Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

To lay some things on the line that are being thrown back and forth:

1) The origin of life
Evolution does not claim to answer the question of whether life was created, just how life adapts through natural mechanisms after it is in existence. There is a possibility of a natural mechanism creating life that we just haven't discovered and there is also the possibility that a creator stepped in.( I have spoken to this end many times previously, both providing a possible scenario for the natural mechanism and tipping my hat in the direction of a creator that intended for his creations to evolve. My personal belief is of no relevance, both are unrefuted.)

2) Science
Is the study of the natural world through natural means, in an attempt to find a natural cause for a phenomenon that was observed. This excludes anything dealing with the supernatural from the start. If you want to analyze the world as it is influenced by a supernatural force you are free to do so, but you can't claim to be a science, you need your own field to play on.

That's harsh, but it's what this boils down to.

Craig,

You're right, this immediate thread is about creation in a classrom. But the only place the proponents have been trying to put it is in a science class. If the proponents of Creationism or Intelligent Design want to have a class for their material, they should be asking for a religion class or a supernatural alternatives class or something like that.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

To lay some things on the line that are being thrown back and forth:

1) The origin of life
Evolution does not claim to answer the question of whether life was created, just how life adapts through natural mechanisms after it is in existence. There is a possibility of a natural mechanism creating life that we just haven't discovered and there is also the possibility that a creator stepped in.( I have spoken to this end many times previously, both providing a possible scenario for the natural mechanism and tipping my hat in the direction of a creator that intended for his creations to evolve. My personal belief is of no relevance, both are unrefuted.)

2) Science
Is the study of the natural world through natural means, in an attempt to find a natural cause for a phenomenon that was observed. This excludes anything dealing with the supernatural from the start. If you want to analyze the world as it is influenced by a supernatural force you are free to do so, but you can't claim to be a science, you need your own field to play on.

That's harsh, but it's what this boils down to.

Craig,

You're right, this immediate thread is about creation in a classrom. But the only place the proponents have been trying to put it is in a science class. If the proponents of Creationism or Intelligent Design want to have a class for their material, they should be asking for a religion class or a supernatural alternatives class or something like that.

Russel,
again you make wrong assumptions here! None of the proponents, self included are trying to say it belongs in a "science class" but are rather countering your own faulty argument that your own favorite explanation, equally unproven does belong there at its exclusion.

I am making the statement, that if creationism is not allowed because it has not been proven, then neither should (whatever your pet theory is) be allowed. You have been bending over backwards to prove it does NOT belong in a science class, but all of the arguments against creationism can also be made against the primordial soup/lightning bolt/swamp gas theory you ascribe to. It is not proven and likely never will be. In fact even if life is successfully created in a lab...it will only demonstrate the creation of life.

Therefore, if the one is "unscientific" then by simple logic, so is the other-and neither belong in science class.

The argument that creationism has no place in the classroom or that other mechanisms for origin of life are preferable as they are more "scientific" is faulty. One is no more "scientific" than the other...
Ultimately this has been shown not to be the case. Evolution is an unrelated theory unless one uses it to attempt disproving something which it has nothing to do with, as you seem to be attempting here.
The question is not whether or not to teach evolution in schools. It is and has been taught there for quite a few years already. The question was whether creationism should be allowed to be taught as an alternative, presumably in the same classroom. Pure science rules out nothing, after all-belief, or lack thereof, in a creator in whatever form, should not be the governing factor, and belief unless disproved, and its explanations, cannot scientifically be excluded. Engineers deal in absolutes. Scientists do not-but rather study with an open mind and find out what they find out.

Rather, creationism was being protested as "unscientific" and therefore having no place in the classroom other than as a general religious studies type of thing. It is no more "unscientific", e.g. "less based in reality" as I suspect you really mean, than your own belief. It is quite alright that you do not believe in God or any being of a higher intelligence, but ruling out the possibility of creation without being able to prove it did not happen...is not science but religion.
Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Creationism is one possible solution to this question, which requires less of an imagination than some of the same lengths jumped to to create the atom bomb.
A belief does not become "unscientific" because it considers the possibility of life's beginnings being an intentional act. It does so when it favors one decision over another based on personal feelings rather than facts which support nor disprove either.
to paraphrase yourself, it's harsh, but that's what it boils down to...

John P.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Low quality?!

C'mon, that's the best stuff I could get while looking busy here at my desk....

This was an edit to seraphim's original post:Even with such low quality images, please note: on the Lucy skull, only the dark portions are actual pieces of fossil they found. The people who did the "reconstruction" of the skull chose to put in a set of human looking teeth, even though there is no evidence of what kind of teeth may have been in that skull. Which would support my above statement that even "scientists" definitely fudge it the way they want it to appear.

If they did the reconstruction using sharp incisors such as found on a chimp skull, it would look pretty much like a chimp skull and that wouldn't help their argument or research grant funding...

Lucy was 3'6" tall, about the same size as a.....

chimpanzee

If you could see the other side of the recreated skull you would see that they had a section of jaw from the incisors (those large pointy teeth on the chimps skull) Back to the first molar. They know for certain the tooth size and dental anthropometrics of the lower jaw and were able to use this info to extrapolate the upper jaw. Again, pictures aren't the best way to do this. A sound understanding of anatomy and accurate measurements are much better judges. Since you insist though.... The skull fragments were the least interesting or mentioned parts of the bones found. The angle of the knee joint was much more relevant as it revealed that the owner of these bones walked upright just like a chimpan...oh, wait...


For all of you armchair anthropologists:

Originally Posted by JohnP

but ruling out the possibility of creation without being able to prove it did not happen...is not science but religion.
John P.

in a like fashion, you can never prove to me that invisible pink unicorns do NOT exist... and yet I'm guessing you take the ID theory much more seriously than invisible pink unicorns? why? they are both equally unprovable with equal amounts of evidence for and against them.

I think what he's trying to say is not that science disproves creationism, (it can't! an omnipotent, invisible deity's actions are inherently unprovable, one way or the other) but that so far, science tends to support evolution.

it's not a complete theory, and maybe it never will be. but what little we have learned is based on rational observation, the scientific method, and empirical study. that's what science class is about. creationism isn't based on any of these things because it CAN'T be. not because it's right or wrong, but because it's just outside the rules of observation and repetition, which are the cornerstones of science.

let me put it this way: science class isn't about absolute truth, it's about the scientific method and what you can learn with it. the theory of evolution belongs in this class, because it's something that's relevant. creationism belongs in a philosophy class because philosophy is about things that you think and feel, not things you can do in a lab. it's no less important for human progress, but it's different. i like apples as much as oranges, but they still aren't the same fruit.

i'm not trying to say that the theory of evolution is more or less correct than the faith (and so it is, and must remain) of creationism. i don't know which one is right. prolly never will with 100% certainty. i have an opinion about which one seems more likely to me, but that's not important to this conversation.

what's important is that science (which, correctly, presents evolution as a THEORY) should remain science, just as philosophy class shouldn't get sidetracked by discussions about differential equations.

one is not (and prolly never will be) demonstrably more correct than the other. but they are different ideas reached by different paths, and so belong in different places in the curriculum.

The issue with evolution versus creationism is not that neither has been proven. There are plenty of scientific theories that have not been proven, yet for which the evidence is sufficiently strong that they are widely accepted. Evolution is one.

Other "theories" that remain unproven include:

1. That smoking causes cancer
2. That large bodies create gravitation that attract other bodies

You get the picture. As another example, the notion that the Earth is roughly spherical in shape remained a theory until December of 1968, when it was proven by Frank Borman and company leaving close Earth orbit and observing, once and for all, that the planet is, indeed, spherical. Prior to that, literally everything pointed to that fact, but we hadn't yet completely eliminated all other possibilities.

The difference between Creationism and Evolution is that there exist scientific tests to demonstrate evolution, where none exists for Creationism. Plain and simple. We demonstrate evolution with fossils, comparison of DNA markers, observation of the changes is species due to environmental factors, etc. To prove Creationism, you'd have to prove the existence of god, and that, my friends, has foiled greater minds than mine. I've studied them all -- the ontological proof, the cosmological proof, the teleological proof, and many others. It can't be done. That's what faith is about.

But science isn't about faith. It's about coming up with a theory, presenting evidence, and then daring all the other scientists to disprove the theory. So far, evolution has stood up.

That's why I think Judeo-Christian creation stories belong in classes other than science. But I think they should be taught, if they can be taught objectively.

Again, many thanks to Russel for his thoughtful and intelligent posts. You da bomb, man.

j

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

...Craig,

You're right, this immediate thread is about creation in a classrom. But the only place the proponents have been trying to put it is in a science class. If the proponents of Creationism or Intelligent Design want to have a class for their material, they should be asking for a religion class or a supernatural alternatives class or something like that.

If it's true, it should be taught as the basis which lies under all other fields of study. I was previously unaware of that statement in bold type above. I went to a school where it was included in every class, but not as core material. It was simply a reference. The debate that most of us are talking about in this thread is probably over something I don't know very much about, I just wanted to throw in my thoughts that the basic idea of creation by a Creator (isn't that Creationism?) ought to be included as a basic reference in every class in school if it is true.

Originally Posted by jockeys

in a like fashion, you can never prove to me that invisible pink unicorns do NOT exist... and yet I'm guessing you take the ID theory much more seriously than invisible pink unicorns? why? they are both equally unprovable with equal amounts of evidence for and against them.

This I'll agree with.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I think what he's trying to say is not that science disproves creationism, (it can't! an omnipotent, invisible deity's actions are inherently unprovable, one way or the other) but that so far, science tends to support evolution.

He may be saying this, but this is not what the debate is about. It isn't whether or not evolution occurs-to me this is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with whether creation occurred. Science also supports basic laws of chemistry, too, but those also do not exclude the possibility of creation. It is like looking at a cake, and saying there is no baker because one has found the oven it was baked in. Evolution does not disprove creationism, and the truly scientific approach is to at least consider the possibility we are not the highest life form in the universe, and perhaps something existing long before we were...initiated life as we know it. Indeed, if life is ever experimentally created, that is exactly what will have happened. It requires no mysticism, only belief in the possibility we are not the only thing. How you choose to approach who or what that creative force is..is probably more the resource for religion, unless said entity becomes blatantly obvious to even the most entrenched people.

Originally Posted by jockeys

it's not a complete theory, and maybe it never will be. but what little we have learned is based on rational observation, the scientific method, and empirical study. that's what science class is about. creationism isn't based on any of these things because it CAN'T be. not because it's right or wrong, but because it's just outside the rules of observation and repetition, which are the cornerstones of science.

Here your logic is just as faulty as Russel's, IMHO. I am not asking you to believe or not to believe. There is no rational observation, empirical study, or any such based on use of the scientific method...supporting the other belief, either...and as such it should not be falsely attributed to the scientific process. It's a hunch that was thought up by an Atheist as a (to him) plausible, not one arrived at by empirical evidence, as there simply is none.
Evolution? sure. Evolution as explanation for initial origin of life? not at all. Creationism has just as much evidential basis as the other theories...making it no less of a "scientific" possibility.

Originally Posted by jockeys

let me put it this way: science class isn't about absolute truth, it's about the scientific method and what you can learn with it. the theory of evolution belongs in this class, because it's something that's relevant. creationism belongs in a philosophy class because philosophy is about things that you think and feel, not things you can do in a lab. it's no less important for human progress, but it's different. i like apples as much as oranges, but they still aren't the same fruit.

I believe this is addressed above, but essentially, if one is to claim creationism (the idea that life was set in motion by the intent of a creative force) is not supported by "the scientific method" then by the same standards, neither is the unprovable idea that all the ingredients for life happened to flow together one day in just the right quantities to not only create life, but reproduce...
Whether or not species adapt, or evolution in its purest sense, is not even a related topic. One might as well say creationism should not be allowed because the scientific method shows that animals shed in the summer. See what I mean here? One not only does not disprove the other, but as an explanation for the origins of life, has no more basis in science than creationism does-and if life ever is created in a lab, creationism will actually have more empirical evidence on its side, not less.
I do believe in evolution in some form, but I also believe in creation. The scientific method you speak of requires one to consider all possibilities-assuming we are the highest life form and nothing could be higher/older/have created us... is the antithesis of the true scientific method you speak of.

Originally Posted by jockeys

i'm not trying to say that the theory of evolution is more or less correct than the faith (and so it is, and must remain) of creationism. i don't know which one is right. prolly never will with 100% certainty. i have an opinion about one seems more likely to me, but that's not important to this conversation.

Again...creationism is not a faith...this is a common misconception. When we are discussing which came first, the chicken or the egg...evolution would be like the study of which tasted better, roasted or fried. It has no bearing on the issue, and indeed evolution simply does not answer the question. Simply because another hypothesis that allows for a previously existing intelligence to have created life as we know it-by definition does not make that hypothesis "unscientific". Alternative explanations have no more evidence, and should not be considered "more scientific".

Originally Posted by jockeys

what's important is that science (which, correctly, presents evolution as a THEORY) should remain science, just as philosophy class shouldn't get sidetracked by discussions about differential equations.

Again, apples, oranges. The discussion was whether creationism should be taught as an explanation for origins of life-which is ALL creationism attempts to do-and as such it is just as much a process of science as other hypotheses attempting to do the same thing without allowing for any being to be greater than ourselves. Philosophy class may delve into what we think that force is or is not, and if it is what that means for us. Creationism simply is an explanation for how everything began, without getting into specifics of who or how.

Originally Posted by jockeys

one is not (and prolly never will be) demonstrably more correct than the other. but they are different ideas reached by different paths, and so belong in different places in the curriculum.

Not really. Neither has empirical evidence to support it as the mechanism for life's beginnings, and in the strictest sense as you or perhaps Russel are claiming, I would argue neither belong in science class-or both do. True science does not allow for ruling out possibilities we do not like considering for no apparent reason. Including the possible existence of an entity which intentionally created life.
After all we now believe in quantum theory...which requires things to be in two places at once instantaneously...we believe it a law of science that matter can neither be created nor destroyed...we even believe in gravity. We don't however, know why those are, how they work, or in the case of gravity...truly *what* they are. We have theories, sure...but we don't know. All of these require belief in something not necessarily provable (how do WE know matter has always been here...but we accept it). We even consider the possibility of particles that exist in more than one dimension or only one...things we can't quite explain....
So why then does it suddenly become "unscientific" to consider perhaps...we shouldn't rule out this whole mess being designed by a force/entity/being...that we equally don't understand? It's no less appropriate for science class than the very amusing electric charge through protein soup experiment. It doesn't even have to contradict evolution. THAT part of things would come down to religion. Some religions believe evolution is possible others refuse to consider it. Personal take is even a devout belief in evolution, as opposed to the "soup" theory proposed by those unable to fathom existence of any being greater than themselves, is completely compatible with creationism. Perhaps a few religions would take issue with it, but then...
Religion is not what this discussion was about, anyway


John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Russel,
again you make wrong assumptions here! None of the proponents, self included are trying to say it belongs in a "science class" but are rather countering your own faulty argument that your own favorite explanation, equally unproven does belong there at its exclusion.

To start with, Evolution belongs in a science class because it's a scientific theory, developed by scientists. There are many theories that are "unproven" that are taught in the highest levels of science class possible, doctorate programs. For example, since we were talking about relativity earlier, the concept of "frame dragging" is when an extremely massive body is rotating at such a rate that it actually bends the shape of space-time around it, it literally drags the fabric of space with it as it rotates. This is even more foreign to common sense and has even less hands on proof than Evolution, yet it is almost unchallenged because there isn't a popularized alternative version to rival it.

This is the essence of a Scientific Theory, it's the best answer that science has to offer and thus is the one that is taught.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I am making the statement, that if creationism is not allowed because it has not been proven, then neither should (whatever your pet theory is) be allowed. You have been bending over backwards to prove it does NOT belong in a science class, but all of the arguments against creationism can also be made against the primordial soup/lightning bolt/swamp gas theory you ascribe to. It is not proven and likely never will be. In fact even if life is successfully created in a lab...it will only demonstrate the creation of life.

You will be hard pressed to find myself, or any of the current experts on Evolution actually subscribing to the primordial soup/lightning bolt/swamp gas theory, in fact I can't recall ever promoting that here. The mechanism that is more reasonably accepted is the stability of bond types in the chemistry of DNA, some kind of charge might have been helpful but it could easily have been static electricity.

And yes I've been claiming that Creation doesn't belong in a science class, but the same arguments cannot be made against Evolution because the the arguments against creation are that it invokes an answer that can never be tested or examined, whereas the natural mechanisms behind Evolution and possibly the origins of life can be.

You may find this experiment interesting, I just stumbled on to it, more to come if I can find details: Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They took some chemicals that would have been present on the early Earth and stimulated the formation of organic compounds and amino acids. It's admittedly not the final answer but it shows that conditions that were present on Earth could have caused life to form in it's rudimentary early forms.

Originally Posted by JohnP

A belief does not become "unscientific" because it considers the possibility of life's beginnings being an intentional act. It does so when it favors one decision over another based on personal feelings rather than facts which support nor disprove either.
to paraphrase yourself, it's harsh, but that's what it boils down to...

John P.

You've just used another strawman, John, my feelings are not wrapped up in Evolution, nor are anyone else's in any other scientific theory. If it were disproved by accurate scientific means, than we'd all be joyous because that means an even better theory has been determined. This is the march of science, use the best knowledge you've got to get to better stuff.

A belief most certainly does become unscientific if you invoke and intelligent designer that isn't some alien in the known universe, because that implies the supernatural. There is no gray area, science does not deal with the supernatural. Reality may turn out to be very strange, but there will always be a testable, observable, predictable, natural mechanism at work in a scientific theory.

If you can show that the designer is a natural entity that is bound by the laws of the natural universe, than you are perfectly fine to claim that studying his methods is a scientific endeavor. And that may prove to be superior to our current hypotheses, I'd be more than open to that as a solution.

For those that have said Evolution is undocumented, or unproven (as much of an oxymoron as that is when talking about scientific theories), I would like to ask that we take a break from that point to do some hard and fast research because it's just not true.

Here's a quick page on speciation (the technical term for a species that has broken off from it's most recent ancestor in some genetic characteristic): Observed Instances of Speciation go down to point 5 for some examples. I'm sure it's not the best source on the net, but it's what a quick google search picked up.

and another quick one: Ecology

one more: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0501_tiktaalik

Not to mention the example of the snake; you mean to tell me that an animal was designed to slither like a snake, but it's skeleton has tiny nonfunctional thigh and femur bones? That is Evolution at work.

God just had extra bones left over from his horse kit so he stuck them in the snake.