Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[ProHypster]

Just remember that the Big Bang theory, or at least the facts that are it's base don't contradict creationalism nor any other of the more popular theories.

 

@Michael Archer

You know what else is a scientific theory? Germs. BTG, do you "believe" in germs? It's just a theory, after all.

 

This has been stated so many times and it's funny because this is a waste of your letters because it has no function. What is that supposed to mean other than to brag around how some obvious things are a scientific theory? The Big Bang theory isn't an obvious thing, we cannot see it, smell it, feel it, like germs, in fact most of the evidence comes from complex math. A lot of the facts are unstable/changing or marginably reliable. Now they are still considered facts by scientists so I am not trying to diss them or anything but in the future there is a high likelyhood some of them will be adjusted as that is how science works.

Besides, I'm pretty sure germs are a fact not a scientific theory.

[danielsangeo]

Actually, we can see it if we have the right tools. Just like we can "see" air, ultraviolet light, germs... And germs are a theory as well.

[ProHypster]

Actually, we can see it if we have the right tools. Just like we can "see" air, ultraviolet light, germs... And germs are a theory as well.

Germs:

Well that measn that the theory probably states something which is unprovable like "all diseases are made from germs" is that correct? In that case yes it is a scientific theory because we don't know if every disease out there is caused by germs and that is a viable counter for the fact. But germs themselves are a fact.

 

Anyway we don't see the big bang theory, we SEE the facts that are used to prove the Big Bang theory. But not the theory. The scientific theory isn't just the facts.

 

 

Do you see here the relationship. Evidence that SUPPORTS the idea, not is the idea.

[danielsangeo]

We see the facts and can, using the data we have, "see" the Big Bang. Just like we can "see" ultraviolet light. And the Big Bang isn't "an idea". It's a theory. It's in that yellow rectangle on that flow chart surrounded by stars.

[Blue]

Which as the flow chart demonstrates, can change if new evidence is presented.

Since it's prone to change, I wouldn't go around saying "It's absolute!" unless it was succeeded by the qualification "Until proven otherwise!"

[danielsangeo]

I haven't said that the Big Bang Theory is absolute.

[ProHypster]

I haven't said that the Big Bang Theory is absolute.

You said it's a fact.

A fact is absolute.

[Lux Arbuckle]

This is discussion is getting weird. It's just asinine, if not childish to just deny the Big Bang being the best idea we've got so far just because you can't "see" it and to make the word 'theory' have whatever specific definition you want to attribute to it. We live in a world where you don't get to just make up meanings to words because they suit how you feel about things better.

 

I cite the Encyclopedia Britannica on the meaning of Scientific Method:

"systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner."

 

Sounds inherently made up to me.

 

 

EDIT:

I haven't said that the Big Bang Theory is absolute.

You said it's a fact.

A fact is absolute.

 

I don't know what black and white universe you seem to think we exist in, but there is a larger spectrum out there and things don't have to be 100% right or wrong and everything we as a society consider a fact is open to disapproval or validation as time goes on. It's socially how we evolve.

[The Giant Napkin]

Evolution should be taught in school. Big Bang theory should be established that it's the best theory we have for the source of the Universe as science explains it as of yet. Creationism should not be mentioned lest it infringe on the religious rights or inclinations of the teacher or on behalf of the government.

 

If we are agreed with this assertion it would relieve me if this thread was not posted in again.

 

Well... 35 pages is an awful lot of space for 3 phrases. Perhaps we should just spam-quote this for another 35 pages and be done with it?

[ProHypster]

This is discussion is getting weird. It's just asinine, if not childish to just deny the Big Bang being the best idea we've got so far just because you can't "see" it and to make the word 'theory' have whatever specific definition you want to attribute to it. We live in a world where you don't get to just make up meanings to words because they suit how you feel about things better.

 

I cite the Encyclopedia Britannica on the meaning of Scientific Method:

"systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner."

 

Sounds inherently made up to me.

 

 

EDIT:

I haven't said that the Big Bang Theory is absolute.

You said it's a fact.

A fact is absolute.

 

I don't know what black and white universe you seem to think we exist in, but there is a larger spectrum out there and things don't have to be 100% right or wrong and everything we as a society consider a fact is open to disapproval or validation as time goes on. It's socially how we evolve.

 

No, I can't consider it a fact, because it is a scientific theory, in fact, a fact is the only absolute thing in this universe. I don't live in a black and white world but on the colour spectrum of truth a fact would be the white colour and there is no other white colour.

 

A fact can only be disproven when someone finds out it was a false fact like if someone in the jury presents false evidence. That would mean it was never evidence/fact in the first hand though. In the science world of course that means, if someone presents false math, or observes something wrong, or experiments wrong and calls it a fact. And I really hate when that happens because it's the worst thing you can do, to have false evidence for an idea.

 

I also understand the general concept of the Big Bang theory and I believe in most the clear facts that support it obviously, some of the more advanced facts and experiments should be rechecked maybe just in case but I am unsure of the idea that formed by them because it's so complex it tends to evolve a lot so maybe in the future I will believe in it as it is but right now I am skeptical that the Big Bang theory happened exactly as the theory says. And anyone who believes otherwise is arrogant because this isn't a germ topic this is something that happened a long long time ago, we are constantly changing history on what happened 4000 years ago and you expect me to believe 100% what science says happened the earliest we know of?

[Razor235]

If you're issue is with the "biblical" parts of this, the flood is scientific fact, (all real scientists have accepted it, and so have the kooks that aren't blatantly kooks) and the bible's version of history (apart from god and the rising from the dead stuff) is widely accepted, even amongst evolutionists.

 

Find one, ONE scientist who finds this scientific fact. I'll give you a hint, it's impossible. In order to be scientific fact, it must have been a scientific hypothesis. In order to be that, it has to be TESTABLE! Notice that word? Testable. That is the entire hitch in your "scientific" argument that is falling to pieces.

[Axeldeath]

There's a difference between being religious and being an outright idiot.

 

No there isn't.

 

I have no problem with you saying "religion is stupid", I have a problem with you saying "religious people are stupid". Don't get me wrong, there are people that do and say stupid things because of their religion, but that does not mean they are stupid people. I know of many intelligent people that have religious beliefs, just because they are ignorant of the fallacies of their chosen religion does not mean that they are stupid. I'm sure you are ignorant of many subjects but does this prove that you are an idiot?

 

Calling all religious people stupid is plain moronic and only proves your prejudice.

[ProHypster]

All you have to do to prove his logic wrong is ask him to elaborate in his own logic the points he states. Since he mentioned that everything has to be done in a scientific way and have evidence or otherwise you are an outright idiot he proved himself an outright idiot in his own theory as he never stated any evidence for anything he stated. Anyway I sent him a PM asking him to ellaborate his second response making him an outright idiot twice already by his own theory.

[Obsidian]

I really think mainstream public schooling should stick to a more secular education. Whether people like it or not, not everyone believes in the same thing. I say let the Church's teach the things from their books, and let the schools teach the more... what's the word... mainstream(?) ideas in the science classes. If schools say, want to teach Creationism in a world religion class or some other elective, that's fine since I would hope kids would be able to understand what they're choosing to expose themselves to. But I don't think that public institutions should force religion-specific beliefs/ideas (I believe creationism has a pretty complex proof somewhere, but I'm having trouble finding it in a non-fluff form) on students that don't choose to accept said religion or beliefs.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I've always believed that schools should present all sorts of different religions and views to the students so they can get a basic understanding of it, without presenting it as fact or truth, but rather just systems of belief.

[Blue]

That sounds efficient and effective, seeing as the nature of Faith is an assumption based upon facts.

[Ian]

I feel evolution should be taught, as it is the most objective approach.

[ProHypster]

I really think mainstream public schooling should stick to a more secular education. Whether people like it or not, not everyone believes in the same thing. I say let the Church's teach the things from their books, and let the schools teach the more... what's the word... mainstream(?) ideas in the science classes. If schools say, want to teach Creationism in a world religion class or some other elective, that's fine since I would hope kids would be able to understand what they're choosing to expose themselves to. But I don't think that public institutions should force religion-specific beliefs/ideas (I believe creationism has a pretty complex proof somewhere, but I'm having trouble finding it in a non-fluff form) on students that don't choose to accept said religion or beliefs.

When I was in germany they tought us both religion and science as long as I know, and nobody complained...

[Blue]

Well for what it's worth, the correct "conflict" is between Religion and Atheism or Antireligion, not Religion and Science.

[ProHypster]

Atheism itself, maybe not a religion but is a belief just like any other religion though no matter how you try to defend it and that makes this conflict really one belief vs another belief being taught in schools which completely ignores all other beliefs making both of the contenders a bit arrogant. Unless we're talking about evolution not atheism, evolution is a valid scientific theory and is something everyone in the biology department relies upon. Even if evolution didn't happen, today things work in the way as if evolution happened, but this doesn't disprove gods existence though.

 

The only conflict between the two I guess is the history of the world. I feel like this should be taught in both classes according to their views and explained why the background behind it. The students themselves should decide what they believe in. After all, even with the most support you have for the history of the world, you haven't been living for that long, you only acquire modern data based on modern laws, there is always a chance that god/gods intervened with laws or set them up for today to make history seem the way it happened at some point in history. I'm not saying I'm a follower of this, however it could be true and chances/percentages here are not important, what is important is that there is even little doubt.

 

As I say, our earth seems like one of a kind and it seems the earth at one point had 0.0000.......1% chance of becoming what it is today, nonetheless it is 100% what it became today isn't it?