Print

[thewickedjester]

QUOTE

No theory has ever become a law, it has nothing to do with the confidence that a scientist has in his "theory", it strictly deals with the way in which something can be proven.

Numbers are absolute. Therefore, if a theory can be expressed in mathmatical sense, then the theory itself is absolute.

I may have misunderstood exactly what the discussion of scientific theories are or are not. So if I did, I appologize in advance.

Heres the deal to the original question:
Should creationism be taught in schools? No, mainly because its a theory developed, backed, and whose entire content seems to revolve around religon. And religon does not need to be in school. If you beleive in Creationism then teach it to your children. I would agree that to teach the basics of Creationism wouldn't be bad, to say that its possible we were put here for a reason and we are in exactly the same state (physically) that we were millions of years ago.

Should evolution be taught in schools? Mabye, if nothing more than an alternative to Creationism, and to let children decide for themselves. I certainly think the parents should have a say wether or not the children learn it, as well as the children (you know, send them to the library or what not). It certainly should never be regarded that its the only posibility.

Evolution is plausible, so is creationism. Neither seem very likely in my opinion. Do I know where we came from? No. But is it likely that we just 'appeared' from no where? No, if that were the case, I would have some cake right..... NOW *note: I dont have any cake, I'm sensing that this doesnt work like its supposed to*. On the other hand, the point that if we evolved from apes, why are apes still here is quite valid (although, one could assume the point that humans evolved not from apes specifically but from something very close to apes...).

[thewickedjester]

QUOTE

Its not really a valid question

Yes.. it is acctually... seeing as how you can't prove or disprove it but it is entirely plausible (however improbable) it is in fact valid.

QUOTE

The problem with this understanding(yours) of evolution is that you think one animal turns itself into another animal.

Acctually, this isnt what I beleive, I was simply stating it as a point.

QUOTE

Evolution suggests that a new animal develops from a pre-existing animal

No. Evolution suggests that an animal better adapts itself to is surrounding enviroments. Simply put, if you have a hairless ape (not necissarily a human, but you know) in a very cold climate the theory behind evolution is that it would grow hair over many generations (gaining more and more hair until it finnally gained a full coat). At least, this is how evolution was tought to me.

Evolution goes somewhat hand in hand with Darwinism (suvival of the fittest) in that if you arent strong enough to survive you either get wiped out, or adapt to the very thing that wiped you out.

QUOTE

There will probably still be stock cars driving around though

True, and again, I was simply stating it as others had stated it to me.

[thewickedjester]

QUOTE

The point that is important is that the original ape would not change

Well, theres nothing to necissarily say they would continue to live on. If Darwins theory of survival of the fittest it true (which I beleive it is) then the older (less hairy apes) would die out as they couldnt survive *well* without the hair thats neccissary for them to evolve (in later generations) into.

QUOTE

side note, if you have ever heard the comment from Darwin about people making a "religion" out of his theory, this is where it comes from. The model of 'survival of the fittest' was stretched beyond its intended usage for awhile. It was used even in the world of politics. The more you know....

Yeah, its quite funny that people took it so seriously. Though in some instances the general idea of Survival of the Fittest does apply to things like politics, business, ect.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

Scientific Law or Theory

LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

 2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

 3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

  THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

Where does evolution, gravity, sub atomic particle, electromagnetics, ballistics, DNA, Lie detector test fall in the above categories.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 28 2005, 03:34 AM)

i understand it was probably what you were taught. 

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 27 2005, 08:48 PM)

sorry for the multiple posts, but im posting most of this from my cellphone

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

The point that your missing is that we do not observe subatomic particles directly. We, instead, have observed them indirectly. The scientific community is absolutely sure they exist. They use them to determine outcome. They are still theory though, because they are not proven directly.

What is lightning, basically massive amounts of current or electrons moving in
any given uniform direction. Electrons are not sub atomic but they are particles.
I cant see the wind but its there. Madam Curie discovered radiation by the traces tracks that subatomic particles left on camera film. None of which are phenomena.

We cant see subatomic particles in real time but their existance can be "confirmed or established by observation or experiment" so much so that we can postulate mathematical expression to describe their behavior.
 

QUOTE

A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement

Of which one can observe and make same conclusion about gravity accelaration.

QUOTE

xmedia, you didnt link the "The theory of cold fusion", you linked to a book titled Cold fusion theory. It is not a scientific journal either. Any theory would first be published in a reputable scientific journal and opened to peer review. Other scientists would test the theory, and test the math behind the theory. This is not even a theory, but instead a discussion of the theories that could potentially support cold fusion

Fusion is more law than theory, hence the millions of fusion reactors that light the night sky. Cold Fusion is still in theoretical stages

QUOTE

The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof

Because no one has coined and patented the phrase " The theory of cold fusion"
doesnt obscure the probably tons of printed material on the topic of fusion

QUOTE

a scientific Theory is defined. It is capable of being used to make predictions. In this case i can use the length of 2 sides of a right triangle to determine the 3rd

NO,NO,NO,NO..........

QUOTE

A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement.

You cant find one mathematical fact with regards to evolution neither has it "been confirmed or established by observation or experiment" Based upon your argument I could coin the phrase " The theory of Witchcraft " and with all of its followers create a scientific buzz, without any shred of mathematical fact.  

P.S. Why do you regard " F=ma " as a law and not theory.

[puckSR]

oh and my apologies to everyone for misusing the word empirical.  I was thinking of chemistry, where it refers to the simplest form of a system.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

The term theoretical is used to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been observed.

What word describes a result predicted by scientific theory that HAS been observed.

QUOTE

The discovery of genetics helped to verify evolution as a truth. We now had a traceable system that could be used to determine the differences and similiarities between species. We also discovered that DNA is subject to random minute alterations known as mutations. The fact that evolution described these mutations and the fact that it accounted for a massive amount of similarity between similiar species were both examples of predictions it made that were later verified by DNA.

This is scientific speculation, one possible or plausible explanation essentially a hypothesis. Which I view as misleading, but until you list some source it is just your opinion or your intepretation.

P.S. Childish rants do not serve to elevate your position, but detract from your
       point of view.

[Colonel32]

PuckSR: I just want to say we all respect your right to believe, but asking for this to be taught in schools can lead to some angry responses..

First of all what would you teach?

Do you notice how much of this thread had been focused on evolution in comparison to creationism? This is because the actual theory behind creationism doesn't exist. The idea of creationism is built on the flaws of evolution theories and the bible.

A theory is something that can be reproduced. 'Evolution' is a valid theory that can be taught in classrooms because there are scientific elements that can be both taught and tested.


The only real theory in 'creationism' is 'day-age' theory. It says that when God said he created the earth in X amount of days, that X actually represents several ages and millions of years. That could be taught in a religions class and I agree that it should. If creationism were to be taught in science class, you would have one semester teaching evolution science, then a few days saying it was all wrong. Not only would that confuse students, but no accredited University will teach creationsim, so it is not preparing students for the reality of post secondary schooling.

Asking a teacher to test children on creationism would be also be close to impossible. First of all, there is no accredited scientists that could write the course or texts. Whether people believe it or not, 'scientists' like Kenny Baugh are not actually scientists. The problem is that every part of creationsim condradicts other aspects of science. If we are taught that it takes millions of years us to see a star, how can you teach someone that the world is only 6000 years in the next semester. It condradicts, geography, biology, physics and anthropology just to start and if creationism is introduced scholastically it would make the marking of tests open to interpretation.

The idea of debating this in the courts and not in the scientific community is a very scary precedent. Ultimately the courts are deciding what legitimate science is. Creationism is not science and it is not based on reproductive research. You cannot base science theory from footprints in the mud or flaws in evolution and it terrifies me that the courts have been involved the way they have.


Intelligent design is a valid idea. Saying at the end of the evolution portions of science classas that some people believe God made evolution would be suitable.  You could even mention some of the theories that creationists have formed about Yellowstone park and the Grand Canyon. But you cannot ethically 'teach' it as science and I pray the courts will recognize this.

[puckSR]

what would i teach?

Simple

I would teach science in a science class.  I dont think you can teach anything else.  Science proved evolution to its satisfaction, therefore, you teach evolution.
You might make a passing reference to creationism, but probably only to discredit it as unscientific.

My religious views strongly support evolution.  In fact, i find it insulting to my religious views that anyone is trying to insert a pseudoscience into a science classroom.  My religion believes that science is the most holy profession.

[Colonel32]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 29 2005, 06:05 AM)

what would i teach?

[puckSR]

I strongly disagree.

The "philosophy" of intelligent design is fair enough.  The reality we live in is too complex to exist by itself, so there must be a creator.  This is the same school of thought that has given us almost every religion or mythology.

The problem with "intelligent design" is that they are trying to suggest it can be used exclusively in the realm of genetic evolution.  They are not trying to say that the "designer" is responsible for the existence of genetics.  They are suggesting that he is actively involved in genetic evolution.

It is a valid philosophy as well.  Its known as theism, the problem is that they are trying to pretend that it doesnt matter.  Science usually takes the side of Deism, or in the case of my religion, deterministic deism.  The idea that a "designer" is still actively working brings a lot more questions than answers.

Why is he is still trying to fix it?
Is he stupid?
If he is still directly participating, then why doesnt he make himself known?
Why does he decide to destroy what he has created every now and then?
How many mistakes has he made?
How many more will he make?

The intelligent design idea falls short of even being a sound philosophical entity.  It is simply an attempt to merge the idea of creationism with the religious scientists view of a possible God.  What you wind up with is Theism, and a fairly odd version of theism if i do say so myself.

Most Theists simply think that God is still involved for the purpose of directly helping us, they normally dont think he is still trying to tinker with Earth's biology.  

I also take offense to the fact that this debate over Bible vs. Science is directly effecting the number of scientifically ignorant people.  I have spoken with people recently who think NASA found a lost day in time.  Who think that the bible predicted genetics.  Or who think that a theory is "just a theory", and not a scientific fact.  Some of them were religiously motivated.  
Others, like xmedia, were simply confused.  Most likely because of this debate, and other similiar disagreements.

If we cannot teach our children without religion, what is going to fall next?  Maybe history class.  Perhaps the reading of our young people will suffer.  We dont want them reading anything that doesnt agree with the bible.

I really do care, i care enough to stand up and tell people the truth.  Scientists recently boycotted the Kansas board of educations hearing over evolution.  They claimed that the evidence was self-explanatory, and that it was just a joke anyways.  Now that they realize that people will believe anything they hear, they are on the war path.  They want to get the truth out.  

If you dont agree with evolution, i will talk to you.  If you dont understand something in the realm of science, ask me, i will try to help.  If you have any question about anything, ask someone.  Ask someone though who knows the truth.
Dont ask a scientist to tell you the names of Jesus's apostles, ask a priest.
Dont ask a minister to tell you about evolution, ask a scientist.
Actually dont ask a minister who stands to directly profit from what he tells you anything.  If your minister makes money if you follow him, and loses money if you dont; you shouldnt believe a word that he says.

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 28 2005, 07:08 PM)

Knowledge, or you could say proof of theory

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

3 March 2001

POINTS OF ORIGINS:
DNA testing has helped support creation model
by Dr. Glenn Jackson

A lot of DNA testing and skull-comparing has been going on with living humans and human fossils lately. This is causing problems for the evolution model, and is helping the creation model more with every new study.

For many years, evolutionists have said that humans evolved in Africa.

Entire Article