Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by kevint

Hi Russ. What can be proven is that mutation happens. It can not be proven that any new genetic information is added to the genome- no new functions appear . Antibiotic/viral resistant strains of bacteria/virus comes to mind. These are minor modifications of existing systems in the cell, which actually make the cell less efficient. The cell is weaker than its non-mutated form~de-evolution

Mutation does exist, but (as I stated paranthetically above) gene expression plays a role as well.

The dynamic process of mutation and expression is not fully understood, so the best we can say is that this is the most likely answer. This does not mean that Evolution is incorrect, just in progress. And, I might add, still more accurate, while in progress, than creation and ID.

You are perfectly fine to argue that you want further proof of Evolution before accepting it's predictions and explanations, but you must hold ID to yet even stonger scrutiny for not being able to make predictions or scientifically valid explanations.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I must also put in this disclaimer:

I have a custom razor on order with Russell. So I know for a fact who The Creator of that razor is!

And as irony would have it, I don't believe it could have come into being by any other means!

All hail the intelligently designed straight razors...


(as for deists being creationists, no that is not entirely true, you can believe that a creator created the laws of the universe and that evolution is the expression of those laws. Evolution just shows that nature produced life as we know it, but a creator could very well have created nature.)

Originally Posted by JohnP

All religions I know of have their own explanations for the origins of things, life, and who or how it happened. Creationism doesn't seek to do this, but rather simply to acknowledge the possibility of life being created. It doesn't go into "who" or "what" by. That's the realm for religion, IMHO, and implying it was created by "nothing" is just as much so.

John P.

Religion comes about by the invoking of an intelligent being who has provided the universe for us.

To say that science claims that we came from "nothing" is a strawman at best. Science explains how the natural world interracts, dynamically. It doesn't just say "poof, here's the world" without proof and underlying naturalistic principles.

The question you raise is more a doubt of the work of modern physicists than evolutionary biologists.

Originally Posted by jockeys

+1. it's totally off-topic and likely to lead to a flamewar. branch the thread if you want.

The topic title is 'Creationism in Schools'. My post was a continuation of my earlier post ( I was interrupted by work) addressing why 'religion' is taught in schools. I apologize for the segmentation but it is not off topic and the atheism was served up well ahead of my post.

I think it's fitting that Palin believes the Creator created man and gave man rights and privileges just as the founding fathers of this nation that she wants to help lead did.

[QUOTE=JohnP;255630]Hi Mark (and I know I skipped a few posts, I'll look at those as I go along)

Snip


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.

Snip

I believe that a conservative federal court in Pennsylvania ruled on the very issue of Creationism being rewritten religious dogma from a fundamentalist organization. If you teach Creationism, as it's understood in the United States, you're teaching the particular belief of one religious group, fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity. That's the objection of making it science curriculum in the public schools.

Evolution, as a scientific theory, takes its present proof from many scientific disciplines not just paleontology.

the old Joel

Originally Posted by uofi1963

Evolution, as a scientific theory, takes its present proof from many scientific disciplines not just paleontology.

the old Joel

This is an excellent point to make.

To adequately refute Evolutionary Theory is to show that, for years (in the hundreds, one could argue), Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and Paleontology have all been simultaneously pointing in the wrong direction on this one topic, but no others.

To make that claim would be a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Mutation does exist, but (as I stated paranthetically above) gene expression plays a role as well.

The dynamic process of mutation and expression is not fully understood, so the best we can say is that this is the most likely answer. This does not mean that Evolution is incorrect, just in progress. And, I might add, still more accurate, while in progress, than creation and ID.

You are perfectly fine to argue that you want further proof of Evolution before accepting it's predictions and explanations, but you must hold ID to yet even stonger scrutiny for not being able to make predictions or scientifically valid explanations.

What I was really hoping you would come up with are examples of how evolution, start to finish, of plants and bacteria is observed in the laboratory. I've never heard of any evidence to support the creation of new information within the genome of any given organism.

I really don't know why we keep having these discussions re evolution and creationalism or I.D. No one who believes in evolution is going to give creationalism the time of day and no one who agrees in creationalism is going to think evolution is anything but a crackpot theory. No ones mind is going to be changed.

Personally I think we should just all believe what we want and leave it at that. Then when people wonder why kids in the U.S are so far behind in science to other countries well we'll know who to blame. Ourselves.

Hi All,
Sadly, this topic isn't one I'm very familiar with, but I'm gonna educate myself a bit. There's a site I sometimes visit that has some interesting views on many things. Matter of fact, I'll include a link to some thoughts on creationism that some of you may find surprising (to say the least).
I should warn the members that a few may feel some material is objectionable, although I can't imagine why that would be. I'd recommend spending some time on this site, as it's very well done.
Hope this helps the conversation along,
Martin


Creation Science | Landover Baptist Subject Archives