Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

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

Umm...I don't know

The turtles made him, and the aliens stacked the turtles.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

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?

The turtles had to come from somewhere didn't they?

Originally Posted by JMS

The turtles had to come from somewhere didn't they?

They, of course, came from other turtles.

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.

public schools shouldn't teach one religion to be true or not, but teaching 'about' religion is a very useful thing so that people will at least know that different religions and world views exist.
Look at it like this: Religion doesn't have to be real, but the effect it has on the world is very real, just like witchcraft in the dark ages.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

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

Actually...it wouldn't matter if evolution were as common a thing as roads made of asphalt, it really has nothing to do with whether or not creationism belongs in schools; there has been zero (there, I spelled it out for you) proof of the primordial soup life origin theory often associated mistakenly with evolution. Proteins have been made, and more hypotheses floated...but no life.

So...if creationism does not belong anywhere besides mythology class, I suggest that the same apply to all other unproven theories for life's beginnings, as well. One can make as many proteins as he wishes to, in a laboratory, and not create life-and his or her experiment will still be a failure (wrt demonstrating his or her method was indeed, "the" method life came to pass).

Another thought to ponder.
Perhaps it would seem oversimplistic, but in all the millions of experiments done over many years trying to prove life was not created but occurred, none has succeeded.

Perhaps some have created this protein or that, even perhaps the basics for DNA. However none have created under natural conditions even a single celled organism; however if (and I suspect when) life is created in a laboratory, it being safe to imagine nearly every combination of environmental conditions, gases, temperatures, etc conducive to the "natural generation of life" has already been tried or nearly so, that it will have been created intentionally, using other organisms as an example, with a great deal of manipulation (e.g. using a virus to transport DNA to the nucleus of an empty "cell").
Which proves....nothing.

So....millions of experiments with possibly just as many "natural" environmental situations-and no life.
The instant life DOES happen in a laboratory-it will have been created.

Therefore, without getting into specifics of who or what created life (that part is for religion for the moment, I imagine) one could count the number of experiments performed under "natural conditions" of what different researchers feel the earth was like billions of years ago, and simply say so far, empirical evidence does not support life occurring from coincidence through unaided natural processes.

It is also safe to assume at this point that any future experiment demonstrating the same, will simply have been yet another act of creation. Which would simply mean, empirical evidence would show a ratio of [however many experiments have failed at creating life through natural processes] to [however many have been able to successfully create life using laboratory manipulation] in favor of creation.

Right now the ratio is at infinity, simply because life has yet to be created in a laboratory; perhaps it drop to become only millions to one in favor of creation in the near future. Basic mathematics, then, favors creation, based merely on the number of experiments that have failed at generating life vs. so far none succeeding, and even if one does succeed.

Everything else so far has been semantics. Do we or do we not evolve? I don't know. My belief is that creation does not say yes or no, but only addresses a possibility of how things started.

If one feels he can see this or that species in the process of evolving (as opposed to degenerating, as even we humans are supposedly in the process of-lots of interesting genetic study there) good for him. Studying whether or not something might have evolved, or if there were similar animals in different locations that happened to be a little different...is studying. Even proof, for instance if a large number of birds were found to be navigating by radio signal instead of the magnetic method they seem to use today...would not prove that the first life on earth was not created. The topics are unrelated, and the validity or lack thereof of one regardless of how many experiments on the subject has been done-does not discount the other.

Interesting that there are so many who are so defensive of evolution-when evolution is a theory I have not attacked, other than to say it has not been proven. Oh sure, it's been researched quite a bit-so if one wants a link to evolutionary studies....they're everywhere....rather the topic was nothing to do with whether or not evolution should be in schools, but creationism.

So, I've demonstrated a few reasons why it *should* in my opinion be in school and taught along with any other theory...after all some of the *same* evidence used to support other theories could also be seen to support it as well...but so far have read no posts here demonstrating that it should not be, other than a few protests against what some personally believe creationism to be, or the version they may be personally familiar with. Which is not the same.

Evolution is not a theory which claims to know how life originated (even Darwin was not an Atheist, as mentioned previously) but strives to understand how different species possibly came about...so posts linking to many different "proofs" for evolution which may or may not be....have nothing to do with the topic. At all.


Something to chew on gents.

Anyway, I'm up late,
later gents.


John P.

edit: BillyJeff2, this one's for you: while you have difficulty apparently fathoming an intelligence pre-existing our own ..consider that most physicists also believe a simple law that states "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". So....to add to your confusion, where did it come from? It is only a small step from understanding that part, to consideration of the first.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

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?

Only if it's an invisible inprovable turtle....

Otherwise one could conclude that there areno turtles because the sattellites haven't bumped into them.

Originally Posted by Bruno

public schools shouldn't teach one religion to be true or not, but teaching 'about' religion is a very useful thing so that people will at least know that different religions and world views exist.
Look at it like this: Religion doesn't have to be real, but the effect it has on the world is very real, just like witchcraft in the dark ages.

Teaching about religion has always been possible in a comparative religion, political science, philosophy or history class here in the States. Discussing creationism is appropriate in these settings. I, as a retired educator, never meant to imply anything else.

Also, as a music educator, I support the teaching and performance of religious music in the schools. I believe the courts have held this to be valid, but I'd welcome correction from others.

old Joel

Originally Posted by JohnP

edit: BillyJeff2, this one's for you: while you have difficulty apparently fathoming an intelligence pre-existing our own ..consider that most physicists also believe a simple law that states "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". So....to add to your confusion, where did it come from? It is only a small step from understanding that part, to consideration of the first.

no, but it can (with varying degrees of efficiency) be converted into energy and back again.

and who says it had to come from anywhere? why can't it always have been?

also, google "the Big Bounce" for more answers to this question.

Originally Posted by jockeys

no, but it can (with varying degrees of efficiency) be converted into energy and back again.

and who says it had to come from anywhere? why can't it always have been?

also, google "the Big Bounce" for more answers to this question.

Matter can also pop into existence out of nothing, together with their anti particle.
Their net sum is still 0. If they get separated instead of recombined, both can live their own life.
And if they recombine, the situation will be back the way it was.