Creation vs. Evolution

[Danoff]

US public schools (which shouldn't exist) could probably benefit from a religion class. Perhaps it would be taught something like a history class but where the beliefs of all of the major world relgions (I stress "major") would be taught... that way students would have a better feel for what people around the world believe and where most of them are located. Perhaps this could be taught in philosophy.

Obviously science should also be taught in US public schools (which shouldn't exist). So the question is quite simple for the curriculum of those courses - what qualifies as science and what does not.

"Intelligent design" or, in otherwords "creationism" are not scientific theories, even if they use words like "empirical evidence" to describe them. The "empirical evidence" goes against direct creation. In fact, the evidence points us to a constant evolution following the laws of nature decending down since the dawn of the universe. The only room that the evidence currently leaves for some sort of creation theory is in the origins of the universe at the beginning of time, and in the creation of the laws of nature. However, we have no real evidence to suggest the origins of those events, so any conclusion you draw is equally valid (unless you find some evidence). The result is that the origins of physics or reality do not fall into the category of science - that's really all philosophy (or religion depending on your approach) at this point.

Creationism is not science, it's religion... and it misunderstands science and religion to try to teach the two as competing.

 

[ledhed]

The whole point is that the proponents of ID claim it is a science and have begun to agitate for it to be taught in school. And its already been added to the dover school districts courses. aside from hoping no one taught in Dover schools ever becomes a doctor , I'm not sure what can be done about it. to me teaching it is like teaching that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Ev0]

I feel sorry for the kids who won't get a real education in science, and of course the poor teachers who have to go along with this absurdness. Also, I wonder if any kid being taught under this curriculum will have a chance of being accepted into certain University programs, just because it is behind the times by about.... how long ago did Darwin present his theory of evolution, 18--?

 

[a6m5]

I believe in the Creation, but I think kids should be taught about both. Religious part should be left up to the parents.

Lot of guys here dismiss god, but I don't know how this universe could have started without an intelligent plan. Our universe is so complicated, our scientists can come up with many theories, but not many actual answers. Most of their theories sounds like just guesses to me.

Famine's take, with Raelians are interesting. I'd never heard of Raelians, but it's entirely possible they are right.

 

[Sage]

Lot of guys here dismiss god, but I don't know how this universe could have started without an intelligent plan.

Why? We're created without any intelligent plan, and I imagine that creating a human is a good deal more complicated than a wad of dense mass going kablooey.

Most of their theories sounds like just guesses to me.

But that's what scientific theories are – hypothesis (education guesses) that have a good deal of testing behind them to be considered logical until proven wrong. Scientific theories are never claimed to be pure fact – they simply encompass what we know and what we've found repeatable into a succinct statement. This allows room for intellectual growth. On the other hand, Creationists claim their theory as fact, which means they'll be stuck in that rut forever. Would you rather be a "guesser" and be wrong often, but grow and learn more, or stick stubbornly to one fundamental idea, whether or not new (and frankly, old) evidence contradicts it?

Anyway, sorry, but this is going off-topic now. I don't have too much to say, because I have the same stance as most in this thread – teaching religious ideas is fine, but not as fact (like math) and not in the sciences. It belongs in history to describe how certain beliefs have led to certain events (not to describe how history was started), and it belongs in philosophy for obvious reasons.

 

[a6m5]

Why? We're created without any intelligent plan, and I imagine that creating a human is a good deal more complicated than a wad of dense mass going kablooey.

I do agree. Human body is an design(in my opinion) that was created by an intelligence far more advanced than our own. When I said the Universe, I meant everything created inside it too. I'm sorry for not clarifying.

As you can see, I have certain religious views, but I'd never try to force my belief onto others. You have the right to believe what you want, so do I. That's why I think they should teach both the Evolution/Creation and the background between these two theories. Leave the religious part to the parents of the students. Then the students can decide for themselves when they are old enough.

 

[Famine]

That's why I think they should teach both the Evolution/Creation and the background between these two theories.

There is no "theory of Creation".

Creation is presented as cold, hard fact with no evidence to back it up, no testing carried out, no updating of the idea as information comes to light and no room for manoeuvre. Creation is doctrine, not theory.


Ev0 - Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. Contrary to the myths circulated by proponents of "Intelligent Design", he never once renounced his theory or regretted its publication.

 

[wheellift]

God Bless you all...

 

[a6m5]

There is no "theory of Creation".

Creation is presented as cold, hard fact with no evidence to back it up, no testing carried out, no updating of the idea as information comes to light and no room for manoeuvre. Creation is doctrine, not theory.


Ev0 - Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. Contrary to the myths circulated by proponents of "Intelligent Design", he never once renounced his theory or regretted its publication.

My bad. But I think you get my point. There isn't a hard evidence to prove which side is correct, so the schools shouldn't pick sides.

 

[Famine]

Actually, there is. Well, if you take "prove" to mean "scientifically validate". As I keep stating, science is malleable - theories and "facts" change with new evidence. The current theory of evolution is as concrete as you get in science, but is liable to change as new information is presented. If you wish, look up Homo floresiensis, discovered recently, and how the picture of human evolution was modified from this discovery.


You cannot teach Creationism as a "theory" and "Leave the religious part to the parents of the students". Creationism IS religion.

Creationism CANNOT be taught in science lessons. Even presenting Creationist's arguments in its favour would be devisive to science as they are so fundamentally unscientific. Since US public educational systems are set-up to keep religion out of schools, Creationism cannot be taught at all. In the UK we do have religious studies classes, until the age of 14, where kids are taught about major points of all religions. It could perhaps be taught in those circumstances - but you'd need a scientist on standby to show why Creation Science is an oxymoron and where the devious non-science arguments fall apart.


However, "panspermia" is a valid theory on the origin of life on Earth and could (should) be taught.

 

[a6m5]

Actually, there is. Well, if you take "prove" to mean "scientifically validate". As I keep stating, science is malleable - theories and "facts" change with new evidence. The current theory of evolution is as concrete as you get in science, but is liable to change as new information is presented. If you wish, look up Homo floresiensis, discovered recently, and how the picture of human evolution was modified from this discovery.

I don't think they are "concrete". I'm not putting down science, and the Scientists usually are brilliant people, but they are just that, people. Our intellect is so limited, I just don't think we are comprehending everything that's happened, or going on in the universe. Though we definitely try, very hard. A thousand years in the future, I'm confident we'll discover that our science were way off on many things, including the evolution. Again this is just my opinion, and it's entirely possible the evolution theory was true. I will check out the "Homo floresiensis". Thanks!

 

[a6m5]

You cannot teach Creationism as a "theory" and "Leave the religious part to the parents of the students". Creationism IS religion.

I just wish people to look at Creationism as an possibility. Even if you don't belive in God, I think there are people out there, who look at ourselves, earth, universe, and think, boy did all this really happen by accident? My current belief is that God(my pick), universe, alien race, whatever are highly intelligent and created(designed/engineered) us. I apologize if it sounds crazy, but that's what I believe.

 

[ledhed]

Famine the whole concept of I . D. was to combat the ban on religion in public schools and to give creationism the patina of scientific thought.

 

[Danoff]

I just wish people to look at Creationism as an possibility.

I'm not sure anyone on this thread has said that creation is not a possibility. However, I haven't seen you, nor do I think you can, dispute the fact that it is not science and therefore should not be taught as science.

 

[a6m5]

I'm not sure anyone on this thread has said that creation is not a possibility.

I wasn't directing that to anyone in particular, like the people on this thread.

, I haven't seen you, nor do I think you can, dispute the fact that it is not science and therefore should not be taught as science.

Ok. I won't dispute it.

 

[Stinky Chicken]

Well, it's obvious that a higher being created us. Just look at the facts.

Like what?

 

[Zrow]

I don't really look at it as 'by accident'. We are the product of everything that has happened - if one of the factors that shaped us had changed, then we'd be different.

 

[Stinky Chicken]

We were born of apes, or gorillas, or whatever primate Einstein and Darwin say we came from. The end.

 

[Iceman]

But where did they come from?

 

[Stinky Chicken]

But where did they come from?

Okay, evolution happened thus:

-- The dinosaurs died out.
-- Mold and fungi grew.
-- Nature created small animals that feed off that mold and fungi.
-- Those small animals grew.
-- And grew
-- Into apes and chimps and gorillas and babbons.
-- Simple Man (and Woman) evolved from there
-- Man and Woman evolved from there
-- To what you see before you.



Ignore the "men and women" bit, I'm all for non-sexualism and womens' rights even though that's circa 1980.

 

[240Z]

Okay, evolution happened thus:

-- The dinosaurs died out.
-- Mold and fungi grew.
-- Nature created small animals that feed off that mold and fungi.
-- Those small animals grew.
-- And grew
-- Into apes and chimps and gorillas and babbons.
-- Simple Man (and Woman) evolved from there
-- Man and Woman evolved from there
-- To what you see before you.

Actually, to clarify this even further, a better list (no offense ) would be:

--Single celled organisms appeared (there is a scientific explanation for this, but it is too long to talk about here)
-- Algae (fungi are separate from plants and a different thing entirely) developed from simple one-celled plant life.
-- Small animals (just fish at first) developed from one-celled and colony-based organisms (A colony-based organism would be like a jelly fish)that feed off that simple plant life.
-- Those small animals grew.
-- And grew
-- Into apes and chimps and gorillas and babbons (and dinosaurs, in your list it sound like they just were there).
-- Simple Man (and Woman) evolved from there
-- Man and Woman evolved from there
-- To what you see before you.



I think that's pretty accurate, correct me if I'm wrong about something.

 

[Stinky Chicken]

Actually, to clarify this even further, a better list (no offense ) would be:

--Single celled organisms appeared (there is a scientific explanation for this, but it is too long to talk about here)
-- Algae (fungi are separate from plants and a different thing entirely) developed from simple one-celled plant life.
-- Small animals (just fish at first) developed from one-celled and colony-based organisms (A colony-based organism would be like a jelly fish)that feed off that simple plant life.
-- Those small animals grew.
-- And grew
-- Into apes and chimps and gorillas and babbons (and dinosaurs, in your list it sound like they just were there).
-- Simple Man (and Woman) evolved from there
-- Man and Woman evolved from there
-- To what you see before you.



I think that's pretty accurate, correct me if I'm wrong about something.

Gawd dude, I'm going from when the dinosaurs got wiped out - it's 2.25am and I'm tired, gimme a break!

 

[240Z]

Just clearing it up. A twisted understanding of evolution is sometimes worse than none at all.

 

[Stinky Chicken]

Just clearing it up. A twisted understanding of evolution is sometimes worse than none at all.

I have a perfect understanding of evolution (I did that in school, see )... at a better time of day!

 

[240Z]

Happens to the best of us

 

[Stinky Chicken]

...or those mad enough to be up at 2.51am.

 

[code_kev]

I've had some long debates on this topic before with people I know...

The creationists lack one thing the people who believe in evolution have. Proof.
Things evolve constantly, look at the human race, notice how peoples skin colours change depending on the climate and conditions, ofc this has taken many many thousands of years to happen (though if you talk to many creationists, these are usually the same people who believe the Earth to be 6000 years (ish) old, DINOSAURS PEOPLE, DINOSAURS, oh and 4 billion year old rocks, explain ). People in Hot sunny climates have evolved darker skin to combat the effects such a climate can have on people (skin cancer etc), while white folk such as my self have lighter skin, as our weather is crap. This change happened over MANY thousands of years, very very very slowly as out bodies adapted to the surroundings. A bad example mehbeh, but a pretty valid one, with ACTUAL PROOF!

Heck, even the pope endorses evolution.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm

As my post shows, I'm no expect on the topic, but this is simply what I believe. I hope I havn't offended anyone with a faith, you're free to believe what you want.

 

[Sage]

What I've mostly heard from Creationists (aside from God "allowing" evolution to go forward) is that they believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution, their arguments usually going along the lines of, "Yeah, we can breed dogs, I can see that, but how the hell did we grow from rocks?". Of course, a rock wasn't sitting around and suddenly morphed into a human, but that's the credibility many Creationists give macro-evolution theory. Granted, at least I've met fewer and fewer people who honestly believe the Earth is 20,000 years old (or whatever the arbitrary number is). That really annoyed me.

 

[a6m5]

The creationists lack one thing the people who believe in evolution have. Proof.
Things evolve constantly, look at the human race, notice how peoples skin colours change depending on the climate and conditions, ofc this has taken many many thousands of years to happen (though if you talk to many creationists, these are usually the same people who believe the Earth to be 6000 years (ish) old, DINOSAURS PEOPLE, DINOSAURS, oh and 4 billion year old rocks, explain ). People in Hot sunny climates have evolved darker skin to combat the effects such a climate can have on people (skin cancer etc), while white folk such as my self have lighter skin, as our weather is crap. This change happened over MANY thousands of years, very very very slowly as out bodies adapted to the surroundings. A bad example mehbeh, but a pretty valid one, with ACTUAL PROOF!

I don't think those "proofs" are hard evidence. I'm not saying you are wrong or the evolution theory is wrong, but the proofs you talk of doesn't prove that evolution theory is valid. Race of people changing skin color due to the climate, is not monkeys evolving into humans.

if you talk to many creationists, these are usually the same people who believe the Earth to be 6000 years (ish) old, DINOSAURS PEOPLE, DINOSAURS, oh and 4 billion year old rocks, explain )..

I don't believe that theory either. I thought our civilization alone went back as far as 6000years(I could be wrong).

Heck, even the pope endorses evolution.

Pope(not the same one) endorsed Nazi, he was wrong.

As my post shows, I'm no expect on the topic, but this is simply what I believe. I hope I havn't offended anyone with a faith, you're free to believe what you want.

Thank you, I respect your view also. I responded just because I don't think there is a hard evidence supporting the evolution theory. They can show me all the ape(man) skelton they want, that's not an hard evidence that simple lifeforms evolved into human race, in my opinion.

 

[code_kev]

But if man has allways been the same, wouldn't there be evidence? For example, skeletons that show humans as they are now existing so far back. I'm talking hundreds of thousands of years ofc.

The pope referenence was a bit dodgy tbh, but I just used it as an example of even members of a church, whose holy book is focused around creationism, accepting that evolution is valid.

I guess that proving it is allmost impossible, the time scales are SO HUGE, and the changes in the species so complicated and subtle, that I probs can't prove a thing.

The example I used was horribly crude tbh, this is a very complex issues, and I'm not the smartest of posters at 3.49 am

Why arn't I asleep....tsk