Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by Seraphim

ScottS, here is the answer to your question:


Belief in the unknown & unprovable? Is that science?



Furthermore, what the guy is doing is taking already formed genetic material, and providing a place for it to combine. He's making genetic chop-suey, not creating anything new from scratch. The important elements (the nucleic acids) he is using are there to begin with.

It's unknown and unprovable, but an extension of the observable. Show me someone rising from the dead, and I promise I'll do all I can to get creationism taught in science class.

Scott, I snapped this photo a few years ago. See what you can do

Originally Posted by xman

We've had discussions like this before and morality is relative. It doesn't make one immoral that that is so. Neither does it make one immoral who accepts that fact. And the slope is only as slippery as the circumstances.

X

Nice link, I love those kinds of experiments.



Lee, that was obviously made in photoshop, nice try.

Originally Posted by xman

We've had discussions like this before and morality is relative. It doesn't make one immoral that that is so. Neither does it make one immoral who accepts that fact. And the slope is only as slippery as the circumstances.

X

Interesting link, thanks.

In item #1, it is used as a justification debate for abotion. So, in reality the person lying in the bed next to you is not just a world famous violinist, but your child.

Item #2: why not just tell the people to get out of the way?

#3: Neither you, nor a fat man will stop a runaway trolley.

#4: You guys screwed up by lettting Big Jack go first!

I think it's remarkable how the writers of those experiments know what will happen if someone chooses A, and what will happen if someone chooses B instead

They should apply their crystal ball toward more profitable endeavors. For example, they could give it to me

#1 Don't kill the guy, that's your obligation. If you know he'll live, stay there
#2 Don't kill anyone in this situation. Use your available time and energy to find another way to stop the trolley from killing anyone
#3 Don't kill anyone in this situation. Use your available time and energy to find another way to stop the trolley from killing anyone
#4 Don't kill anyone here either.

Why do the writers assume I can play God but don't suggest prayer?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I think it's remarkable how the writers of those experiments know what will happen if someone chooses A, and what will happen if someone chooses B instead

How do you mean?

Originally Posted by ScottS

No, not the autogenesis of life theory, not at all. Evolution describes how life changes, not how life came to be. We don't have a great model for the genesis of life, but we're not going to teach a fairy tale about it in a science class. If someone asks, we can say "we don't know".

Haven't been able to post for awhile, but thanks for basically making my point. If one is considered in any way a "fairy tale" because there is no evidence proving it, then the other should also be considered similarly, until there is evidence to prove it.

Hence my feeling that it is not genuine to put one of the other theories in a science class and leave out creation. Especially since, like it or not, creation as a theory already is plausible-hey we already believe in energy/matter having always existed, and objects that can be in two places at once...while other theories keep promising to be "close" but have so far not succeeded.

Perhaps someone will use laboratory techniques to create a living thing at one point, but in my opinion, creating something does not prove that it was not created the first time around, no matter how random and "natural" the situations surrounding the occurrence(s).

Evolution experiments or the like may or may not prove evolution occurs, however it is not evolution itself I personally have an issue with, but the fact that as soon as the word "creationism" is spoken, some suddenly feel "evolution" is being attacked; Evolution has nothing to do with how life started, and IMHO should be excluded from the debate as irrelevant.

Other theories, however, often are lumped under the same title even though they are not truly evolution, but something different altogether. It is these theories that IMHO have no higher scientific value than creationism. There is so far no way to prove them, either. There is therefore nothing unscientific about creationism-the theory works after all.

Assuming an intelligent being/force/God/whatever created the first life forms on Earth and actually wanted them to survive(intent)-it isn't completely implausible to me that the life forms would have been programmed to process fuel (eat...and generate waste), reproduce, and perhaps even adapt(a bone for the evolutionists, even)ESPECIALLY if the creative act was done by a being of great, or even supreme intelligence. It would make sense having such things preprogrammed intentionally into the nucleus of the cell, and very normal chemical processes would be made use of to bring this about, not magic, by such a creator.

Even my Ford runs on gasoline, not any mystical substance from the ether.

It disturbs me then, that somehow many think that creationism is "unscientific" when it makes no claims which are not feasible possibilities, in these days of supercolliders and high energy particle physics and things we believe exist but have never seen. The other theories, on the other hand, typically have "promising evidence" while attempting to prove no creation was involved, (so far inconclusively) and changing so many variables in the supposed "way the planet must have been back then" petri dish, that if anything, these ideas are even more hocus pocus IMHO than creation is.

The idea, therefore, that such theories have more credence in a classroom (science or otherwise) than basic creationism is a false one. Both or Neither.

The idea that "creationism" is a religion is also false-it is simply a theory. Religions are belief systems, which in turn usually claim their version of creation, e.g. "how" it happened, was performed by their particular deit(ies). It is this that is the defining difference, IMHO.
The belief without conclusive proof that absolutely it was done this way by this deity, or conversely the just as absolute belief that no deity or preexisting force could have done this, as no such being exists(equally unprovable) are what constitutes religious beliefs.

Creation is one explanation to how all the right chemicals, DNA programs, etc. all occurred at the right time-quite a few times, apparently, in a manner leading to life forms which all reproduce, seek to survive, etc.

Abiogenesis is another theory which seeks to explain the same thing-put the right chemicals all in the right sequences, in the right place, to create all of these things.

While one can choose whichever he believes, neither has more "scientific" basis than the other. Personally, many of the experiments for abiogenesis are interesting, but only serve as demonstrations of how creation might have been accomplished-like learning the physics of fire, for instance-has nothing to do with who started it, only how it could have been started.


Otherwise, there are a lot of questions that are not answered by the random soup theories; to me they are essentially similar to shaking a box of model airplane parts with an opened tube of glue (never mind where those came from) and when parts stick together, claiming this could soon prove "this is how model airplanes are made "(and in turn, claiming it somehow proves model airplanes are not built by modelers, our "creator" in this analogy).

Originally Posted by Seraphim

As far as I remember there was mention made in science class back at school about the old
primordial soup and lightning bolt, possibly UV radiation, mumble...mumble...amino acids forming in a beaker, mumble, mumble...it somehow came to be...

In other words, it is not taught as a "fairy tale" but rather as science fiction, with no supportive evidence.

The natural selection portion of evolution does have soem supportive evidence, and as such can be taught as science. But when it comes to the origns of it all, it fares no better than creation stories.

Thank you...
My feelings essentially, but posted much more succinctly.

Hope you gents have a great weekend.


John P.

"Creationism" with a capital C is the idea that the world was created a short time ago (the classic, accepted date is September 21, 4004 B.C.E), and that every species that ever existed was created in the six days that followed. Any species that went extinct was probably lost in the Flood, and geological features we see such as glacial deposits, mountains, canyons, etc., were also formed then.

"Intelligent Design" is the idea that the earth may be very old, but it was created and its processes designed by a deity. ID normally accepts evolution as a mechanism of god.

According to numerous surveys, more people in the U.S. ascribe to Creationism than to ID.

j

Jim,
That specific understanding of creation would indeed be a religious teaching as it assumes numerical information from one specific religious text and uses that as its basis. However it is my opinion that such is not a distinction made for this argument, and indeed in its purest sense "creationism" would merely imply belief in creation. ID is just one version of it, as I understand. Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but that would be the standard usage of the language. Of course, I've been wrong before, and "gay" used to mean the same thing as "happy".
Ultimately it will be very difficult for it to be proven that life came to pass without creation, just as it is difficult to prove that it came about WITH the same. Therefore without specifying which version of creation would be the correct one, it would be feasible IMHO to teach it on an equal basis with other theories for how life began. Arguing about who or what a possible creator may be or have been-gets into philosophy and religion; the act of creation, however it may have come to pass, is just a theory researchable as any other, e.g. we will find evidence it could have happened this way, or that, but I doubt seriously we will find conclusive evidence in favor of either under current situations which would convince opposing viewpoints. I may see a castle on a hill and wonder who built it or when it was built, how the stones got there...and others will say "Look! what a pretty rock formation!"...

If the version of creation you refer to, Jim, is the only version of creationism being considered, then perhaps it does not belong in the same way, and is in the same boat as theories which automatically, based on no proof, assume the nonexistence of a creator(s). It is a religious belief-as it is a specific methodology of creation which is applicable to certain religious beliefs only; and makes assumptions we cannot support one way or the other. Creation itself, is not.

It sure is fun to argue about though.


John P.

The "Creationism" that is the subject of numerous school curriculum debates refers to the Creation Story according to the book of Genesis, which is normally construed as I outlined above (with some variations).

The date was one of several that was calculated from the various time spans starting at Adam and leading down to the establishment of Israel, at which point the Bible refers to events that can be historically dated. The 4004 B.C.E. date is the most commonly accepted, I believe.

j