Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by JohnP

No data or empirical evidence exists to support evolution (in the form you seem to ascribe to) as the explanation for life's beginnings.

First off, I have yet to say that I ascribe to any one theory, I have presented a few scenarios that are plausible and supported by test experiments (though, again, we're talking about repeating around a billion years of natural processes in less than 100 years of understanding the chemistry of genetics) but you have made up your mind on what I believe for yourself.

I just made the point that there have been theories that are being evaluated and have given positive results for the idea that the building blocks of life can form in the same way that ordinary molecules bond to form water or steel.

Like this one, if you weren't moved by the Miller-Urrey experiment: Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduct...[Orig Life Evol Biosph. 1998] - PubMed Result they say that amino acids can form as a result of mineral interactions.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Russel, I know this, and it is really my point. Your discussion seems to be aimed at proving there is evidence for evolution. However the thread is not about evolution. It is about whether or not creationism-a hypothetical explanation for initial origin of life-should be also allowed.

John, I'm providing these references because your argument is that Creation should be given equal footing as Evolution because they are equally "unproven" as scientific theories.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop asking why I'm defending this, when you insist on continuing to attack it.

The links I've provided show that Evolution is being rigorously tested as a scientific theory with positive data resulting from those tests. Whereas Creationism is a theory that cannot be tested, so it is innately not on the same footing as evolution in an educational environment. (since we've been talking about the validity of the two theories)

Originally Posted by JohnP

This is the "primordial soup" experiment I've referred to in other posts, in fact. Were they to do the same thing and *life* were the result, which then replicated itself....such could be empirical evidence; Regardless, with many, many researchers studying this, none have created life, even today-the Miller-Urey experiment was done decades-over half a century-ago.

Therefore, since there is zero empirical evidence of life occurring without outside help, I see nothing at all wrong with allowing creationism to be addressed in schools,on an equal basis with the other theory which requires just as much faith in just the right combination quite a few times...

Both or neither, with neither receiving preferential billing. Empirically, as it concerns the answer to the age old question of how life began, soup has nothing on creation as far as true advantage scientifically.

I've provided another link that does an experiment on Abiogenesis (the study of how life could arise by a natural mechanism) in the above post.

You keep asking to see the empirical data of life occurring, but your completely ignoring the positive results of a valid experiment which points in that direction. You can't claim something is unevaluated just because the evidence isn't complete enough for you, evaluation is evaluation.

So now, two sources (more to come, give me some time) have shown that the building blocks of life can arise naturally, at what point do you stop arguing that there's no evidence?

I don't intend to say that your beliefs are wrong, I believe anyone can hold any belief they want, but when you attack the underpinnings of a highly accepted and tested theory, you'll have to excuse me for defending it, especially since there is evidence out there just waiting to be discovered if you want to look.

I want to reaffirm that this isn't a personal grip whatsoever, I really do respect your obviously formidable train of thought and ability to have these debates objectively, thanks John.

-Russel

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

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.

Not in a public school, thank you. Again, this is forcing religion in a secular setting. Parochial schools are another story entirely.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

John, I'm providing these references because your argument is that Creation should be given equal footing as Evolution because they are equally "unproven" as scientific theories.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop asking why I'm defending this, when you insist on continuing to attack it.

No quarter will be given!!!
Russel, as soon as you stop using an unrelated theory as a reason creationism does not belong in schools, I will stop attacking your own premise that said unrelated theory does belong there.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The links I've provided show that Evolution is being rigorously tested as a scientific theory with positive data resulting from those tests. Whereas Creationism is a theory that cannot be tested, so it is innately not on the same footing as evolution in an educational environment. (since we've been talking about the validity of the two theories)

You have posted links in which various researchers were studying the theory, and indeed some which showed gene mutations; however while I have reservations as to whether all gene mutations are in fact "adaptions" and not degeneration of a species due to outside influences applied by the researchers. Your continued posting of this experiment seeking to prove evolution or the other is well and good, however that has never been what this debate is about. Even if species are shown to adapt-I could just as well tell you they were designed to do so. So really your argument somewhat misses the point. If I say a man was killed by a gun, the "species evolve" argument is like saying "well, studies have shown sharp pointy objects can be dangerous". At least, as far as I see it.

It is also interesting that when someone has a deep set belief in something, he or she will tend to try finding proof for it. You could perhaps point at my assertion that creation has every bit as much right to the classroom as other theories-yet I could also refer to your own links, etc. which are indeed examples of researchers actually attempting to recreate what they already believe in a lab, never mind even if they were to discover it, they would have proven nothing.

Discovering a possible method in which something could have been done-and then artificially generating that condition in a laboratory-only demonstrates that such is a possible method it could have been done.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I've provided another link that does an experiment on Abiogenesis (the study of how life could arise by a natural mechanism) in the above post.

You keep asking to see the empirical data of life occurring, but your completely ignoring the positive results of a valid experiment which points in that direction. You can't claim something is unevaluated just because the evidence isn't complete enough for you, evaluation is evaluation.

So now, two sources (more to come, give me some time) have shown that the building blocks of life can arise naturally, at what point do you stop arguing that there's no evidence?

Russel....as to the studies on abiogenesis-they only prove some of the same chemicals of life may be potentially replicated in a natural environment. This proves nothing, except to those who seek to read into it. If one wishes to use the same to prove life was generated without external influence-he can point, as you do, and say "Look! Compounds similar to those in life!". I would simply respond, "yes, but are they alive?"
The answer has always been no. If someone finally does succeed in creating life, I suspect it will prove no more than that humans, with a little help, knowledge of exactly which components in which order are needed, were able to generate a simple life form. Probably only a duplicate of one already created. This is a far cry from "natural processes" creating the same, and is in fact, only another act of creation.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I don't intend to say that your beliefs are wrong, I believe anyone can hold any belief they want, but when you attack the underpinnings of a highly accepted and tested theory, you'll have to excuse me for defending it, especially since there is evidence out there just waiting to be discovered if you want to look.

I want to reaffirm that this isn't a personal grip whatsoever, I really do respect your obviously formidable train of thought and ability to have these debates objectively, thanks John.

-Russel

Russel, thanks for your first point; I am not saying your theories are wrong or indeed that they are right-but if you will, the argument was first made implying that extentions to the theory of evolution were practically "fact" and already proven...and therefore those theories should be taught at the exclusion of that of creation. So if anything, I am defending creation by pointing out a few of the holes that have not been filled in alternative theories. Creationism was attacked first, IMHO not necessarily by you personally-and evolution, which I see as an unrelated theory-was used as some sort of "magic hammer" to somehow prove creation both never happened, and indeed did not belong at school other than in mythology class. Which act it fails to do if one only looks closely. An open mind, even to those who feel their studies are at the forefront of science-is always advisable. Evidence should indeed be sought, however we should also take discoveries at face value, and not attempt to read into them something which is not present. Abiogenesis experiments, for instance, have created some interesting compounds, but never life. I would also point out that we ourselves, let alone one cell organisms, are not made of pixie dust, but plain, old, compounds probably found in the bottom of a swamp. Organizing them into a life form has not been done-but if it occurs...does it prove that life as we know it just happened by luck (the odds are pretty astronomic against it even considering the generally suspected age of our planet-of course someone does win the lottery once in awhile too) or does it simply prove that the creation of life can be replicated?

We may never know enough to truly refute each other's arguments as to which is how life actually began, as there are many difficult to comprehend ideas required to believe in both which get into high level physics-and even they don't really know the answers. What hopefully I have demonstrated, is that no one theory has few enough holes in it to bar the other from schools or to banish it into a mythology class. Both could easily point to the same evidence in many cases (either "see? these chemicals are the same as in life!" or "see? here's one way it could have been done"

Creationism, therefore is no less "scientific" than other theories; there are simply more people seeking to prove the others, or show that they too are believable. The classroom is not the place (IMHO) for teaching the validity of theories, but rather for addressing them, and allowing the students (should they become involved in science) to make their own minds. Otherwise we are in the business of choosing sides in the classroom when that is not the business of education, but to help the students do so for themselves.
It's been an excellent discussion so far, thanks!


John P.

John is there one pieces of "scientific" evidence that supports creationism, if not then it is "less scientific" than evolution.

Just a question what would a "science" curriculum teach about creationism, God created everything, he did it in a way so that we can't prove it any questions (silence and crickets chirping). What would you teach in the other 45 minutes of the 1 hour class?

Originally Posted by uofi1963

Not in a public school, thank you. Again, this is forcing religion in a secular setting. Parochial schools are another story entirely.

Maybe it's the other way around - maybe the way it is now is forcing secularism in a religious setting. The Creator has been acknowledged time and again by the federal government since its inception until now so I don't see what's wrong with acknowledging the Creator in school.

"A" Creator or "The" Creator?

John, you said "Even if species are shown to adapt-I could just as well tell you they were designed to do so."

Okay, here's the acid test -- the test that evolution passes.

The test is simple: Devise an experiment or theorize physical evidence that would prove that your assertion is true. Test your assertion. Publish your results (assuming they prove at least part of your theory) and ask other scientists to test it also to see if your results hold up.

You don't even have to prove your assertion completely, as long as you find some physical evidence that proves at least part of your point.

Until you can do that, your assertion does, in fact, belong in mythology class.

j

(if you don't mind the sidetracked conversation)

You have a point John: what is life?

How does one differentiate between things like amino acids, protein bases, organic polymers, other compounds that only have a use in living beings, and unintelligent life that does nothing but carry out simple chemical processes like archaebacteria, or algae.

Because the organic polymers that developed via natural mineral interactions were self propagating, which is a simple chemical process.

I mean, it can be said that we haven't seen "life" beginning, but again, it'd be jumping the gun to say that it's impossible because we haven't had nearly enough time to make all of the steps that might turn those building blocks into simple organisms (archaebacteria are dated at approx. 3.5 billion years old).

So, it's not so much that I'm determined to believe life occurs without a kick-start, it's just that it'd be illogical to rule anything out at this point. And if you'll look back at my previous posts, I've acknowledged the possibility of a creator that set things in motion and that evolution is just one of the steps in his design.

Hutch has a good point as well, suppose creation is taught in schools, what would you like the curriculum to look like? I mean, how would creation be taught in a scientific manner?

If it were me, I'd leave it as it is; a part of many religious traditions to be studied in the context it was intended to be.

Umm...where did the Creator come from and what set of scientific principles exist to explain how the Creator came into being?

Also, if we're going to teach creationism alongside evolution, what about the alternative theory that the world rotates on the backs of giant turtles? Should the giant turtle theory also be included as an alternative to the unproven theory about the solar system?