Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Then there is religions record on things scientific, do we still believe that evrything revolves around the earth?

My "faith" in science is based on my actual study of the actual research on the subject.

The same can not be said of the vast majority of those who espouse creationism, for this is based on translations of acient texts in ancient languages. These stories in an of themselves are not first person accounts but based on hearsay.

Evolution has evidence it called a perponderance of evidence, meaning more likely than not.

Those that believe in creationism wouldn't believe that story in any other part of thier lives, so why do they believe it in relation to the origins of life?

Craig,

Relativity (special relativity) says that time is relative to the speed at which two separate bodies move in relation to one another through space-time.

But in the case of the universe expanding (and probably accelerating, I can't find any info on there being inaccuracy) the bodies in space aren't necessarily moving away from each other through space-time as fast as space-time itself is expanding. So in the very least, his equation is misconceived.


Hoglahoo,

What it boils down to is that science is the study of the natural world, through observing and indentifying the natural causes for what we've observed.

If you can't observe (or calculate based on observations) the cause for some phenomenon, then you must upgrade your observation capabilities and equipment. You can't just say, " we can't see the cause of this event, so it must have been caused by a supernatural force". That statement has been proven useless throughout the history of mankind, because the natural mechanism at work behind the scenes is just waiting to be discovered, at which point the credit being placed on the supernatural was jumping the gun and unscientific.

Originally Posted by Hutch

Those that believe in creationism wouldn't believe that story in any other part of thier lives...

You should visit Oklahoma sometime, you'll meet many who do

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

...You can't just say, " we can't see the cause of this event, so it must have been caused by a supernatural force"....

That's true! But you also can't discount a supernatural cause just because your choice of instruments are limited to the natural.

I think I'll jump in-- but I'll confess in advance that I've only read the first few pages.

How come the folks that usually suggest that sex education should be taught at home, by responsible families, are the same ones that suggest that the place to teach creationism is in school?

Originally Posted by JMS

Question:

Just because we don't believe in God (or whatever name you choose) does that really mean he doesn't exist?
Just because we don't believe in evolution as laid out by Darwin does that mean that it could not of happened that way?
I mean, do things as they exist really need us to recognize that they exist to...well...exist?

You're absolutely right, the average person can be as dismissive as they want toward science and the world will keep turning, the Sun will keep shining...

...and scientists will remain in their labs doing real science, trying to discover the mechanisms that allow the world to have begun spinning and for the Sun to have coalesced and began it's fusion reactions that transfer the needed energy to Earth for life to arise through some natural mechanism or interaction.

There is no use in average Joes like us debating it, one day an answer will be presented, just like with every other phenomenon in the past.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

That's true! But you also can't discount a supernatural cause just because your choice of instruments are limited to the natural.

Nobody makes a "choice" to use natural instruments for investigating the natural world, they're all we've got.

If you've been bogarting a new supernatural technology, I hate to tell you sir, but you could be a gazillionaire overnight if you'd just show it to the scientific community.

But seriously, the question that we've been debating is whether Creationism should be taught as a science and the answer is "no, science is the study of the natural world through natural means".

If you want to use supernatural means to discover the world around you, by all means go ahead, that is your choice. But you cannot call it science because science has defined itself as something separate from your process.

I can't walk into the Oval Office and claim myself as President for the same reason. The process of determining a President consists of more than the actions that I took.

What about mystical pyramids? That reminds me of James Randi for some reason...

And yes science is the study of the natural world, and if the natural world is a result of a supernatural truth then what's wrong with teaching that? The question regards the existence of a Creator, not natural methodology. Creationism isn't science, but it might be the prime movement that science is based on

Hi again.
Couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

We've discussed the difference between evolution happening randomly and happening naturally many times before, there is a huge difference.

Not quite, we haven't, because "naturally" does not preclude that being a course set in motion by an intentional act. "Random" on the other hand, does.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Random implies that you have genes that are just mutating and expressing themselves with no regularity, this does not happen in real life. Natural means that the environment that an organism resides in has an affect on how those genes are expressed and that the environmental conditions determine which memberrs of a population pass on the genes that allowed them to survive.

Randomness couldn't be farther from what causes evolution.

Russel are you not reading my posts? The ability or lack thereof of an organism to adapt to surroundings in no way proves it in its original form was not created, and for that matter one could argue that microorganisms adapting is evidence for creation not against-otherwise odds are astronomical that the organism would simply die-unless the process for adaptation was already there. Even random (you could say "natural") processes or environmental changes are not necessarily predictable by an organism, therefore without it being programmed previously with this adaptability...it would simply die, like a nest of hornets unable to adapt to the taste of insecticide sprayed on them.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

First off, you've just barred creationism from the discussion with that first sentence. It's a hard reality to grasp but you've done so quite well. (but seriously, you are correct in that statement and it does eliminate the Supernatural as being credited for natural events).

Actually...I've done nothing of the sort. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. At all. Creationism does. Whether you choose not to believe someone or something intentionally pushed the ball over the other side of the hill is irrelevant to whether or not evolution occurs. Creationism does not seek to explain how species reproduce or even if they adapt or not. Only that they were created to do what they are doing.
Which to be honest, is just as scientific as the idea a bunch of material coincidentally was together when lightning struck (but didn't sanitize the area) and then was able to reproduce itself in a form that adapts to its environment, gains intelligence, etc etc. this latter theory cannot be demonstrated in the lab at all...however if life IS created in the lab, it is a guarantee that it will have been created by the researcher...which...is kind of a point for the creationist side of things, IMHO, and not the other side. Otherwise, both theories have exactly the same amount of evidence currently supporting them "scientifically". Life exists. That's it. Creationism doesn't seek to prove creatures do not adapt (perhaps some religions do, but that's not what we are discussing) only how it came to be life in the first place. Same for the primordial soup hypothesis. Creation may some day be replicated; random creation of life through natural means? not likely. Meanwhile both point to the same evidence, while one, supported mostly by Atheistic popular dogma, refuses to consider all possibilities then falsely calls itself "scientific".
I would also point out you have a very broad definition of "supernatural". Supernatural only applies to objects or beings to which natural laws do not apply, however I would argue that the objects are not supernatural, only our comprehension of what is or is not natural needs to expand. Furthermore it is a bit humorous to me that a being has to be "supernatural" to be more intelligent than us. Not so at all, IMHO. There are quite natural people-beings if you prefer-who are of a higher intelligence than either one of us

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Secondly, yes science is entirely based on theory, every science book in the world is filled with similar theories. And until they are disproven they will be taught as the prevailing explanation for the phenomena that we observe.

This is not true. Science is the study of hypotheses which become theory which then if proven, become fact. None of us observed the beginning of life...so teaching the version involving a creator makes just as much sense as the one which does not. Neither can be disproven completely. Both require a belief in something that has always existed, and always will exist. Just because prevailing wisdom once said the sun and stars rotated around the earth, and was easy to demonstrate to even the most casual of observers, even ships being navigated by this manner....didn't mean it was true. Even though it was the "prevailing explanation". If a prevailing explanation were the only explanation we had come up with, I might concede its being the only one taught. However, this "prevailing explanation" has no more scientific proof than the other, and as such should not be taught as "the scientific" way things happened, as labeling it such gives it false credence it has not earned. It is demonstrable that in its purest form, both explanations could be considered "scientific". Neither should receive the pedestal treatment, therefore. Teach evolution all we want, but the tangents claiming life happened by a natural coincidence-and then proceeded from there-hasn't even been replicated intentionally as of yet in a lab by researchers with PhD's...and therefore should be avoided in the classroom altogether unless given an equal footing.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

There is no difference between a scientific answer and a scientific theory as you suggest that there is. The reality is that your using a general speech form of the word "theory", not the scientific definition, which is much more rigorous.

Theory only requires that statistical evidence seems to support it. However, statistical evidence that a bacterium can adapt, for instance, to its surroundings does not in any way explain how that bacterium came to be a living creature in the first place, or in fact, how the first bacterium came about.
It is faulty logic IMHO to use the word "evolution" and evidence backing that theory, to counter an altogether different argument-the origin of the species. Even Darwin himself was not an atheist, after all. Evolution and creationism, in their purest form do not at all contradict each other. I also do not seek to claim they do.
These are answers to completely different questions. Adaptation may be demonstrable in a petri dish or even elsewhere, however that no more disproves creation than the fact that most people drink coffee when it is hot.
Sorry. Got coffee on the brain.


John P.

But seriously, the question that we've been debating is whether Creationism should be taught as a science and the answer is "no, science is the study of the natural world through natural means".

I though the question was whether it should be taught in school, not that should it be taught as science?

It certainly is not a science.

I thought what we were debating is whether the theory of evolution is really "science"!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Can we also get an idea of what we are discussing when we say "evolution" here?

1. Does it refer to natural selection and change over time for a group/species?
2. Are we talking about how organisms underwent change over time and thus humans came from apelike ancestors, which came from such and such....on down to single celled organisms?
3. And if #2, then does "evolution" also pertain to to origin of that first life? Vis a vis a natural happenstance?

Evolution is the process of an organism adapting to an environment.

Natural selection is the mechanism that allows evolution to occur.

The change over time is driven by natural selection. As the various environments on Earth changed, the organisms that inhabited them had to adapt or risk death. So the organisms that have survived were "selected" by a certain environmental condition (i.e. extreme heat, lack of food, etc.), and over a long period of time, they have come to look much different from their ancestors that lived in a different set of environmental conditions.

For human's, it is thought, amongst other reasons, that our inability to defend ourselves with claws, fangs, or powerful muscles "selected" us for developing large brains that could devise ways of surviving without those features.