Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I guess this is the point I was trying to make. The feasible answer they currently have is a proposed theoretical particle that would make the current equations work out OK.

Actually this is not dissimilar where the theory of electricity was in XIX century- proposed theoretical particle that would make the equations work OK. I personally am yet to see an electron, still all the modern day electronics is based on the theory that the electrons exist and they have the specific mass and electroc charge that they have. Of course Milliken didn't really 'measure' it either - he practically fudged the data, yet he somehow got a correct answer.
Yes science will never be a religion - it's an open subject that is constantly reexamining every observation and theory. This is very very different from dogma and from everything I've read that's exactly what creationism and intelligent design are.

JohnP, not to be insulting, but you need to get your head around things a little bit differently. I'm gonna leave the fact of evolution (or at the very least the mountains of supporting evidence) behind.

Mysticism has no place in the classroom. If you think it does, then you should include Hindu creation mythology, Buddhist, Tarot cards, palm reading etc. This would only be a class in comparative religion. Anything else would be misinformation.

X

PS With evidence, you can indeed change my mind, but even with evidence I can't change yours. I'm done.

This may be a bit late into the discussion.....

But just to make things clearer here:

Is the flavour of creationism that they want to be taught that the world and everything on it were created in 7 days? (well 6 really but who's counting)

If so then that should be taught in a religions of the world class or similar.

If they teach that the hand of a creator possibly had any hand in the process that is called evolution then that theory should be mentioned right along with abiogenesis in science class.

However since there's not much to teach on the actual ORIGIN of life in science classes at the moment.....only on the changing of species (evolution) science classes should stick to that in the first place anyway.

Don't teach something you don't know anything about in classrooms.

Excellent point Alex.

There are many different kinds of creationists that are lobbying for inclusion in the school curriculum.

Some, like Bill Dembske and Micheal Behe, want there to be a caveat that an Intelligent Designer is at work behind the evolutionary process and that, from time to time, he takes on the full task of originating species.

Others, like Kent Hovind, want the teaching of a literal interpretation of the bible, where the Earth is considered to be 6000 years old and where Dinosaurs, Humans, and all other forms of life coexisted simultaneously. They even go as far as to say that nearly all of the current scientific community is working under some conspiracy to hide evidence that the literal creation story of the bible is correct.

Obviously, the first group has the best chance of succeeding because there is a significant lack of religious bias and it's not as hard to believe as the latter proposition.

But the issue as I see it is this:

A scientific theory must be able to make predictions about what we will find if we look at some kind of data. (like Gugi's example of electricity, the electron was predicted to have certain properties and indeed it did). But I've yet to hear a prediction made by the ID front-men about how or when the designer will be in action.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable when put to the scrutiny of investigation. An intelligent designer can never be disproved because it can never be studied (the proponents of the theory have not presented any options for doing so).

Besides that, how do we define when an organism was the sole work of the Designer? What's the point of putting that kind of label on anything? We have been shown time and time again that our knowledge is subjective to the era we live in, so all theories must be conditional, in that better info can update them, which Intelligent Design fails to be

Hi again Russel.
Ultimately while you and I may approach this from opposing viewpoints, it is apparent to me that neither hypothesis is more grounded in "evidence" than the other. Most of what we know out there is inconclusive one way or the other as to how everything happened. Even the fossil record doesn't help much, as only creatures that fall in certain types of soil are typically fossilized....so here we are, arguing over something that is not really provable and in a debate that cannot possibly have an outcome which convinces the other of our personal beliefs, other than perhaps to allow that perhaps more than just one viewpoint should be allowed into a classroom, especially when we don't actually know enough to rule either out.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

A scientific theory must be falsifiable when put to the scrutiny of investigation. An intelligent designer can never be disproved because it can never be studied (the proponents of the theory have not presented any options for doing so).

Nor can abiogenesis theory, for that matter. As neither is provable nor disprovable with current knowledge, I simply feel neither should receive preferential treatment. Perform all the experiments one wants however it is difficult for these experiments as performed so far to support one side or the other conclusively, unless one believes creation could only have been done by magic by a mystical man in the sky; that of course depends to a degree on religion and what one's understanding or concept of the creator or if one believes them to be one and the same, God...is, but ultimately just because we do not understand something does not mean it was either not done or done by "magic"... ID if you prefer encompasses many possible beginnings, and can be studied with probabilities just as much as any other hypothesis (abiogenesis?) but ultimately neither can be proved or disproved with the evidence we have so far.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Besides that, how do we define when an organism was the sole work of the Designer? What's the point of putting that kind of label on anything? We have been shown time and time again that our knowledge is subjective to the era we live in, so all theories must be conditional, in that better info can update them, which Intelligent Design fails to be

Any of the hypotheses raised to explain life's existence bring up questions. I actually agree with this statement (believe it or not) until your last point, which makes a fairly blatant assumption. Ultimately we come to the conflict of ideas which are unprovable. You can point out that chemical A mixed with Chemical B reacted by application of heat and simulated "lightning" can produce amino acids (or some other seemingly significant compound). I on the other hand would ask how in any way this proves A) this is how life was produced and B) even if it is a key step, who is to say it was not intentionally performed by a creator? Remember even in the simplest organism there are thousands upon thousands of variables, and all of them have to be right in the right order-or no organism. One could point out the vast genetic similarity of all creatures on the earth...why not huge differences? Variations perhaps on the same program. Therefore, while I agree with the first part of your statement it is questionable to imply that it applies only in favor of abiogenesis in whatever forms that may take, and to the loss of creation. If anything, neither viewpoint has any higher ground wrt this. Supporters of one should not shun the idea of the other especially when their own viewpoint has also not been proven.

Hope your weekend went well.

John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I on the other hand would ask how in any way this proves A) this is how life was produced and B) even if it is a key step, who is to say it was not intentionally performed by a creator? Remember even in the simplest organism there are thousands upon thousands of variables, and all of them have to be right in the right order-or no organism. One could point out the vast genetic similarity of all creatures on the earth...why not huge differences? Variations perhaps on the same program. Therefore, while I agree with the first part of your statement it is questionable to imply that it applies only in favor of abiogenesis in whatever forms that may take, and to the loss of creation. If anything, neither viewpoint has any higher ground wrt this. Supporters of one should not shun the idea of the other especially when their own viewpoint has also not been proven.

Hope your weekend went well.

John P.

One path requires a divine being, the other randomness and a ton of time. I know for a fact there's randomness and time.

Originally Posted by xman

JohnP, not to be insulting, but you need to get your head around things a little bit differently. I'm gonna leave the fact of evolution (or at the very least the mountains of supporting evidence) behind.

Mysticism has no place in the classroom. If you think it does, then you should include Hindu creation mythology, Buddhist, Tarot cards, palm reading etc. This would only be a class in comparative religion. Anything else would be misinformation.

X

PS With evidence, you can indeed change my mind, but even with evidence I can't change yours. I'm done.

x,
Whoever said anything about "mysticism"?? I for one surely did not. Leave mysticism for the religious discussions; creation merely considers the possibility we did not happen by chance. Leave your evolution mountain arguments at home, as I am not arguing for or against it. Only the idea that a hypothesis claiming we (and all other life forms) came from nothing. For which, X, there is quantifiably zero evidence for or against.

Originally Posted by ScottS

One path requires a divine being, the other randomness and a ton of time. I know for a fact there's randomness and time.

The only trouble with this, is even given eons, a pile of bricks does not make a house, a pile of steel does not randomly become an automobile, and ultimately, even given the estimated age of the planet, unless there is a creative force that preceeds us (you do not have to believe it is a divine being-creation cannot be cast off so easily) there is simply a huge probability against it happening. If life were simply the existence of one or two chemicals in connection-perhaps; however the fact that even to make a single cell, hundreds (thousands even) of base pairs which all have to be right-the first time-or no life is present. Thusly there is similar chance that a supercomputer be created by natural action on silicon and copper compounds in the wild. Theoretically, it cannot be ruled out, but is extremely unlikely. Similarly, producing an amino acid in the laboratory is not the same as under similar "random" conditions producing life-something as of yet, the best minds out there have failed to do intentionally. This would be, in the house analogy, similar to claiming that because one has discovered brick can be made of mud, that similarly, the house was formed, through millions and billions of years.
The age of the planet is finite. Throwing time around in order to show that something normally impossible occurred only works to a point, therefore, not infinity. If one however believes the common belief of physicists that matter (and conversely energy) can be neither created nor destroyed-that it has always existed-then it is ludicrous for us to assume "we" are all there is or ever was, and that there is no possibility of a creative influence. Such is folly. We can study, but making such assumptions is the realm of religion, not science.
I do not intend to convince you there is or is not a creator, or even that life was created-only to challenge the blind acceptance of one hypothesis which blocks free thought and brings one religion (atheism) into the schools while barring all others, with no conclusive proof. Schools aren't in the religion business, therefore all possibilities (without getting into religious specifics-if you want to believe in a magic pink unicorn be my guest) including a preexistent creative influence-should be considered.
John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

...one hypothesis which blocks free thought and brings one religion (atheism) into the schools
John P.

This is your own bias again.

Neither Evolution nor Autogenesis theories say that Theism is impossible or even wrong, they just say that life doesn't require a creator. Whether there IS a creator or not is simply not addressed as you claim it is.

Originally Posted by JohnP

The only trouble with this, is even given eons, a pile of bricks does not make a house, a pile of steel does not randomly become an automobile,

This argument is still wrong.

Bricks and steel don't have forces acting on them in the same way that atoms and polymers do. So no, eons will not make bricks coalesce into a house, but the same cannot be said of atoms et al.

There are many books (and probably online sources) explaining the mechanisms that cause atoms, elements, chemicals, etc to bond and interact in the way that they do. The info is out there if you want to look it up.

Originally Posted by ScottS

One path requires a divine being, the other randomness and a ton of time. I know for a fact there's randomness and time.

Actually...the idea that life was "instigated" doesn't require the belief in a "higher" being. Merely that there was "a being" before life on this planet.

The idea that we are an alien experiment is just as likely statistically for instance (I don't agree with this but it's just one way of another explanation.

To be honest I think that what bothers most "creationists" isn't that evolution/abiogenesis is being taught.....merely that things about them are being taught as facts while in reality they're still working on finding out if they're true or not.

Things like "We think that life came to be because of abiogenesis" will never be heard in most classrooms simply because the teachers have their own opinion and teach it biasly.

Many (most maybe all) teachers teach from their own viewpoint....not from the facts.

You never hear a teacher say "I think... (and then expressing his opinion about the theory) but I could be wrong"

From what I can see...THAT is where the real probem lies. If teachers were to teach nothing but the facts (not the facts as they believe them to be) then parents wouldn't be so worried (or at least less so) about what was being taught to their children.