Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by jockeys

1. perhaps, but it does so with theories and methods that the "religion" allows to be debated, experimented upon and changed over time to suit the current wisdom.
2. maybe. but religious believers aren't using the scientific method, at all, because the belief is completely unscientific. it's based on nothing but ancient texts, and by its very definition, can't be scientifically examined.
3. neither side has a COMPLETE proof. a complete proof is impossible by the very definition of scientific provability. to scientifically prove something, repetition and observation are required. neither of these things are logistically possible. the difference, at least to my eyes, is that proponents of evolution have continued to expand, granularize and refine their theory over the years as they have learned more. this is the very definition of scientific study. the ID crowd seems to just toe the party line, unmodified, for the last several thousand years by claiming that their chosen deity defies rational explanation and therefore cannot be studied. additionally, (warning: anecdotal evidence based on personal experience) it seems that some ID proponents even preach that questioning and doubting will get you an eternity of the most awful, inhuman torture. the evolution proponents actively solicit questions and doubts, as studying them makes their theory stronger, and helps them correct it when they find a flaw.

ymmv

I disagree with this assertion. Evolution proponents are just as zealous as the religious believers in defending "their turf".

In Georgia, there was a lawsuit to remove a sticker from textbooks that said simply this:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Is that so unreasonable a disclaimer?

So again, both sides are quite touchy when you question their beliefs...

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I disagree with this assertion. Evolution proponents are just as zealous as the religious believers in defending "their turf".
So again, both sides are quite touchy when you question their beliefs...

maybe i've just been lucky. as i stated, it was anecdotal evidence. most of the evolution fans i've met were in academic settings, and were very courteous, reasonable, and professional. none of them had a problem with people questioning them. i'm sure there are many evolution proponents that are irrational jerks. i haven't met any yet, but i'm pretty sure they exist.

on the other hand, i've never had an evolution proponent tell me i'm going to burn forever in hell for my ideas about how life began. maybe it's because the only ID fans i've known were extremely religious, irrational and downright hateful. i'm sure there exist ID proponents that are not like that. but i have yet to meet one in my daily wanderings.

like i said, ymmv.

If neither can be proven maybe neither should be taught.

I thought the idea behind school was to bring out the ability to discover for oneself instead of instructing them on what they should discover!

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

If neither can be proven maybe neither should be taught.

And if the kids start asking questions about where we came from, the teacher can retort:

"I'll ask the questions here, Mister!

2 hours detention!"

Originally Posted by JMS

I thought the idea behind school was to bring out the ability to discover for oneself instead of instructing them on what they should discover!

Now they just teach to the MCAS tests.

Originally Posted by Milton Man

I never wade into these discussions, but here I go with great trepidation.

I believe the reason that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools is that schools (at least where I come from) are state run, and as such, should not be biased towards one religion or the other. In fact, I believe in the total separation of church and state, so there's my bias immediately.

If creationism should be taught in schools, then so should the religious origin theories from other religions, including Buddhism, Islam, Wicanism, Taoism, etc. Why privilege one religion over another in a publicly run school? It's the slippery slope that leads me to believe that no religious origin theories should be taught.

Just my $0.02...FWIW

Mark

Hi Mark (and I know I skipped a few posts, I'll look at those as I go along)


My first issue with your premise, is that evolution is just as unproven as a mechanism for origin of life as is creationism.
Both arguments can say, "well, We're here, there's your proof" yet leave much unexplained. So far there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any conclusive evidence that evolution occurs, although I imagine it might.

You show me two similar skeletons and I could argue that they are indeed two separate, coexisting species, and barring that, I could argue that it is the same species, adapting to its environment exactly as it was designed to do. What is missing from the theory of evolution is an explanation for the origins of life. Creationism is one such possible explanation. See what I mean? barring one theory when the other has holes in it makes no sense.


Another issue I believe makes this appropriate for schools, creationism is no more a religion than evolution is. Both require one to believe in something without actual proof.

Both are quite believable depending on one's ideas of the cosmos itself. Christianity, Buddhism, that sort of thing? those are religions. Creationism is not a religion in and of itself, but is simply the idea that life as we know it was created by an intelligent force. Whether one believes he or she should worship that force or any other thing to seek its benevolence, is "religion".

Therefore creationism is in the same category as those believing life just "happened". Both seek to explain the unexplainable.

Removing creationism as a possible explanation to the origins of life in public schools would also out of fairness require the removal of evolution as an explanation, as neither have been proven scientifically to be the origin.

creatures can adapt to a point, but also think that is quite easily explained by design as much as statistical trial and error. For crying out loud, automotive engineers already have cars that shift gears automatically or turn on traction control.
I believe evolution is feasible, but so is creation. Both have the same amount of proof, or one could argue, lack of proof.
Evolution does not explain the origins of life and therefore, in my opinion the two are not mutually exclusive.

As creationism is not a religion, but is a possible explanation for the unexplained as is the "primordial soup and happenstance idea" (which, isn't *truly* evolution after all, is it...) it has just as much place in school.

Schools are not allowed to enforce one religion over another, that doesn't mean no religion is allowed to be mentioned, or in fact any theory that allows for the existence of higher, more advanced beings than ourselves. So long as the school does not seek to enforce one over the other, they are on safe ground.

For that matter, there is no such thing as "separation of Church and State". We have freedom to practice religion and no laws shall be passed restricting such; it doesn't mean the same thing as "no religion will be tolerated". That's a different discussion, however.

Lot of good posts on here.


John P.
edit:
Jockeys thanks for reminding me of a good point. Belief that life originated with creation is "creationism". Someone telling you or anyone else you are going to "Hell" for not believing this, is "religion". To me that is one of the prime differences...

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Anybody ponder the idea that Evolution is also supporting a religious point of view, that of Atheism?

Not true. I believe that evolution is the best theory we have atm.
Why should that mean that I don't believe in a higher deity? I do.
IBut I believe that said deity was smart enough to construct the laws of physics in such a way that he wouldn't be needed for everything. My God(s) created the fundamental laws, and then let the universe take care of itself.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Niether side has any hard "proof". So it is a matter of faith one way or the other.

This is not completely true. The process of natural selection through a diversity of traits within a species has been studied and proven in all sorts of lab conditions and real life.
One such trait is the DNA sequence which makes certain people immune to AIDS and the plague.
This DNA sequence can be traced back to 1 village in England. This sequence allowed some people to survive while the rest of the population was regularly cleansed.

So the underlying principle is as solid as a rock, and supported by evidence.

Do I believe that evolution as we now know it is the complete truth? Don't know. Perhaps not.
But it's the best thing we've got because it's the ONLY theory we have that can be supported by facts, and that can be tested, and poked and prodded at.

Hi John, and thank you for your considered response to my rather tentative post.

The main concern I have is the privileging of one religion's (namely a Judeo-Christian approach) creationism over others. I can see valid arguments for critiquing evolution just as much as ID, but I can't see a rational for forwarding only a Judeo-Christian approach to evolution over, say, a Buddhist approach? What makes one more valid than the next, especially in a school paid for by a very diverse tax base?

In a perfect world, I believe that a science class should teach the theory of evolution, and a religion class discuss theories of creation - a well rounded education benefits us all - but this either/or view that is being purported in schools doesn't seem to jive with me, somehow.

Thanks again, and I agree with John P absolutely on this - great posts thus far!

Mark

Originally Posted by JohnP

So far there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any conclusive evidence that evolution occurs, although I imagine it might.

We know that Evolution works because it can be observed in progress, from start to finish, on bacteria and plants in laboratory settings.

It is not at all correct to say that we don't have evidence that evolution occurs because evolution is process of genes being altered (or more correctly, the expression of the genes as well), this happens all the time and has been observed extensively.

What people really mean when they say "evolution isn't proven" is that there are "gaps" in the current fossil record and that it "natural selection" couldn't have created complex organisms.

The gaps are there because the fossilization of bones is a finicky process that could easily wipe out any trace of a small population of proto-hominids thus leaving one link unproven, and also because we haven't dug up every square inch of the earth's surface.

You can't claim something doesn't exist just because it hasn't been discovered yet.

And as for natural selection, it's a misunderstanding to say that a natural process can't create order (and complex organisms) because such things happen all the time. The crumbs in a bag of chips get filtered to the bottom, but there's no need for an intelligent source deciding that things should be that way. And so works natural selection. Gene expression allows for the gradual change that an animal might need to suit a different climate because the portions of a population that can't express the correct gene are more likely to perish under the new circumstances.