Vote for Creationism or Evolutionism or Both for Schools to Teach?

[Rose Immortal]

I thought Creationism was the attempt to merge science with literal Biblical interpretation. Have I got two different things confused?

 

[MorriganTait]

I thought Creationism was the attempt to merge science with literal Biblical interpretation. Have I got two different things confused?

"Creationism" is a broad term. I think in some sense, your definition is correct, but my experience has been largely that those on the "creation" bandwagon don't wish to even regard science at all, let alone merge with it, but there are all kinds of creationists. I guess I am one in a very wide sense of the term.

 

[Cousin Vinny]

I picked the first option, to allow schools to continue to teach Evolution in some fashion. At the same time, I encourage families to talk with their children about their belief systems, the Church, etc. as far as Creationism is concerned.

 

[zookeeper4321]

Do we need to address it at all?

I voted for both. I was taught several theories in school of which these two were included. Personally, I'm agnostic. I think if it's presented we should include everything and let the kids decide. If you want to bring morality into it, that should be taught at home. Religion doesn't belong in school in this country. As soon as we change that we open the door for a national religion. I know people from several religions and none of them want to be foced to change. However, they always want to bring religion into everything. You can't have it both ways people. Our schools are public schools and religion doesn't belong. That being said, I don't think individual students should ever be stopped from praying over their food or for a test. They have as much right to pray as I have not to.

But what does all of this have to do with the ciriculum anyway. Since it's not really science or history and no one can totally prove their point- it just doesn't belong.

 

[Teresh]

After all, how do you get a scientist to zero in on those and do the fine-tuning or (on occasion) create a new and better theory unless you give them a good awareness of where the clunky spots are?

That's the problem here. Theories speak for themselves. When evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence and experimentation backing it up, ID advocates just walk in and say 'we're right because God said so', which is religion, not science. Scientists balk at this. ID advocates are not pointing out flaws in the theory of evolution, they are stating that it is not true without providing any contrary evidence. If you think there may be a flaw in the theory of evolution, do some experiments with appropriate controls and if they prove your hypothesis, present your results to the scientific community. Tell ID advocates to do the same, because apparently they don't understand that that's how science advances and theories improve.

Why do you guys think the debate is always framed as being between random, atheistic evolution on one end, and literalist creationism on the other?

Why is the middle-ground hypothesis--theistic evolution--left out?

I personally believe in theistic evolution because I believe in God and I know that humans came to be through a long process of evolution. People typically ignore the idea of theistic evolution simply because it implies the providence of God, which, like ID, is not a scientific concept. There may be other reasons, perhaps that the idea of theistic evolution is a Catholic concept and Protestants are generally biased against Catholics, but the non-scientific nature of God is the reason scientists do not talk about the idea of theistic evolution. As far as why no one else in the debate follows that idea, fundamentalists just want people to accept creationism as fact.

I am ALSO curious about why the name of creationism was changed to "Intelligent Design". I have some ideas, but I'd rather see the real reason before I open my mouth.

After Christian fundamentalists realised the majority of Americans were not listening to them anymore, and realised that a scientific concept (evolution) was being accepted by a large number of Americans as opposed to creationism, they sought to find a middle ground. What they came up with was "intelligent design", creationism with a new twist. Accepting that "microevolution" (ie changes within a species) occur and denying that "macroevolution" (ie changes between species) occur and purporting that some aspects of life are so complex that they must have been created by God rather than resulting randomly (ie eyes, ears, etc.).

They then looked for a handful of "scientists" in the evangelical community who would support their belief, and after having found a few (most of which, if not all, were at the time disgraced from the scientific community for one reason or another), they said "OK, we have scientists who agree with this, accept it as fact and teach it in science classes!"

The "scientists" in question did not present any evidence to the scientific community, did not perform any experiments, etc. This is generally why most (if not all) of them are disavowed therefrom: They have supported various ideas and beliefs in their time that have had no basis in fact and not performed experiments to back it up (or, worse, performed experiments that were not repeatable by anyone else).

Having a "scientist" agree with you doesn't make you right unless you have presented real evidence and experimentation. Until ID advocates can do this, they are simply blatantly incorrect.

No - that evolution has occured and continues to occur is an accepted scientific fact (read essay in other post). Some specific modes of evolution are still a matter of theory, while some modes of evolution are known fact.

Did you even read my post? I very clearly defined the term "theory", but apparently you didn't read my post, so you didn't understand what I meant.

Try reading the posts of the people you respond to. It's very helpful.

When her teacher talked about how earth formed and stuff all it start before anything is gas. My daughter asked, how gas formed itself. She said out from nowhere?

Apparently the teacher didn't understand the topic she was teaching. A hallmark of the American education system. ><

I think if it's presented we should include everything and let the kids decide. If you want to bring morality into it, that should be taught at home. Religion doesn't belong in school in this country.

Your post is self-contradictory. Intelligent design *is* religion... Despite that, though, you think it should be presented and taught in schools? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I voted Both

My both sons were taught at school in different weekday...Creationism and Evolutionism. I think it's meanfuling to have children to know the difference between Creationism and Evolutionism.

 

[web730]

I voted Both

My both sons were taught at school in different weekday...Creationism and Evolutionism. I think it's meanfuling to have children to know the difference between Creationism and Evolutionism.

I do agree with others who voted for both. I voted for Creationsim only because it's the best approach to teach. Evolution stays as a theory, not a fact yet so it shouldn't be taught to the kids. It belongs to the science world whatever they wish to believe in.

By the way didn't you know that pro-evolutionists* enforce the kids that they believe it's a fact. It's so ridicious part of them. *(not all pro-evolutionists but in good numbers)

It's no harm and maybe the best way to teach both of them and have them decide for themselves, yes.

Though I already knew what the evolution and creationism is about in general so I chose creationism or Intelligent Design. Only the big problem laid with the schools are that since they are funded by the government since the church and state in laws to be seperated so they cannot teach creationism.

So I would go with the Intelligent Design to "replace" for the Creationism. It probably would be most appropiate way. It's just new so I will want to learn more on that I.D. thing.

So for the schools I have to rethink that they teach them both ways so it can tell and show to make them understand far more that way. So I would go for that at best.

 

[Teresh]

Evolution stays as a theory, not a fact yet so it shouldn't be taught to the kids. It belongs to the science world whatever they wish to believe in.

Read the posts in your thread. Theories *are* facts. Your dogma has no evidence backing it up.

By the way didn't you know that pro-evolutionists* enforce the kids that they believe it's a fact. It's so ridicious part of them. *(not all pro-evolutionists but in good numbers)

Well, given that evolution is a theory, that makes sense. Do you think that pro-gravity people should not teach kids that gravity is a fact because gravity is "just a theory"?

It's no harm and maybe the best way to teach both of them and have them decide for themselves, yes.

Not in a biology class, though. Biology classes teach science *NOT* religion. Intelligent design and creationism are religion, not science. Teaching religion in a science class is patently idiotic.

So for the schools I have to rethink that they teach them both ways so it can tell and show to make them understand far more that way. So I would go for that at best.

The problem here is that you have the ID idea masquerading as science, as a theory, when it is neither. I have no problem with the idea of ID or the notion of teaching it in schools, but it has no place in a science class.

 

[web730]

Read the posts in your thread. Theories *are* facts. Your dogma has no evidence backing it up.

Theories = Theories, not Facts

the·o·ry (th-r, thr)n.

1. A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

2. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

Well, given that evolution is a theory, that makes sense. Do you think that pro-gravity people should not teach kids that gravity is a fact because gravity is "just a theory"?

There you said evolution is a theory.

I didn't say that the gravity is just a theory.

Gravity is an irrefutable fact .. that's not good one for you to use this as a sample or parable.

Not in a biology class, though. Biology classes teach science *NOT* religion. Intelligent design and creationism are religion, not science. Teaching religion in a science class is patently idiotic.

Didn't I know that religion isn't science? Come on, Teresh .. everybody knows that. Isn't that obvious?

 

[Teresh]

Theories = Theories, not Facts

the·o·ry (th-r, thr)n.

1. A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

2. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

Where are you getting this definition from? It's not the proper definition of the term.

Gravity is an irrefutable fact .. that's not good one for you to use this as a sample or parable.

Actually, it's a great one. Like evolution, it is a theory backed up and improved upon by many years of experimentation. Evolution is one of the strongest theories in all of science. You'll accept the validity of one theory, but not another? If you're going to deny the validity of evolution without evidence, you might as well refute gravity too without evidence too. You could call it "intelligent falling", no?

Didn't I know that religion isn't science? Come on, Teresh .. everybody knows that. Isn't that obvious?

If you think religion should be taught in science classes in preference to science, then no, you do not know the difference.

 

[MorriganTait]

By the way didn't you know that pro-evolutionists* enforce the kids that they believe it's a fact. It's so ridicious part of them. *(not all pro-evolutionists but in good numbers)

Evolution is taught as a fact because it IS a fact - we have observed it in our own life times. The part that is a "theory" is really all the concepts that abound about how specific organisms evolved.

Serious scientists agree, evolution IS a fact.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

Evolution: Fact and Theory
By Richard E. Lenski

Evolution theory explains how organisms have changed over time.
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.

 

[MorriganTait]

Well, given that evolution is a theory, that makes sense. Do you think that pro-gravity people should not teach kids that gravity is a fact because gravity is "just a theory"?

That evolution has and continues to occur is an accepted scientific fact - NOT a theory.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

"Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

 

[web730]

Where are you getting this definition from? It's not the proper definition of the term.

It's from the dictionary online. Check it out.

If you think religion should be taught in science classes in preference to science, then no, you do not know the difference.

Did you get it what I said in the last post? You didn't get it so let's r-e-p-e-a-t it once more ...

Didn't I know that religion isn't science? Come on, Teresh .. everybody knows that. Isn't that obvious?

Get it, Teresh?
-------------------------------

God exists. So these kids deserve to know Him more and learn both ways and decide it for themselves. Is that simple?

What can you and I do in case if you don't want to have Creationism or Evolution or even both in schools for the science classes? None, ofc.

You and I have no control in what they can teach or not in schools. You and I know that. It's up to all of these americans to decide.

 

[web730]

That evolution has and continues to occur is an accepted scientific fact - NOT a theory.

accepted? These scientists just accepted the evolution theory as a fact. Still they have NO irrefutable evidence with them. If they did, it would be all well-known fact that would be a big headline .. so why didn't we all get that already (??) BECAUSE it's still declared a theory by all of us non-scientists, however. Rather they have to say it to cover up it up because they have to save their red faces. Comprende?

 

[Endymion]

After reading this thread, I think Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell would turn over in their graves.

 

[MorriganTait]

God exists. So these kids deserve to know Him more and learn both ways and decide it for themselves. Is that simple?

I *BELIEVE* because of faith that God exists. Faith is not a matter of science, nor do I wish to have my children educated on what to believe in terms of a God from a public school teacher. I consider religious training to be the responsibility of the parent and the church of the parent's choosing - not the public schools - because religious beliefs are so divergent, I simply couldn't expect a public school to do justice to my personal beliefs.

What can you and I do in case if you don't want to have Creationism or Evolution or even both in schools for the science classes.
None, ofc. You and I have no control in what they can teach or not in schools. You and I know that.

It's called VOTING - yes, WE DO have control over school curriculum, within the bounds of the State and Federal Consitutions. The reason teaching Creationism and ID as science have been struck down by the courts is that neither of these concepts meets established criteria for being called a science. As far as I know, no school has been prevented from teaching the Judeo/Christian creation story in the context of a social studies or philosopy class, except for teaching it as the only possible option. In the USA, all religions have equal weight in terms of our government/public entities are concerned. If you teach one religious concept of creation, it's only fair to present the ideas of other major religions as well.

 

[MorriganTait]

accepted? These scientists just accepted the evolution theory as a fact. Still they have NO irrefutable evidence with them. If they did, it would be all well-known fact that would be a big headline .. so why didn't we all get that already (??) BECAUSE it's still declared a theory by all of us non-scientists, however. Rather they have to say it to cover up it up because they have to save their red faces. Comprende?

Have you heard the headlines about SARS, the Avian Flu, Ebola, AIDS, Monkey Pox, etc?

The are all headlines about organisms that have been observed to have evolved in our own lifetimes.

I have, in several threads, quoted scientist after scientist after scientist for you on what evolution is, and why it is accepted as fact. That you do not understand the science, or have not read what you were provided is mystifying. Scientists do not "accept" anything as fact without thorough, and incontorvertible evidence to support it. They don't sit in a room with a preacher who tells them something is and just all nod their heads and say "you must be right". And that non-scientists declare it's a theory still means nothing. Non-scientists declared the sun revolved around the Earth too, but it didn't change the facts at all. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anyone who had not studied the science to tell me much about what a particular scientific concept is or means.

Evolution is one simple thing: "In biology, evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world."

All the mechanisms of how evolution occurs, both in specific organisms, and as a whole still remain, in some part, a matter of theory. This is how most people get tripped up. They confuse the fact of evolution with the theories of the mechanisms of evolution.

 

[me_punctured]

The poll confused me a bit because the pollmaker seemed to employ the terms "creationism" and "intelligent design" interchangeably.

 

[Endymion]

What is a theory?

Warning! Danger! Danger! Just ahead: a big, nerdy technical discussion that you need to know if you want to woo people and show them how smart you are about science, religion, or the state of LL Cool J's bedsprings.


Let's talk about theory and fact. There is no such thing as a fact in the strict definition. For example, that you have a computer sitting in front of you as you read this is not a fact. That you are a human is not a fact.

They are not facts because you cannot logically prove that the computer is in front of you. You cannot logically prove 100% that you are human. Here's a mental exercise. Prove to me that this isn't the Matrix and that the computer in front of you isn't a trick played by superior artifical intelligence. It's impossible to prove that, which means that there is a chance that the computer is not in front of you. Therefore, that the computer is in front of you is no longer an undeniable fact.

Because we cannot prove anything (including theology--can you prove this isn't the Matrix and the AI created religion?), we come up with a solution. In science, the term is inductive logic and in religion, the term is faith. Inductive logic and faith are very different, but they are the approaches Science and Religion take towards uncertainty. Inductive logic is dependent on the concept of falsifiability with current knowledge. Faith is dependent on reconciliation with current understanding of preordained and accepted belief structures (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism). The philosophy of faith is a very interesting subject and deserves much attention, but this post is about the philosophy of science.

Falsifiability is a critical process and it is what distinguishes theory from hypothesis and educated guess. Let's look at an example. Let's say you are Isaac Newton in all of his genius. When you drop a rock, it falls to the earth. An amazing discovery, you sexy, brilliant thing, you. Let's say you come up with two ideas as to why:

Possible reasons why a rock falls to the ground:

1. Aliens shoot the rock with bright, loud ray guns, making it fall down to the earth.
2. A constant, reliable physical attraction between Earth and the rock (someday we'll call it Gravity) made it fall down.


Each of the two is a hypothesis. Before we upgrade any to theory, we must first try to disprove each hypothesis.

Falsifiability process:

1. If aliens shoot the rock with bright, loud ray guns, then every time we drop a rock, we will see bright lights and hear loud sounds. Status: Disproven.

2. If a constant, reliable physical attraction makes it possible, we must prove that this physical attraction is constant and reliable. We drop the rock ten hundred times. We drop it from fifty feet high and two centimeters low. We drop it while it's wet. We drop it while Omar Khayyam is lexically intoxicated. We drop the rock on L. Ron Hubbard's head. We drop it in water. We watch a Ron Jeremy video and then drop the rock while in hysterics. Each and every time, the rock falls to Earth. The attraction is consistent and reliable. Status: Not disproven.

Because all of the empirical, strict knowledge we have has not yet disproven the idea of a constant, reliable attraction, it is now upgraded to theory. We now have a theory of gravity.

Because there is no such thing as a fact in this world, the closest thing to "truth" or "fact" we have is simply theory.

-------

The short, easy version if you did what I would do and you blew off reading all the above:

- Fact and theory have different definitions when they are used in actual, technical language compared to casual conversation.

- There is no such thing as a fact.

- The highest form of "fact" is theory. Gravity is a theory. The idea that germs make you sick is a theory. When you look at your hand and say, "I have five fingers" it is only a theory. You may actually have six fingers, but you cannot disprove that there is something playing a trick on you, making you think you have five.

- In science, a theory is something that has not been disproven from empirical (real-life) knowledge. It, however, can become more specific and more accurate as we learn more.

 

[web730]

Evolution: fact or fiction?

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html