Creation vs. Evolution

[code_kev]

In other words, you can't explain it.

Unlike creationists, I don't pretend that I have a made up answer for everything. I put my trust in modern science as it makes sense, and usually has proof, or theories that make sense.

http://www.biologynews.net/archives...ecovers_ancient_whale_in_egyptian_desert.html

"The 1989 team discovered that Basilosaurus still retained tiny, useless legs, feet, and toes representing hind legs that were lost at a later stage of whale evolution"

Proof, it's a wonderous thing.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Unlike creationists, I don't pretend that I have a made up answer for everything.

"pretend to have a made up answer"?

Anyway, one often overlooked flaw in the Theory of Evolution is the "post hoc propter hoc" fallacy. If situation Z happens after situation Y then situation Z is caused by situation Y -- that is a post hoc reasoning. The only LOGICAL conclusion that can be drawn is:

If situation Z happens after situation Y then the possibility exists that situation Z is the the direct result of situation Y.

Here's are more practical example:

There is evidence of an oil slick at the scene of a car crash. One could argue that the car lost control because of the presence of oil. However, in order for this to be true, it has to be demonstrated that the oil was there before the car crash -- because if the oil was not there before the car crash, the argument can't be made. So while the possibility exists, proof of the oil's involvement in the crash has to be made first before any logical conclusion can be made. Futhermore, all other possibilities have to examined and eliminated before a logical conclusion can be made.

The same thing applies to evolution as well. The similarity of appearance between two distinct species allows for the possibility that one is the ancestor of the other. Many similarities such as these exist not to mention the fact that there is plenty of evidence that the more recent species display show similarities. Therefore, the conclusion that evolution has occurred is a post hoc propter hoc argument. Similar to the car accident example, in order for it to be considered a "fact", the "cause" must be determined and all other possibilites ruled out -- and for something as complex as life, I don't see how that's possible.

I have a few questions, though, relating to Evolution:

• How does the Theory of Evolution explain extinction?
• How does the Theory of Evolution explain stasis?
• How does the Theory of Evolution explain "survival of the un-fittest"?

 

[Sage]

How does the Theory of Evolution explain extinction?

What?! You're not serious, are you? Extinction is when things die – evolution doesn't necessarily prevent things from dying.

Your question is analogous to me asking How does Creationism explain death? It's so broad and disconnected that it makes no sense. I really, honestly have no clue what you're trying to ask.

How does the Theory of Evolution explain stasis?

Huh? Stasis of what? As far as I'm concerned, every living thing is contributing to evolution, minute as the changes might be (as long as one sequence in the DNA was changed—which always happens with sexual reproduction—then that's a change).

How does the Theory of Evolution explain "survival of the un-fittest"?

Who's theory is that? Never heard it before.

Quick question for you: Do you "believe" in natural selection?

 

[iceburns288]

The thing is that so many animals have things they never use, it's stupid. Whales have small leg bones that you can't see any more because they don't come out of their skin.

BTW, they took a gene from a mouse that tells your cells to start making eyes and put it into a fly... the fly produced regular fly eyes. What are the chances that two completely unrelated animals could develop the same gene for the same function?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What?! You're not serious, are you? Extinction is when things die – evolution doesn't necessarily prevent things from dying.

I know what extinction is. I just don't see how it can be explained in Darwinian terms.

Your question is analogous to me asking How does Creationism explain death? It's so broad and disconnected that it makes no sense. I really, honestly have no clue what you're trying to ask.

See above.

Huh? Stasis of what? As far as I'm concerned, every living thing is contributing to evolution, minute as the changes might be (as long as one sequence in the DNA was changed—which always happens with sexual reproduction—then that's a change).

I'm talking about the long periods in the fossil record between the appearance of a species, its extinction, and the lack of intermediate species. That is to say the inability of certain species to undergo "gradual" modification...

I'm having trouble understanding how that can be explained in Darwinian terms.

Who's theory is that? Never heard it before.

Made it up. However, how would Darwin explain "un-fit" species such as the fruit flies and oak trees?

Quick question for you: Do you "believe" in natural selection?

I have my doubts about the concept. I'll get into more detail tomorrow. Getting tired of typing.

 

[Duke]

I know what extinction is. I just don't see how it can be explained in Darwinian terms.

Species that cannot successfully adapt to their environment die.
💡

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Species that cannot successfully adapt to their environment die.
💡

Actually, 99% of all species do not adapt to their environment...

Why can't natural selection prevent extinction?

 

[Sage]

I know what extinction is. I just don't see how it can be explained in Darwinian terms.

And I still have no clue how that's even a real question. What on earth do you mean by "explaining extinction in Darwinian terms"? It just… I don't know… I just have no clue what you're getting at. Like I said, it wouldn't make sense if I asked you to explain death by using Creationism, which is in essence what you're asking me to do.

I'm talking about the long periods in the fossil record between the appearance of a species, its extinction, and the lack of intermediate species. That is to say the inability of certain species to undergo "gradual" modification...

But a species is always undergoing gradual modification – if they happen to be living very successfully in an environment, then they will change very little.

I don't see why time would make a difference though. It doesn't matter if a species exists for 100 years or 1,000,000 – DNA allows itself to be formed in nearly infinite variations, so even over the course of a million years, there'll still be change from generation to generation, even if it means a species is only changing eye color (which of course you can't figure out very easily with fossils).

Made it up. However, how would Darwin explain "un-fit" species such as the fruit flies and oak trees?

Erm, a "species" isn't necessarily unfit – a population is fit or unfit. Biology. That aside though, I'm not sure where you got the notion that fruit flies or oak trees are unfit – both are incredibly successful (especially the fruit fly… I mean, goodness, you'd never be able to kill off all the fruit flies in the world unless you blew it up).

 

[Sage]

Actually, 99% of all species do not adapt to their environment...

Where'd you pull that from? I'd say 99% of all species living on Earth right now are very well-adapted to their environment (otherwise they'd be extinct, of course).

Why can't natural selection prevent extinction?

You're making nonsensical questions again.

As I'm sure you know, natural selection means that the weak die (get eaten, have a disease, etc.), and the strong live. If an entire population happens to be weak, then every member of that population dies.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Where'd you pull that from? I'd say 99% of all species living on Earth right now are very well-adapted to their environment (otherwise they'd be extinct, of course).

I don't make my figures up.

Of the millions of species that have existed on this planet, more than 99 percent are extinct.

As I'm sure you know, natural selection means that the weak die (get eaten, have a disease, etc.), and the strong live. If an entire population happens to be weak, then every member of that population dies.

Is that a cause or an effect?

 

[emad]

Is that a cause or an effect?

If an animal is weak or cannot adapt to it's environment, it dies. The same principle applies to a whole species. I don't understand how that doesn't make sense to you.

If the environment changes and the species adapts to it, that's evolution/survival of the fittest at work. Moths are a great example of this - http://www.cienciateca.com/stsevol.html

 

[Wayne Gratiot]

Wow!!! Brian, you started off this morning by replying to my last post and wanting to get into a battle of logic and have been rambling on illogically the whole day. Everything you have said is going downhill fast and makes very little sense at all. It was like a poor remake of your hilarious truth/fact ranting followed by a bunch of nonsense that verifies my comments about your reasoning skills. Get it together man, you're falling apart fast and everyone else here has been wondering what the heck you are talking about. Star Trek's Spock would be scratching his head (and ears) if he had read any of your posts.

This whole thing is actually very simple. You and all creationists are giving a bad name to both science and religion by expecting everyone to go back in time a few thousand years and blindly accept the creation myth verbatim as it was envisioned by people of that long gone era who had very little working knowledge of how the universe works. They did their best to try and understand, but just didn't have enough info to work with then. You want us to effectively stop all thinking from that point on and just accept the myth as fact without question. Again, Spock would be scratching his head. Not very logical.

All we are asking you to do is to join us in the 21st Century and dive into all the knowledge available to anyone today and rethink your position. This, of course, will require basic logic and reasoning skills and you will have to work on that some first, but you have got to try and catch up. The gathering of knowledge continues at a rapid rate and the longer you wait, the farther behind you will continue to fall.

There is a dark element of catechism thinking among creationists who don't need evidence, simply because they know they are right. Their mode of thought, straight out of Medieval times, leads not to understanding, but to blind acceptance. To repeat a quote from one of my previous posts, Sir Francis Bacon said: "The universe is not to be narrowed down to the limits of our understanding, but our understanding must be stretched and enlarged to take in the image of the universe as it is discovered."

And as long as I am quoting people, here is another appropriate one from one of my favorite people, John Wooden, former all time great UCLA basketball coach (and teacher, which he preferred to be known as): "It is what you learn after you know it all that counts."

By the way, the quote below shown as my signature ("Be quick, but don't hurry.") is another of his famous lines that was drilled into his players every day. I used it for a guide in my real racing days and now in videogame racing too. My skydiving instructor liked it so much, he used it with all his students after I told him about it. Pull!!!

 

[Famine]

Why are oak trees "unfit" for their environment?

They don't fall over when it's windy and one individual is capable of seeding a half million offspring every year.


Species MUST adapt to their environment to be successful. If a species does not adapt to its environment, it dies out. Environments, especially with reference to mankind's activities in the last 200 years, change and species must change with them or risk extinction.

How does Darwinian Theory deal with extinction? The phrase is "Natural Selection".


iceburns288 - Whales have small leg bones which you can't see because they stopped using their legs - or rather their precursor species (plural) did. Unlike the traditional idiot's idea of Evolution, an animal doesn't jump out of a tree and evolve wings, nor does an animal leap into the water and suddenly lose its legs. Over time, as the species use their legs less, those species with shorter legs are "naturally selected" - less of their food and body energy is going into developing legs, so more can go to their muscles (for example) making them better swimmers (for example) and more efficient animals. The efficient animals outcompete the inefficient animals for food, meaning they outcompete them for mates, meaning that animals with genetic predisposition towards shorter legs breed with each other - Natural Selection of short hind-limbed animals. This pattern repeats itself gradually until the animals don't appear to have any legs.

Now the legs are not visible. The difference in efficiencies isn't great, so the tendency to breed with even shorter internalised-thigh-boned animals is reduced. The evolutionary process decelerates on that particular course because the presence of short thigh bones is of no benefit or detriment to the species.

Evolution is an ongoing process. Evolution doesn't go slime-bug-fish-whale STOP!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I was baptised with holy water in church and according to my parents the Holy spirit was invited . I saw no extra dimensions .

Because you dont think you have seen it, does not mean it is not there. Spiritual things are not seen or percieved by the physical or carnal senses. Also once you are born of the spirit, your spirit man is an infant just like your physical man was once. It has to be nurtured, fed, trained, educated, exersised, etc. so it will grow properly. The Bible also warns us not to "quench the Holy Spirit" which we can be doing (knowingly or unknowingly) by our attitudes, words, motivations or actions. As many of the recent posts can attest, carnally, we follow our own will, whatever it may be, which varies from person to person. If this is what you have been doing then your spirit man has probably never developed. Hence he is not influential enough to even be recognized.

 

[ledhed]

Out of respect for the sincerity of your comments and for your beliefs I will swallow all of the spirit man jokes .
I understand your logic about nurturing and at least recognizing the Holy spirit or your own holy spirit. But the key to recognizing is to first believe in its existance . And to believe something must it not be tangiable or at the very least be believable ? Should not it be reasonable for tyhe requirement of some proof of existance ?
Show me proof that the Earth was created by God using the same standards that science uses .

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Out of respect for the sincerity of your comments and for your beliefs I will swallow all of the spirit man jokes .
I understand your logic about nurturing and at least recognizing the Holy spirit or your own holy spirit. But the key to recognizing is to first believe in its existance . And to believe something must it not be tangiable or at the very least be believable ? Should not it be reasonable for tyhe requirement of some proof of existance ?
Show me proof that the Earth was created by God using the same standards that science uses .

Why would you intrust, exclusively, the proof of something so critically important, to a few men's limited powers of examination. Particularly, when it has such dire consequences for you in this life and eternally. BTW it is tangible.

Psalm 19:1-4
Romans 1: 19-20

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If an animal is weak or cannot adapt to it's environment, it dies. The same principle applies to a whole species. I don't understand how that doesn't make sense to you.

You must really think I'm stupid don't you.

Everyone. Stop defining for me what Natural Selection is, re-read the post hoc propter hoc argument, and answer my question(s).

I'll rephrase and repeat:

Is evolution a direct result of Natural Selection or is Natural Selection a direct result of evolution?

If the environment changes and the species adapts to it, that's evolution/survival of the fittest at work. Moths are a great example of this - http://www.cienciateca.com/stsevol.html

Moths? Bad example...

The moths (Biston Betularia) simply displayed an adaptation to surroundings, very similar to mimicry, a trait of virtually all organisms (chameleon, anyone?). Changes in the moths were a direct reaction to the sulfur and other contaminants in the atmosphere ("selection" by sulfur? )

In any event, regardless of any change in the environment, the "cause" of the change in the moth was not "selection" but rather the ability of the moth to adapt to its environment. The fact that Kettlewell's experiment is still reported today as "evidence" of evolution amazes me. That kind of behavior is hard to distinguish from even the WORST type of evangelism. [/rant]

The moth example is like saying:

My car won't start in the rain; therefore it is the rain that caused the car not to start. When in REALITY it won't start because of a faulty ignition system in which the defect would show up under other conditions such as high humidity, or rolling through a car wash.

I'm not saying evolution isn't possible -- I'm just trying get answers.

Wow!!! Brian, you started off this morning by replying to my last post and wanting to get into a battle of logic and have been rambling on illogically the whole day.

Re-read and respond to the post hoc propter hoc argument.

Everything you have said is going downhill fast and makes very little sense at all.

Just because it doesn't make sense to you, you think I'm going downhill? Re-read and respond to the post hoc propter hoc argument.

It was like a poor remake of your hilarious truth/fact ranting followed by a bunch of nonsense that verifies my comments about your reasoning skills.

If you can't respond to my post hoc propter hoc argument, you should be the last person to talk about my reasoning skills.

Get it together man, you're falling apart fast and everyone else here has been wondering what the heck you are talking about. Star Trek's Spock would be scratching his head (and ears) if he had read any of your posts.

Is that suppose to be humorous?

This whole thing is actually very simple. You and all creationists are giving a bad name to both science and religion by expecting everyone to go back in time a few thousand years and blindly accept the creation myth verbatim as it was envisioned by people of that long gone era who had very little working knowledge of how the universe works.

I guess that means you have me all figured out, then. Right? WRONG!
I just want ANSWERS to my questions. I'm not here to preach and I'm not here to shove religion down anyone's throats.

They did their best to try and understand, but just didn't have enough info to work with then. You want us to effectively stop all thinking from that point on and just accept the myth as fact without question. Again, Spock would be scratching his head. Not very logical.

I gave you logic -- and you skipped right over it. I'll repeat: POST HOC PROPTER HOC

All we are asking you to do is to join us in the 21st Century and dive into all the knowledge available to anyone today and rethink your position.

I'll rethink my position once ALL OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED and once ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. That, Wayne, is logic.

This, of course, will require basic logic and reasoning skills and you will have to work on that some first, but you have got to try and catch up. The gathering of knowledge continues at a rapid rate and the longer you wait, the farther behind you will continue to fall.

Thank you for the insight.

There is a dark element of catechism thinking among creationists who don't need evidence, simply because they know they are right.

Where did I say that? Show me one post where I said anything like that!

Their mode of thought, straight out of Medieval times, leads not to understanding, but to blind acceptance.

You should be the last to talk about blind acceptance -- especially considering the fact I have yet to see you ask one question about the concept.

To repeat a quote from one of my previous posts, Sir Francis Bacon said: "The universe is not to be narrowed down to the limits of our understanding, but our understanding must be stretched and enlarged to take in the image of the universe as it is discovered."

Fight a quote, with a quote:

We are like children looking at a complicated machine of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot understand.

That quote is from the book "Wallace and Natural Selection", by the way.

Why are oak trees "unfit" for their environment?

The method of reproduction of the oak tree involves the production of an acorn which drops from the tree. This seed the produces offspring. In and of itself, this system obviously works well, as oaks are very plentiful throughout certain places on Earth. However, when compared with other seed reproduction systems it's inefficient.

Take the Dandelion for example. It has a seed dispersal system that is considerably more efficient than that of the oak. I'm guessing that the energy required to make an acorn would be about the same as the energy needed to produce one dandelion plant. A typical plant contains hundreds of seeds, and has a dispersal range of hundreds of miles by windpower. Similarly, a comparison with other trees, such as the Willow and the Cottonwood that have a dandelion-like seed, the oak shows a similar deficiency in seeding ability.

So, after millions of years of evolution, why is the oak tree NOT extinct?

Are these not logical questions to ask????!!!!

 

[Sage]

Take the Dandelion for example. It has a seed dispersal system that is considerably more efficient than that of the oak. I'm guessing that the energy required to make an acorn would be about the same as the energy needed to produce one dandelion plant. A typical plant contains hundreds of seeds, and has a dispersal range of hundreds of miles by windpower. Similarly, a comparison with other trees, such as the Willow and the Cottonwood that have a dandelion-like seed, the oak shows a similar deficiency in seeding ability.

So, after millions of years of evolution, why is the oak tree NOT extinct?

Two things I can think off the top of my head:

1) Acorns are infinitely more resilient than dandelion seeds. Just because dandelions disperse a bajillion seeds doesn't mean that a bajillion seeds will successfully plant themselves. On the other hand, an acorn is very likely to get to earth safely. It's the same reason fish have hundreds of eggs at once, while humans only have one at once – little baby fish are very likely to be eaten, so you have to send out hundreds to maximize the probability that at least a few will live, while humans mother their children, so you don't need to take the same action (acorns "mother" the inside seed).

2) The success of a species doesn't necessarily depend on how widespread it is (thus the reason we have polar bears and desert sidewinders and 12" tropical centipedes). There is apparently some benefit to having oak trees grow close together (Famine probably knows), while there is some reason that dandelions find it beneficial to scatter themselves (probably because a whole bed of dandelions would eat each others' resources, although again, I'm not exactly the person to ask).

Is evolution a direct result of Natural Selection or is Natural Selection a direct result of evolution?

The first one.

In any event, regardless of any change in the environment, the "cause" of the change in the moth was not "selection" but rather the ability of the moth to adapt to its environment.

But don't you see – there is a direct link between "selection" and "adaptation". The moths that stayed the "wrong" color were selected by birds for eating.

Let's take the chameleon example – back in time, the chameleon had an ancestor that didn't change color. Then one chameleon-ancestor was born with a genetic "defect" (per se) that allowed its skin to react a little bit to the environment – not to the same degree that today's chameleons can, but enough to avoid getting eaten. It reproduced. More of these chameleon-ancestors were born, and those that could change their color even more were more likely to live than the ones who couldn't change their color as much. So on and so forth. Go through thousands, maybe millions of years, and you get an animals that can change color on the fly.

In essence, mimicry is natural selection in action. In fact, mimicry is probably the best example of natural selection.

 

[Danoff]

Is evolution a direct result of Natural Selection or is Natural Selection a direct result of evolution?

As Sage said, and hopefully anyone who understand evolution will tell you, evolution is a direct result of natural selection.

The death (selection) occurs, and then the following generation evolves.

Natural selection is an outside force - a force of nature - death occuring in the environment. Evolution is a reaction to that force due to the genetic details of procreation.

 

[Duke]

So, after millions of years of evolution, why is the oak tree NOT extinct?

You're making an unproven assumption - that dandelions must have a better method of seed distribution that oak trees do - which is not based on the easily observable phenomena. And then you're using this mistaken assumption to act as if the assumption itself is enough to invalidate the theory of natural selection.

Oak trees have not gone extinct because their method of reproduction performs adequately to prevent them all from dying before they can reproduce in sufficient numbers.

Q. E. D.

That being said, perhaps there are flaws in oak tree reproduction. That's why there are also maple trees and black walnut trees and locust trees and magnolias... not to mention beech, alder, ash, birch, cypress, yada yada yada. If oak trees had a totally dominant method of reproduction, these other trees would be losing territory and population to the overpowering oaks. But each of those trees has found a method of survival and reproduction that has allowed it to fit its environment.

Magnolia trees are so well fitted to their environment that they have not evolved significantly in tens of millions of years. Yet the American Chestnut died out entirely - mortality 100% - between 1890 and 1910. They were suited to their environment and had a huge population of large, robust individual trees across the continent. But they were unable to adapt quickly enough to a new species of blight that attacked them.

So they went extinct.

And now, I direct you to my last comment in the Libertarian thread.

 

[Pako]

I don't know about oak trees or the American Chestnut, but to believe in creation, one must believe in a creator. Jesus spoke of such a being and he called him Father. Why should you believe what the messiah Jesus said? To keep it simple, he performed healing miracles raised people from the dead, raised himself from the dead, and ascended into the heavens...... Eye witness accounts have attested to this and 2,000 years later we’re still talking about it. Pretty significant I’d say even to the point where the Discovery Channel has special episodes on the life of Christ. Just because it happened a long time, and just because you weren’t an eye witness to all these great things doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Ask yourself this,

Do I believe in eye witness accounts as proof of something? Do I have to experience it myself before I will believe it to be true? Can I have trust in what others have told me to be true…..?

 

[PS]

I don't know about oak trees or the American Chestnut, but to believe in creation, one must believe in a creator. Jesus spoke of such a being and he called him Father. Why should you believe what the messiah Jesus said? To keep it simple, he performed healing miracles raised people from the dead, raised himself from the dead, and ascended into the heavens...... Eye witness accounts have attested to this and 2,000 years later we’re still talking about it. Pretty significant I’d say even to the point where the Discovery Channel has special episodes on the life of Christ. Just because it happened a long time, and just because you weren’t an eye witness to all these great things doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Ask yourself this,

Do I believe in eye witness accounts as proof of something? Do I have to experience it myself before I will believe it to be true? Can I have trust in what others have told me to be true…..?

Too bad theres no real documented evidance cited and reviewed by others. And I've been an avid follower of the Discovery Channel; the supposed osuary of Jesus' brother, David (I think that was his name) was just proved to be a fake and is no longer at the Royal Ontario Museum.

 

[emad]

I don't know about oak trees or the American Chestnut, but to believe in creation, one must believe in a creator. Jesus spoke of such a being and he called him Father. Why should you believe what the messiah Jesus said? To keep it simple, he performed healing miracles raised people from the dead, raised himself from the dead, and ascended into the heavens...... Eye witness accounts have attested to this and 2,000 years later we’re still talking about it. Pretty significant I’d say even to the point where the Discovery Channel has special episodes on the life of Christ. Just because it happened a long time, and just because you weren’t an eye witness to all these great things doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Ask yourself this,

Do I believe in eye witness accounts as proof of something? Do I have to experience it myself before I will believe it to be true? Can I have trust in what others have told me to be true…..?

Answer this though, why can't I believe in both? Why must it be set in stone that it's either creationism or evolution with no two ways around it? The way I see it, evolution/natural selection is all part of the will of God.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Answer this though, why can't I believe in both? Why must it be set in stone that it's either creationism or evolution with no two ways around it? The way I see it, evolution/natural selection is all part of the will of God.

Who said you can't... that's what I do.

 

[Famine]

Again, that's selectively accepting the scientific method.

If you're happy to use a computer, which has arisen through the scientific method, why should you not be happy to accept Evolutionary Theory, which has been subject to the same rigourous review and testing? Or the Big Bang theory? Or M-theory?

Is science only acceptable if you can understand it - or have a tangible end-product? Does the scientific method only become incorrect if it disagrees with your beliefs?

 

[PS]

What is the M-theory?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What is the M-theory?

The M-theory is a solution for the theory of everything. Famine can get into details...

 

[emad]

Who said you can't... that's what I do.

Alright, awesome 👍

Now, do you believe creation belongs in science related classes or in classes where religious topics are discussed (sorry, I haven't thoroughly read the thread)? Because as much as I believe that the universe was created, I don't believe that it belongs in science as it is a theory that has no scientific backing - just the backing of religious texts that reign from more than 1500 years ago.

If I had kids and they were being taught creationism in science class, I'd be pissed as hell. Hell, if any science teacher pushed creationism on me without providing scientific evidence to hint at the theory, I'd be very pissed. I can't exactly explain why, but that's how I feel. My religion strongly encourages the pursuit of knowledge. Creationism is a belief, not knowledge that you have learned through scientific investigation, so to speak. That's not to say of course, that religion is wrong or bad. It just doesn't belong in science classes. History, philosophy, religious classes are all great places to teach it. But not in the science classes.

My 0.02

 

[Pako]

Alright, awesome 👍

Now, do you believe creation belongs in science related classes or in classes where religious topics are discussed (sorry, I haven't thoroughly read the thread)? Because as much as I believe that the universe was created, I don't believe that it belongs in science as it is a theory that has no scientific backing - just the backing of religious texts that reign from more than 1500 years ago.

If I had kids and they were being taught creationism in science class, I'd be pissed as hell. Hell, if any science teacher pushed creationism on me without providing scientific evidence to hint at the theory, I'd be very pissed. I can't exactly explain why, but that's how I feel. My religion strongly encourages the pursuit of knowledge. Creationism is a belief, not knowledge that you have learned through scientific investigation, so to speak. That's not to say of course, that religion is wrong or bad. It just doesn't belong in science classes. History, philosophy, religious classes are all great places to teach it. But not in the science classes.

My 0.02

I agree with that, Religion is not a science.


There is also no way to ever prove how the universe was created, so why do we guess in a science class? I'm saying if we're going to guess, lets look at ALL the possibilities. That's all...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I agree with that, Religion is not a science.


There is also no way to ever prove how the universe was created, so why do we guess in a science class? I'm saying if we're going to guess, lets look at ALL the possibilities. That's all...

Hmm... that sounds vaguely familiar...

I'll rethink my position once ALL OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED and once ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED.

History always seems to repeat itself... itself... itself... itself...

Anyway, I would prefer to have religion taught in a separate class as well. However, Pako brings up a good point. In order for something to be considered fact, ALL OTHER POSSIBILITES MUST BE ELIMINATED.