Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Experiments have shown the building blocks of life forming as a result of known chemical interactions, this is supportive of abiogenesis.

There has never been a sighting of creation occurring in even the simplest building blocks, thus creation is not supported by empirical evidence.

Russel-by "building blocks of life" meaning amino acids? this is a far cry from "life" and does not prove at any rate unless you think the only way "creation" can have occurred is to rely on "magic", it really doesn't prove anything for or against. These are no more empirical evidence "in support of" abiogenesis any more than they are for creation, as they result in a chemical-not life. Refer to above arguments; natural action can dry mud. It takes a builder to turn it into a house.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The previous linked polymer experiment says that they " may be elongated indefinitely by repeated cycles in which the mineral with its adsorbed oligomers is first incubated with activated monomers and then washed free of deactivated monomer and side-products"

That is self replication of organic material by a natural mechanism, organic material that is found nowhere but in living beings, thus it is supportive evidence of abiogenesis being possible.

Please provide the link again, perhaps I've just ran right over it. At any rate the italicized portion of your quote sure looks like a lot of outside influence (I won't say "creation" as that upsets you) taking place to me.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

No, because you are still equivocating on the word "creation".

If you mean that the workings of nature, as in the manner in which chemicals bond and interact, then sure creation can be credited.

But that is neither how creation was intended nor is it how the main proponents of the theory use it. It was intended and is used to mean that no natural process could result in life, which has never been supported.

Russel, just because you prefer to only argue against your personal version of "creation" does not mean that is what everyone believes in. Otherwise we can constantly change the rules; perhaps others have mocked one version or another of creation, but I have sided with none so far, only to point out that with the current evidence available, it could have happened. Hence my previous demonstration that teaching such need not fan out into speculation as to who or what performed the creative act.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

If you had looked at their website you would have seen that your argument is absolutely false. MANY members of the ISSR believe creation and put their (well respected) name on books that address it.

Yet, they realize that it is not a scientifically valid explanation.

Forgive me for not studying your website link; I was still looking for the one about polymers reproducing, apparently. At any rate, it is also apparent you did not read the links I put forward which delve into the probabilities involved, so....no harm no foul?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Your analogy is also incorrect, the ISSR was not formed by like minded individuals for the purpose of espousing their common beliefs, but exactly the opposite, people of diverse backgrounds and belief systems who have come together to promote the advancement of true science AND true religious studies, in whatever form they may take.

Ahem. If you say so. You recently posted that it had made a blanket statement, which is not exactly the position taken by an organization such as you claim it to be.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Why is it that time is never taken into consideration?

Read my posts. Perhaps some of the links. Time is the very thing that if any thing, is in favor of creation-unless you wish to imply abiogenesis started somewhere else prior to the existence of this planet, and was carried forward....? The age of the planet is not infinity, at any rate, and there is only so much time in which the things abiogenesis claims could have taken place.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

From the results that we have achieved, there would need to be a sufficient amount of time for more building blocks to form, and from there DNA and from there proto-organelle structures that could be conglomerated into simple cells and possibly form life.

While I question the probability of this happening, why then is it so difficult to imagine this could have been put in motion by an outside force....? Because, honestly-you don't know it did not, nor can I prove to you that it did. Hence my opinion that schools should not "side" with either of these theories over the other.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

It's completely ignoring the way experimentation works to claim that since results are not absolutely, completely, totally, unequivocally proven for the entire process that the basic theory is unsupported.

Russel...so far the experiments you've linked to are inconclusive at best, and can be claimed to support either of the two leading theories. It isn't therefore that your theory is completely unsupported, but that the same evidence can be used to claim the same thing about creation. Therefore your argument that creation should be barred based on experimentation, empirical evidence, or "science" is faulty.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Well, I'll assume you don't really believe the entire scientific community is gullible enough to buy into a theory because it's name sounds cool.

But seriously, you have not understood the word "evidence" in the way that is necessary for having these kinds of discussions. In science, evidence is anything that gives the theory credence. It has been shown that organic matter can form naturally, therefore abiogenesis is "supported". No, abiogenesis has not been proven to result in "life", but the few experiments that we've had time to cary out have supported it's hypothesis, which is more than can be said for creation.

Again, Russel, "organic matter" can be described as any carbon-based compound. This is a far cry from creating "life". It is interesting that every time any of these compounds have been created in a lab, they had to be created by the researcher applying the right conditions to them....therefore your "evidence" does not support your theory to the exclusion you seem to think it does.
Your mind is closed. This is obvious. Personally? I don't know for sure but have seen so far nothing ruling creation out, and no evidence so far proving life is something that would happen on its own without outside influence.
Until evidence is brought forward that no outside influence was involved in life's beginnings, the rest is pretty much inconclusive. No amount of belittling my supposed lack of understanding of "scientific terms" changes that, either. I am not a scientist, (in college I studied engineering-not the same thing) but neither are you. Even were you or I a high and exalted "scientist" such as apparently both our siblings are, I would question the closed minded nature of your arguments; not in that they claim support for your theories, but because they rule out all other possibilities.
You've done a valiant job supporting your theory, and honestly, I don't seek to disprove it, only to point out that the evidence out there supports neither theory more than the other, and therefore as such both theories should be allowed in the classroom. This in no way threatens your theory which, by the way is already being taught, so it is difficult to see where the problem is wrt allowing consideration that this was all done on purpose, as well.

Originally Posted by JohnP

[Snip]

...both theories should be allowed in the classroom. This in no way threatens your theory which, by the way is already being taught, so it is difficult to see where the problem is wrt allowing consideration that this was all done on purpose, as well.

Agreed, as long as we also agree that abiogenesis should be taught in science class, since it is framed scientifically, it forms a coherent scientific hypothesis, and major parts of it are already proven scientifically; and that theistic creation should be taught in other classes, such as philosophy, religion, literature, social studies, etc., since it is not proposed scientifically and, so far, at least, is not subject to scientific proof.

j

Originally Posted by JohnP

This in no way threatens your theory which, by the way is already being taught, so it is difficult to see where the problem is wrt allowing consideration that this was all done on purpose, as well.

Calling creationism a "theory" in the scientific sense, and teaching it that way, indeed threatens the education of rational thought. It is not a scientific theory. Do label it so causes inaccuracies and misconceptions in the education of the scientific method.

From Wikipedia

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

A theory is testable. It makes no difference how wacky the experiment is-- it can even be a thought experiment. Under that framework, I can take a species, split it into two groups, present each with different environmental challenges, and test the theory of evolution given enough time-- even billions of years is OK.

What is your thought experiment that tests creationism or intelligent design??

Creationism a theory based on ancient hearsay. Maybe in a thousand years they will be looking for the giant shark that lives off the coast near Amity Island or searching for the Hobbits.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Your mind is closed. This is obvious.

On that note, I think I'll be taking a break from this thread, apologies are in order if anyone was offended by my statements.

Russel,
Apologies if I went overboard there. At any rate, this is an unwinnable argument for both of us; I cannot prove to you creation occurred any more than you can prove it did not, and likewise, it really isn't up to you or I if such is taught in a school, we each have our opinions which quite obviously are not changing.
It's been a great time arguing with you, please don't take the jabs personally; I think both of us probably are about as easy to argue with as a wall....
Scott-likewise; as neither idea has conclusive evidence to support...honestly neither of us can by your definition claim our belief as a "theory". Great fun debating.

Best to all you gents

John P.

Education ought to be a private matter.

Unfortunately, it is not. Differing accounts of the origins of life should be taught across the full spectrum of studies. This is a question that can not be answered in science class alone. Educators should encourage discussion on this issue.

The present situation, where "evolution", understood here as a atheistic account of the origins of life, has become sacrosanct is unacceptable. The hostility so often displayed towards competing ideas, especially Christian ideas, is disgusting. It seems contrary to the spirit of education.

How is education suppose to be "a private matter" considering we are talking about public education, which by name alone makes it not private?

The problem comes from a group of Christians that think they speak for everyone else. I'm a Christian, I do not believe in strict Creation, I also don't believe the story of Noah and his arc, nor the fact that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale. The problem with these strict Christians is their Theocratic designs, lets face that what is a;; really about. The radical fundamentalist Christian are no different than the radical fundamentalist Muslims, they would love to turn schools into the Christian equivalent of a Madrasa. They have no use for the secular society that we live in which includes science, which is secular in nature not atheistic.

I don't like your tone, sir.

How is education suppose to be "a private matter" considering we are talking about public education, which by name alone makes it not private?

English is not your first language, is it? I said, "Education OUGHT to be a private matter." Next time, read what I said before you shoot off your mouth.

The problem comes from a group of Christians that think they speak for everyone else. I'm a Christian, I do not believe in strict Creation, I also don't believe the story of Noah and his arc, nor the fact that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale. The problem with these strict Christians is their Theocratic designs, lets face that what is a;; really about. The radical fundamentalist Christian are no different than the radical fundamentalist Muslims, they would love to turn schools into the Christian equivalent of a Madrasa. They have no use for the secular society that we live in which includes science, which is secular in nature not atheistic.

The problem comes from people, on both sides, including yourself, who don't understand that not everybody shares their worldview and the account of the origins of life that comes with said worldview. Science is not the be all and end all, it can not answer the questions of the origins of life alone. This discussion must take place across the full spectrum of studies and all ideas must be heard, especially those so widely held by the people.

That's a good point Whig, things like this should be discussed in school. I have said many times that religious views should be given air-time as well, and I truly believe that there needs to be an environment for sharing those views in public schools.

But the problem, as it has been addressed in the case of academia, is that creationism has not been shown to be a scientific theory.

And there shouldn't be any insult taken from that statement, creation is a view that is just separate from the scientific process. There's no insult in a statement like "chemistry should not be taught in an art class" and the same applies for creation in a science class, right?

Does that address the issue as you see it?