrination to your region's dominant religion. Kinda sucks if you're a Muslim or Jewish student in a Catholic school, but them's the breaks.

Perhaps religious school are different in the Philippines than in the Us, but here Catholic schools are private, so it would not make sense for a Muslim or Jewish student to be attending a Catholic school. That would mean that the parent is paying for their child to be indoctrinated in a religion they don't practice.

We did learn about other religions in other classes, though. Literature, History, etcetera. It's interesting, because learning about them this way, you learn about their negative sides and positive sides. You don't often learn much about the sordid history and theological and sociological problems of your own religion this way, as they're often glossed over in religion class.

One bonus to public secondary education (college) in the US is that many religion course are taught as electives (or you can major in them if you choose). I took both a Old Testament course that compared Old Testament writings to other religions of the time to show there is some form of historic validity in that many events are recorded across multiple cultures. Fortunately that class did not try to say one is wrong and one is correct, but merely explain why the stories were written how they were and what the events surrounding the religious aspect were to explain how that belief was reached by the people of the time.

I also took an Islamic studies course that was taught by a Jordanian professor who went out of his way to point out the differences between true Muslim teachings and fanaticism. What I learned in that course often helps me to distinguish between Muslim terrorists and Muslims, a view that is not properly seen by many Americans.

I often find it odd that the few courses I took in secular schools taught me more about religion than people I know who attendee private religious institutions. I find it odd that I can often run into people who attended a Catholic university or a Baptist university and while they can quote their specific religion's doctrine they have no clue how those beliefs were reached or what contradictions may be evident.

 

[Touring Mars]

Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana and potential VP/running mate to Republican presidential candidate John McCain, appeared to endorse the teaching of intelligent design in schools last weekend, at a crucial time where a bill is currently sitting on his desk awaiting either his approval or his veto. His approval would effectively allow schools in Louisiana to teach ID...

Appearing on CBS's "Face The Nation" programme, Jindal was asked to comment on his views with regard to teaching ID... he said " Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong". He also added "I don't want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness."

States across the U.S. are facing a slew of bills which threaten to bring Creationism into schools by the back door. There is no doubt whatsoever that the ID movement is fully behind these carefully worded bills, which seek to attract popular support by claiming to champion "academic freedom", but in reality they threaten to undermine science education in the U.S... (see also the National Center for Science Education website about these bills).

It seems Jindal is falling for both of the ID movement's latest tricks, which seem to champion admirable "ideals", but infact are specifically designed to advance their own agenda - to effect a change in the law to allow "critical thinking" about scientific (or other) views which contradict their religious beliefs. Their two main tricks are 1) "The Fairness Ruse": It's only fair to teach both; and 2) "Defending our Academic Freedoms": We must allow our teachers the freedom to teach whatever they want without fear of persecution.

On the face of it, both sound like admirable things to champion... but both start to take on a different complexion when you think about specific examples. For biology class, ID v Evolution is an obvious example... but let's take another, completely unrelated example. In history class, how about teaching a bit of Holocaust Denial?... How do those admirable ideals, perhaps soon to be enshrined in U.S. law, measure up to that?

1) It's only fair to teach both: The Holocaust did not definitely happen. There are two opposing "theories", one says that it did happen (and is supported by mountains of evidence), the other says it did not happen (and is supported by the beliefs of anti-Semites the world over). In the interest of "Fairness", both theories must be taught, however much one may be left wanting in the face of the other. Not teaching Holocaust Denial is therefore unfair, as it does not allow schoolchildren the 'freedom' to decide to believe the evidence or not...

2) Defending our Academic Freedoms: A teacher, an Islamist, believes that the Holocaust didn't happen. He has the right to teach this to our children, and is protected by law in teaching this in his class because to not allow him to say it would be a breach of "Academic Freedoms"...

So, with that in mind, do we really want "fairness" and "academic freedom" when defined in these terms? I certainly hope that Bobby Jindal does the right thing for U.S education and veto this insidious bill within the next 20 days... alas his comments on CBS the other night indicate that this might not be the case.

 

[Joey D]

I'm all for allowing the teaching of religious mythology about creation as long as it doesn't present itself in a biology class. Students should have the opportunity to learn all aspect of something in order to make up their own mind, but they should learn those aspect in the proper place. If a student thinks that the scientific explanation is the correct one and chooses to accept it then so be it, but if the student wants to accept the spiritual one then no one should be stopping them.

Also if they want to teach religious stories of creation then in order to be fair they need to teach all the stories from all different cultures...it's all about academic fairness right?

 

[Sage]

What scares me is that this is a pivotal move in the Discovery Institute’s (what a misnomer) Wedge Strategy – get one state to budge, a bunch will follow, as will public opinion in general. Someday, religion in America will reach the status that it is in England right now, but if the Wedge Strategy starts gaining momentum (as it looks like it’s doing), this could set us back at least a decade.

If there’s any consolation, as much as California gets public policy wrong, this is one area where I’m sure it won’t falter.