Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[Ian]

As stated before, it comes down to what is most acceptable among multiple faiths. How could creationism be taught to people who either follow another religion with a different belief in creation, or who do not believe in any religion?

[Axeldeath]

I'll just leave this here... watch the whole thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTVogOGisJ0

[puxlit]

Here's something slightly longer, but does a great job at describing the origins of religion and the striking similarities between most religions: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2740987755232169561.

[BTGBullseye]

I'll just give you this quick list... (this is in answer to that bit about Christianity being anti-scientific)

Some of the Most Influential, Most Famous Scientist who were Christians

 

Scientists listed in both Scientists of Faith (Christians) and also in one of the general books above (The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, etc.) These individuals could be considered among history's most influential and famous scientists, who also happen to have been devout Christians of various denominations:

 

Roger Bacon (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon)

Johannes Kepler (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler)

Johannes Baptista van Helmont (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont)

Blaise Pascal (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal)

Robert Boyle (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boyle)

Anton van Leeuwenhoek (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek)

Carolus Linnaeus (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus)

Leonhard Euler (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler)

John Dalton (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalton)

Michael Faraday (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday)

John Frederick William Herschel (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herschel)

Matthew Fontaine Maury (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury)

James Prescott Joule (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Prescott_Joule)

Gregor Mendel (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel)

William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin)

James Clerk Maxwell (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell)

George Washington Carver (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver)

Arthur Stanley Eddington (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington)

All I did was add links to their corresponding Wiki pages, since at the bottom is the list of biographies that I would've linked to if I had the time.

 

Maybe I should add the list of Jewish scientists too, since they believe in creation as well... Top of that list is Albert Einstein. (I don't think you need a link to know who he is)

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think it's very important to divide science and religion. Science is basically just humans trying to comprehend the world around them and figuring out how it really works and how it's put together. Religion on the other hand is a bit more abstract and philosophical and is more about why it works, how it started and what to do with our lives. I personally see both as very important factors into understanding the world and I don't think either can replace the other.

 

I personally don't think God exists in any way we can possibly comprehend, which is why it's impossible to really prove or disprove his existence. It is likely he exists on a completely different plane or in another dimension that is unreachable for us as of now.

[Michael Archer]

I'll just give you this quick list... (this is in answer to that bit about Christianity being anti-scientific)

Some of the Most Influential, Most Famous Scientist who were Christians

 

But see, that's the great thing about science; it doesn't matter what the person's background is. Science doesn't ask for your opinion, it just asks for your eyes. These could be mass murderers and it wouldn't make what they're saying any less true.

 

But I guarantee you that these people found no legitimate evidence disproving evolution and confirming creation.

[BTGBullseye]

But I guarantee you that these people found no legitimate evidence disproving evolution and confirming creation.

Back your guarantee.

[ajapam]

Not that I know everything they've done, but from the top of my head I can tell you Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Dalton, Maxwell, and Joule certainly aren't known for anything regarding this topic. This isn't about religious scientists.

[Michael Archer]

But I guarantee you that these people found no legitimate evidence disproving evolution and confirming creation.

Back your guarantee.

 

No problem; I claimed that they didn't disprove evolution, so I must prove that. Do you see how this works?

 

Roger Bacon, according to the link, was one of the first people to advocate modern scientific method; the same scientific method that came up with the blasphemous evolution theory.

 

The next five names were chemists and physicists; evolution is biology; they never talked about that stuff.

 

van Leeuwenhoek discovered protozoa: a single-celled life form that only supports evolution.

 

Linnaeus is the father of ecology; another scientific field that's taken seriously by biology professors i.e. it supports evolution.

 

Euler, Dalton, Faraday and Herschel were not biologists and never claimed creation was scientific truth.

 

Maury is know for being a Civil War hero, not for science.

 

Joule was a physicist.

 

Mendel discovered goddamn genetics; if this doesn't prove evolution, I don't know what does.

 

Kelvin was a chemist.

 

Maxwell was a physicist.

 

Carver was concerned with cultivating plants; he did not concern himself with the diversity of life.

 

Eddington was a physicist.

 

Now, please do not post all the Jewish scientists. Instead, post the scientists who have brought up evidence contrary to evolution.

[BTGBullseye]

Roger Bacon, according to the link, was one of the first people to advocate modern scientific method; the same scientific method that came up with the blasphemous evolution theory.

As far as I've ever heard/read, it was solely the work of Darwin, not the scientific method that devised the theory of evolution...

 

The next five names were chemists and physicists; evolution is biology; they never talked about that stuff.

Biology is chemistry and physics in living organisms. What proof do you have that they never said anything to refute evolution?

 

van Leeuwenhoek discovered protozoa: a single-celled life form that only supports evolution.

How does it support it?

 

Linnaeus is the father of ecology; another scientific field that's taken seriously by biology professors i.e. it supports evolution.

Again, how?

 

Euler, Dalton, Faraday and Herschel were not biologists and never claimed creation was scientific truth.

Still not saying anything about how they didn't find/report any contradicting evidence.

 

Maury is know for being a Civil War hero, not for science.

Just because that's what you remember him for, doesn't mean he wasn't a scientist too.

 

Joule was a physicist.

What does his particular field have to do with anything?

 

Mendel discovered goddamn genetics; if this doesn't prove evolution, I don't know what does.

I see nothing in genetics that supports evolution, and much that supports creation.

 

Kelvin was a chemist.

Again, how does a particular field remove them from being able to refute evolution?

 

Maxwell was a physicist.

*see last response*

 

Carver was concerned with cultivating plants; he did not concern himself with the diversity of life.

Messing with plants doesn't deal with diversity of life?!? What universe do you live in?

 

Eddington was a physicist.

*see response above the Carver response*

 

Well... Can't see as you've defended anything in that post...

[Axeldeath]

No not really, you didn't actually show any proof that you were right, you just gave him a bunch of answers that seemed like they were off the top of your head

[Doom Shepherd]

Forgive me if this point has already been covered:

 

Creationism is not, and never can be, science. Creationism is not, and can never be, a Theory. Creationism does not even qualigy as a hypothesis. All these things require the evaluation of observable phenomena. Creationism, postulating as it does the existence of a Creator which CANNOT be observed, measured, or studied in any way, cannot possess this quality.

 

Therefore it should in no way be taught in a class dealing with science. It is better left in a class about comparative religion, where it can be compared and contrasted with the belief that Raven crapped out the Earth (Native American), or that Gods dredged up the land from beneath the sea, (Maori) that a great Cow licked the first man out of the ice (Norse) or that the Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed out the universe during a bout of hay fever (42), all of which beliefs have equal evidence in support of them, that is: NONE.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ajapam]

Roger Bacon, according to the link, was one of the first people to advocate modern scientific method; the same scientific method that came up with the blasphemous evolution theory.

As far as I've ever heard/read, it was solely the work of Darwin, not the scientific method that devised the theory of evolution...

 

The next five names were chemists and physicists; evolution is biology; they never talked about that stuff.

Biology is chemistry and physics in living organisms. What proof do you have that they never said anything to refute evolution?

 

van Leeuwenhoek discovered protozoa: a single-celled life form that only supports evolution.

How does it support it?

 

Linnaeus is the father of ecology; another scientific field that's taken seriously by biology professors i.e. it supports evolution.

Again, how?

 

Euler, Dalton, Faraday and Herschel were not biologists and never claimed creation was scientific truth.

Still not saying anything about how they didn't find/report any contradicting evidence.

 

Maury is know for being a Civil War hero, not for science.

Just because that's what you remember him for, doesn't mean he wasn't a scientist too.

 

Joule was a physicist.

What does his particular field have to do with anything?

 

Mendel discovered goddamn genetics; if this doesn't prove evolution, I don't know what does.

I see nothing in genetics that supports evolution, and much that supports creation.

 

Kelvin was a chemist.

Again, how does a particular field remove them from being able to refute evolution?

 

Maxwell was a physicist.

*see last response*

 

Carver was concerned with cultivating plants; he did not concern himself with the diversity of life.

Messing with plants doesn't deal with diversity of life?!? What universe do you live in?

 

Eddington was a physicist.

*see response above the Carver response*

 

Well... Can't see as you've defended anything in that post...

 

So do you have any scientific evidence that supports creationism? Wait, let me guess. The answer is no.

 

Creationism obviously shouldn't be taught as science. Only a religious nut would disagree.

[Axeldeath]

Forgive me if this point has already been covered:

 

Creationism is not, and never can be, science. Creationism is not, and can never be, a Theory. Creationism does not even qualigy as a hypothesis. All these things require the evaluation of observable phenomena. Creationism, postulating as it does the existence of a Creator which CANNOT be observed, measured, or studied in any way, cannot possess this quality.

 

Therefore it should in no way be taught in a class dealing with science. It is better left in a class about comparative religion, where it can be compared and contrasted with the belief that Raven crapped out the Earth (Native American), or that Gods dredged up the land from beneath the sea, (Maori) that a great Cow licked the first man out of the ice (Norse) or that the Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed out the universe during a bout of hay fever (42), all of which beliefs have equal evidence in support of them, that is: NONE.

 

Actually in Maori culuture Maui ( son of a god ) pulled New Zealand out of the Earth when they were fishing. When Maui pulled New Zealand out of the sea his brothers became greedy and began to cut up the fish ( NZ ) without thanking the god of the sea, it therefore became rocky and hard and they couldn't eat it. It then became New Zealand ( or Aoeteroa ). They never spoke of anywhere outside NZ in their myths. Not calling you out or anything just.... sharing teh knowledge I suppose.

[BTGBullseye]

Forgive me if this point has already been covered:

 

Creationism is not, and never can be, science. Creationism is not, and can never be, a Theory. Creationism does not even qualigy as a hypothesis. All these things require the evaluation of observable phenomena. Creationism, postulating as it does the existence of a Creator which CANNOT be observed, measured, or studied in any way, cannot possess this quality.

 

Therefore it should in no way be taught in a class dealing with science. It is better left in a class about comparative religion, where it can be compared and contrasted with the belief that Raven crapped out the Earth (Native American), or that Gods dredged up the land from beneath the sea, (Maori) that a great Cow licked the first man out of the ice (Norse) or that the Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed out the universe during a bout of hay fever (42), all of which beliefs have equal evidence in support of them, that is: NONE.

Creationism simply states that life on earth was not a result of a random chemical process that eventually mutated into humans, but a result of intelligent design. (someone or something designed us in a specific way)

 

This idea is arrived at through basic statistical logic. (a class you can probly take in college if you ever get there) in that it is so extremely unlikely for that particular chemical reaction to occur that the likeliehood of some external intelligence becomes more likely.. (they just don't bother to theorize how specifically it was done, since there is no way to find that through logic currently)

 

It is just as valid a theory as evolution, because it is based on science as much or more so than evolution. Simply different logical paths taken, neither less valid than the other, neither proven enough that they should be taught in schools as facts. (this is about what is taught in schools, not what you personally believe... I hope the mods will start helping me get this back on the topic it's supposed to be)

[Axeldeath]

Forgive me if this point has already been covered:

 

Creationism is not, and never can be, science. Creationism is not, and can never be, a Theory. Creationism does not even qualigy as a hypothesis. All these things require the evaluation of observable phenomena. Creationism, postulating as it does the existence of a Creator which CANNOT be observed, measured, or studied in any way, cannot possess this quality.

 

Therefore it should in no way be taught in a class dealing with science. It is better left in a class about comparative religion, where it can be compared and contrasted with the belief that Raven crapped out the Earth (Native American), or that Gods dredged up the land from beneath the sea, (Maori) that a great Cow licked the first man out of the ice (Norse) or that the Great Green Arklesiezure sneezed out the universe during a bout of hay fever (42), all of which beliefs have equal evidence in support of them, that is: NONE.

Creationism simply states that life on earth was not a result of a random chemical process that eventually mutated into humans, but a result of intelligent design. (someone or something designed us in a specific way)

 

This idea is arrived at through basic statistical logic. (a class you can probly take in college if you ever get there) in that it is so extremely unlikely for that particular chemical reaction to occur that the likeliehood of some external intelligence becomes more likely.. (they just don't bother to theorize how specifically it was done, since there is no way to find that through logic currently)

 

It is just as valid a theory as evolution, because it is based on science as much or more so than evolution. Simply different logical paths taken, neither less valid than the other, neither proven enough that they should be taught in schools as facts. (this is about what is taught in schools, not what you personally believe... I hope the mods will start helping me get this back on the topic it's supposed to be)

 

Implying Creationism has anywhere near as much scientific merit as evolution... AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

[BTGBullseye]

Implying Creationism has anywhere near as much scientific merit as evolution... AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Implying evolution has any scientific merit at all... AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

 

See? I can make off topic useless posts too...

[Axeldeath]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Doom Shepherd]

This idea is arrived at through basic statistical logic. (a class you can probly take in college if you ever get there) in that it is so extremely unlikely for that particular chemical reaction to occur that the likeliehood of some external intelligence becomes more likely.. (they just don't bother to theorize how specifically it was done, since there is no way to find that through logic currently)

 

First off, I've been to college. In fact, I have a Master's Degree. So watch your snarky tongue or I will be happy to remove it without benefit of anesthesia.

 

Second, I have heard the "mathematically unlikely" argument before, and it is pure weapons-grade bolognium.

 

It is already widely known as Hoyle's FALLACY. And has been thoroughly debunked. (See underlined link.) To buy that argument, you must actually IGNORE fundamental aspects of mathematics.

 

In fact, it immediately becomes obvious that the "spontaneous" existence of GOD (which is supposed by the believers to be of an infinitely higher and more complex order than any life form) must, using the same "theory" of statistical analysis, be FAR MORE improbable than evolution. If your argument is true, your "designer" can't exist.

[Alyxx Thorne]

My faith is just not based on any scientific evidence or theories. It is based on emotions and abstract feelings and notions about the world. Can anyone actually find any scientific answer on why we are here or why our bodies look and function like they do or... even better, what makes cells divide, what is life? Why do the trees filter the air for us to breathe, our bodies seemingly designed to live in this environment as if everything was just made to exist like it does? Such abstract questions I feel can only be answered fully by my religion and my faith in it. And that is why I believe in God.

 

I do not in any way want to disprove science, that would be stupid. I just want there to be room for more than just HOW things work, or HOW we came into existence. None of us may not know why, but it helps for me to have a religion to turn to that gives me comfort and strength. Maybe not all of us needs that, but I do.