Should evolution be taught in schools?
-
IÂ’ve already quoted what the evolutionist said. They hatched another idea by rearranging the angle of the jaws and bone fragments, gave it another facelift and revised the age of the fossil.
To be frank, science is indeed initially using some guess work (hypothesis) BASED on evidence because no one knows. However when someone publish his work, it will be subject to a review by peers and they will comment and reject, or offer another model or some even continue on the works so tat it become more robust and more aligned to the truth. U can see tis kind of progression in the above example of the skull found. Someone make a hypothesis tat the skull found look human, he publish his finding, then it undergo scrutiny from peers before people come out with more refined explanation or findings from it. The conclusion is it is more ape-like than initially expected and it is not human
And no one find their work funny at all? What kind of science is this? Suggestions only. ItÂ’s all guesswork!
Can an evolutionist prove his theory like a true scientist proves his theory by experiments with conclusive results beyond a reasonable doubt?
However for evolution, it is not based on tis one skull (which in the end did not contradict evolution) but many many many evidences found which subject itself to reviews by peers and reach some form of unmistakable conclusion (theory).
U did not go and prove creationism with any evidence or dispute all the evidences found from evolution, u just find some examples which u think show evolution to be wrong and use tat to say tat "hey, i found one error in the evolution so the rest of the evolution r all wrong". It is like finding a gramatical error in a dictionary and saying english language is a hoax
Lastly, u never find a single evidence tat prove evolution to be wrongSo troublesome was the skull that famed paleo-anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leader of the team that discovered it, once told reporters: "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man. It simply fits no models of human beginnings."
There is a 3rd route, study the skull again and realise there is some error made in the modelling. If u want to play with "once told" statements, then the church once told people infidels should be killed and once told people can owned slaves and once told women r lower than men. Wait a minute.. they still say the last point now...Scientists should continue to unlock the secrets of creation for the benefit of humanity
U told people space science is mind boggling and human is too stupid. So wat r u trying to say from there ?I donÂ’t want to think of the logic of evolution theory as an art of being wrong with confidence.
U r not confident simply because it contradicts the bible
So, IÂ’m for giving creationism and evolution equal time to reach a conclusion. And wat is your argument for creationism ? Evidence for creationism ? Explanation for the other evidences from evolution ? -
You never stated which version of creationism.Originally posted by googoomuck:I have no comment.
I donÂ’t want to think of the logic of evolution theory as an art of being wrong with confidence.
So, IÂ’m for giving creationism and evolution equal time to reach a conclusion.
Once you share which version of creationism should be taught, please give one example of a testable prediction based on creation theory alone. -
You never stated which version of creationism.
Up to tis point of time, I guess he don't know anything about creationism as a science. He only reject evolution.
Once you share which version of creationism should be taught, please give one example of a testable prediction based on creation theory alone. -
We once used to think that dinosaurs were giant lizards.
Now, as we learn more, we realize that dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than to dinosaurs.
With that new insight, we now look at how we assembled dinosaur bones before. We assembled those bones based on different theories and assumptions. So now, we try to see if we can assemble the bones in a manner consistent with the new theory.
if we can't, it's a strike against the new theory. If we can, it doesn't mean the new theory is 100% true. But it just means that the bones don't rule out the possibility of the new theory being true. So the bones become inconclusive as evidence because it supports both theories.
If you have overwhelming support for a theory - tons of evidence from different fields, all pointing to the same conclusion, and you find one piece of evidence that contradicts it, is it more likely your entire theory is wrong? Or that you might be misinterpreting the evidence. So you try to find out if there's a way to interpret the evidence to fit the theory. If you find it's impossible, then it's a threat.
And the power of peer-review means that you have to explain what assumptions you made, and why it's reasonable to make those assumptions. Peer-review means that if you try to bullshit, your equally competent peers will catch you on it.
So let's say you find fragments of a skull and you are trying to reassemble it. Every skull fragment fits perfectly with other skull fragments. Not only that, the sheer lines also match perfectly. The bone structure at the end of each fragment also matches ajoining fragments. Clearly, there's only one way to assemble the skull. If you assemble it any other way, people will ask you why.
However, let's say you find fragments of skull. The fragments have been fossilized and worn away. Nothing really matches except you can tell by the general shape that it's probably from the same skull. So you try to assemble the skull based on your theories of what you are supposed to find. Then, another theory is raised. So then you try to see if you can reassemble it in a way that fits the other theory. The controversy then is which is the right way to assemble the skull, not whether the overall theory is wrong. -
I also don't understand the question "Can an evolutionist prove his theory like a true scientist proves his theory by experiments with conclusive results beyond a reasonable doubt?"
What is a true scientist? How do you define a "true scientist"?
Conclusive results beyond a reasonable doubt? Let's see... there's:
Evidence from paleontology - this is evidence from the fossil record. However, the problem with the fossil record is that the conditions for fossilization to occur are relatively rare. It's actually a minor "miracle" that we find any fossils at all. Unless of course you believe God put them there to fool us.
Evidence from comparative anatomy. There are examples of homologous structures and adaptive evolutionlike in the Pentadactyl limb or insect mouthparts. There are analogous structures and convergent evolution. There are also vestigial structures like whale leg bones.
Evidence from geographical distribution. Again, this is how we see evidence from many fields of science converge. For example, we know that once a group of creatures is isolated from another group, it will start to go down a separate evolutionary path. We can look at the continental distribution of animals and find evidence for migration and isolation. We know that continental drift occurs and we can separately date when land masses separated and combined. Oceanic island distribution also supports evolutionary theory. Unless of course, you believe that "For God so loved Australia, that he gave them cute kangaroos and koala bears."
Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry. Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns again support evolutionary theory. For example, the out-of-africa theory makes certain predictions that match what has been discovered by studies. There evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance and evidence from studies of complex iteration. There's evidence from speciation like the study on the Hawthorn fly. There's so much evidence that it's tiring to actually list all of it. And we're only scratching the surface! -
Definition of Creationism:
The literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
Who says creationism is science? Only the evolutionists say that.
What is true science? You can see the results of true science everywhere. If the observation and experiments are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, can we see this become reality?
The electricity we use today
The oil and chemicals we use today
The medicine we use today
The machineries that we use today
The vessels that are used to fly the air and space or sail or submerge in water today
The bombs and weapons that the military use today
Originally posted by googoomuck
Scientists should continue to unlock the secrets of creation for the benefit of humanity
I don't recall myself saying human is too stupid. You put words in my mouth.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
U told people space science is mind boggling and human is too stupid. So wat r u trying to say from there ?
I did say scientists should continue to unlock the secrets of creation for the benefit of humanity. What else is there to elaborate? -
Who says creationism is science? Only the evolutionists say that.
Since u agree it is not science, then creationism is really just a myth and a fairytale. Then how can it be compared with evolution which is science.The electricity we use today
Evolution is used to make the medicine we made today such as antibiotics.
The oil and chemicals we use today
The medicine we use today
The machineries that we use today
The vessels that are used to fly the air and space or sail or submerge in water today
The bombs and weapons that the military use today
Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01
from berkeley university
U should write another point, "The food we eat today"
evolution help in the improvement of agriculture
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/agriculture_01
In this case, an evolutionary perspective — one that considers the history of corn — pointed scientists towards teosinte for these genes. Although they don't look it, evolutionary studies indicate that wild teosinte and domesticated corn are close relatives.
In 1977, Rafael Guzman, a Mexican biologist, discovered a previously unknown teosinte species, Zea diploperennis (shown at left), in South-central Mexico. This species happens to carry particularly useful genes—including genes for resistance to seven viral diseases that affect domestic corn. Using these genes, scientists developed virus-resistant domestic corn varieties.
Understanding the evolutionary history of domestic crops and other organisms helps scientists identify valuable stores of genetic variation.
And how about understanding the nature or living things around us, such as biology ? Don't tell me u think biology, one major field in the world of science, is wrong or lousy. It is known tat biology without evolution is senseless.I don't recall myself saying human is too stupid. You put words in my mouth.
The complexity of the laws of physics are simply mind boggling. Isn't it reasonable to say that the human minds are just simply not intelligent enough to understand the purpose of the creator of the universe?
on your reply on 24 January 2008 · 07:17 PM -
You're kidding me right? Either you are woefully ignorant, or you are woefully deluded. I get the feeling you are sincere so I don't think you are outright lying.Originally posted by googoomuck:Definition of Creationism:
The literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
Who says creationism is science? Only the evolutionists say that.
Creationists are the ones who claim that creationism is a science. That's the whole point. Creationists want creationism taught in science class.
There is no issue with the biblical story of creation taught in a religion or philosophy class.
Do yourself a favor and read Kitzmiller vs Dover. Read how Creationists repeatedly lied in court in an attempt to argue that Intelligent Design (which is rebadged Creationism) was a science.
Go read http://www.icr.org/.
"Welcome to the Institute for Creation Research, the premier education and research institution that equips believers with scientific evidences of the Bible's accuracy and authority. "
Go read Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis
Go read the Creation Science FAQ -
That's what I said: not intelligent enough to understand the creator of the universe.
That does not mean the human is too stupid. -
That's what I said: not intelligent enough to understand the creator of the universe.
Let me see
That does not mean the human is too stupid.
Not intelligent. Opposite of intelligence is stupid. Not intelligent = stupid.
Wat is wrong with my conclusion ?
And to me, there is no such thing as a creator. -
Pretty much all of modern biology rests on evolutionary theory.
Doctors are an interesting thing. General practitioners, for example, are not scientists. It's possible to learn how to recognize symptoms and treatments without a deep understanding of the biology behind it. And some doctors even advocate quack treatments.
Doctors are like car mechanics. Car mechanics know how to fix cars, but they may not understand the physics of how the car engine works.
The theory of evolution pervades medicine. It explains for example, why we have the appendix (no it's not that God put it there for fun) or our tonsils. It explains why different groups of people have different genetic dispositions to various diseases.
Probably the most visible example of evolution in action in modern medicine is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. And if you think about it, it makes complete sense. Antibiotics kill bacteria. Mutation means some bacteria may develop antibiotic resistance. Those bacterial cells survive and multiply. After a long period of time, you are left only with antibiotic resistant bacteria. -
To be fair, I do agree that "not intelligent enough" does not equal to stupid.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Let me see
Not intelligent. Opposite of intelligence is stupid. Not intelligent = stupid.
Wat is wrong with my conclusion ?
And to me, there is no such thing as a creator.
Besides, this line of discussion is a distraction to the main argument which is that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory and there is no credible evidence for creation theory. -
u know why people eat antibiodies must finish the whole course and why for some serious dieases, a variety of antibiodies as well as a very potent dosage r given ?
All tis is based on evolution theory. Viruses and bacteria evolve to be resistant to antibiodies. So they come out with such measures and it works in slowing the weakening of antibioidies. Extinct these bacteria before they evolved.
If u don't believe in evolution, then ask everybody not to finish the whole course of antibiodies. Eat until they think they r well lor. Then u effectively try to doom mankind. -
But I admit. I find it hard to understand how anyone can accept the literal account of creation in Genesis. The Catholic Church doesn't even officially take that position.Originally posted by Phaze:To be fair, I do agree that "not intelligent enough" does not equal to stupid.
Besides, this line of discussion is a distraction to the main argument which is that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory and there is no credible evidence for creation theory. -
I find it hard to understand how anyone can accept the literal account of creation in Genesis. The Catholic Church doesn't even officially take that position
I find it hard to believe myself but people out there r really serious in rejecting evolution and they based it on lousy studies and brainwashing propaganda. U just need to ask some of your christian friends and they will tell u tat evolution is a big lie.
Not only tat, they believe homosexuals to be a type of mental illness. Who knows... if things become more serious, they will start stoning people and owning slaves -
Most of my Christian friends compartmentalize their beliefs.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I find it hard to believe myself but people out there r really serious in rejecting evolution and they based it on lousy studies and brainwashing propaganda. U just need to ask some of your christian friends and they will tell u tat evolution is a big lie.
Not only tat, they believe homosexuals to be a type of mental illness. Who knows... if things become more serious, they will start stoning people and owning slaves
So they have no problems accepting evolution. In conversation they may talk about Adam and Eve and the Fall, but if you dig deeper and question them about it, they admit it doesn't really make sense.
I do have a friend though who believes in the Rapture. One problem is he doesn't really read anything except for what he has to read for work (he works in a bank) and the Bible. And even when he reads the Bible, he feels he must use a bible reading guide so that the devil doesn't try to cloud his understanding with wrong interpretations though you would think the perfect, written word of god wouldn't be so prone to mis-interpretation.
That's what I find funny about Christians like him. I've actually read more of the bible than he has and he doesn't read anything about science. To him, it doesn't matter. I asked him why and he told me that God tells him everything he needs to know.
Amazing.
By the way, did you see the thread on the response to Dr Laura's letter? it's hilarious. -
So they have no problems accepting evolution. In conversation they may talk about Adam and Eve and the Fall, but if you dig deeper and question them about it, they admit it doesn't really make sense.
U r lucky man... when I dig deeper, they become emotionally disturbed and get pissed off.. and tat is really a smart way to avoid answering question...And even when he reads the Bible, he feels he must use a bible reading guide so that the devil doesn't try to cloud his understanding with wrong interpretations though you would think the perfect, written word of god wouldn't be so prone to mis-interpretation
I find tat very funny as well. If u read the guide, u will find tat it literally twist the whole passage into something tat is totally different from literal interpretation of the bible. I think the reading guide becomes the real bible.
I think a problem with christians, especially ones belonging to the newer churches, r becoming more fanatic and going more into the old testaments. I find a large group of people speaking in tongues a complete surprise. They r all talking gibberish, (they all cannot understand others words, everyone have a different way of saying the same thing, they even say the same thing wrongly at different times, if u record a number of their own tongue speaking and play it back to them, they also don't know wat they r trying to say, it is really talking nonsense) and they really believed it to be true and it is god's gift. If they can believed they can do tat, they can believe anything -
Creationism is a belief.
There's also a definition for creation science: - an effort to give scientific support for the truth of the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis.
Some creationists are also scientists in their own right. They learn science in schools, in addition to believing the words in the religious book, the bible.
So, their arguments are also from a scientific point of view, not entirely quoted from the religious book.
The creationist scientists have the added advantage of gaining knowledge from two sources.
Give the evolutionists and creationists more time, as long as they need. That's to be fair.
Einstein is dead before he can prove his theorem correct with a spaceship that can travel close to the speed of light. Stephen Hawkings is getting old and his theorem is not conclusive yet. Most laymen don't understand their theorems anyway.
Leave it to the next generation of brilliant minds to carry on with the evolution vs creationism debate. -
Erm... okay.Originally posted by googoomuck:Creationism is a belief.
There's also a definition for creation science: - an effort to give scientific support for the truth of the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis.
Some creationists are also scientists in their own right. They learn science in schools, in addition to believing the words in the religious book, the bible.
So, their arguments are also from a scientific point of view, not entirely quoted from the religious book.
The creationist scientists have the added advantage of gaining knowledge from two sources.
Give the evolutionists and creationists more time, as long as they need. That's to be fair.
Einstein is dead before he can prove his theorem correct with a spaceship that can travel close to the speed of light. Stephen Hawkings is getting old and his theorem is not conclusive yet. Most laymen don't understand their theorems anyway.
Leave it to the next generation of brilliant minds to carry on with the evolution vs creationism debate.
I don't quite understand your point here. But anyway, I think I've made my position clear.
Creationism is not a science. Scientists refer to Creation Science as Creationism because Creation "Science" is not a science.
People are free to teach Creationism where is it appropriate. However, it is most certainly not a science and should not be taught in science class.
The theory of evolution, however, is a science, and is appropriately taught in science class.
Not that I want to rehash old arguments, but the point you made about Creation "Scientists" having an added advantage of two sources is wrong. That's the problem. If Creation Scientists were doing real science, they would be welcome into the scientific community. However, what they do is not science and does not contribute to our body of scientific knowledge.
And if you want examples, it's very simple. Look at Michael Behe. He has a reasonable publication record before he started to get hung up on his bacterial flagellum theory. The problem is once you posit a magical creator, that's where science ends. How did the bacterial flagellum motor come about? God did it. End of story. So all he does now is deny the research and advances that show his theory to be false.
Look at Guillermo Gonzalez. He had a reasonable publication record until he got hung up on his idea of the Galactic Habitable Zone. Since God, by definition, can violate any law of nature, his theory has no predictive power. -
Science VS Religion debate
To all those scientist out there, the third law of conservation states that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, they can only be converted from one form to another.
Yet these same scientists support the Big Bang theory, where everything is created out of nothing.
The Big Bang theory in fact supports creationism read Genesis 1 – 1 where GOD created everything out of nothing.
Dinosaurs bones, Cro-Magnon man skeletons and human skull attach to monkey jaws are the work of the Devil to deceive those who are weak in faith.
I would rather be the creation of a divine being than the descendents of monkeys, to be accurate, mutated descendents of monkeys. -
-
You're rather be the creation of a divine being, I'd rather be Bill Gates.Originally posted by RobinHood69:Science VS Religion debate
To all those scientist out there, the third law of conservation states that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, they can only be converted from one form to another.
Yet these same scientists support the Big Bang theory, where everything is created out of nothing.
The Big Bang theory in fact supports creationism read Genesis 1 – 1 where GOD created everything out of nothing.
Dinosaurs bones, Cro-Magnon man skeletons and human skull attach to monkey jaws are the work of the Devil to deceive those who are weak in faith.
I would rather be the creation of a divine being than the descendents of monkeys, to be accurate, mutated descendents of monkeys.
It's nice to want thing. That doesn't make it true.
Actually, science makes no comment at all about how the universe is created. Everything is speculation. There is no testable scientific theory on the creation of the universe.
We have models and theories that bring us very close to the beginning of the universe. But we're not even sure if the word "beginning" has any meaning. We are hoping the new supercolliders we are building will help us shed more light on the very early universe.
All models break down once you reach Planck time. But first, we need to understand what time is.
But anyway, we don't really know if the Universe was really created ex nihilo. It could be quantum fluctuations in a primordial chaos. It could be pretty much anything.
But anyway, since you seem quite convinced by the Genesis account, do you also accept that god created the earth before he created light, and light before he created the sun and stars?
Do you also accept that there a firmament that divides the waters of the deep from the waters above the firmament? -
Oh. I just wanted to point out a common logical fallacy called a False Dichotomy.
A false dichotomy is when you think there are only two possible answers, when there are actually more.
The mistake creationists often make is that they think if they prove the theory of evolution wrong, that there is an intelligent designer aka God.
But that is not the case. Even if the theory of evolution were to be proven fundamentally wrong (which is very very highly unlikely at this point), it does not mean that the christian god did it.
C.S. Lewis makes a similar mistake in this "trilemma" - his claim that Jesus was either liar, lunatic, or Lord. Lewis said that well, it seems to him that Jesus was neither a liar or lunatic, so he must be lord.
But there are other possibilities. Perhaps he was just mistaken. Or perhaps he was misrepresented by this followers.
I mean c'mon. Even in this modern age, people can think that "ionizing bracelets" worn on the wrist can improve health and reduce pain (even after double blind studies show there is no effect. How much more so might there have been misunderstandings in our superstitious past? -
For those who do not know C.S. Lewis, he is the dude who brought the novel series, "Chronicles of Narnia". He is no doubt a very devout christian eh.Originally posted by Phaze:Oh. I just wanted to point out a common logical fallacy called a False Dichotomy.
A false dichotomy is when you think there are only two possible answers, when there are actually more.
The mistake creationists often make is that they think if they prove the theory of evolution wrong, that there is an intelligent designer aka God.
But that is not the case. Even if the theory of evolution were to be proven fundamentally wrong (which is very very highly unlikely at this point), it does not mean that the christian god did it.
C.S. Lewis makes a similar mistake in this "trilemma" - his claim that Jesus was either liar, lunatic, or Lord. Lewis said that well, it seems to him that Jesus was neither a liar or lunatic, so he must be lord.
But there are other possibilities. Perhaps he was just mistaken. Or perhaps he was misrepresented by this followers.
I mean c'mon. Even in this modern age, people can think that "ionizing bracelets" worn on the wrist can improve health and reduce pain (even after double blind studies show there is no effect. How much more so might there have been misunderstandings in our superstitious past? -
we need to be very clear at this point:Originally posted by Phaze:Oh. I just wanted to point out a common logical fallacy called a False Dichotomy.
A false dichotomy is when you think there are only two possible answers, when there are actually more.
The mistake creationists often make is that they think if they prove the theory of evolution wrong, that there is an intelligent designer aka God.
But that is not the case. Even if the theory of evolution were to be proven fundamentally wrong (which is very very highly unlikely at this point), it does not mean that the christian god did it.
C.S. Lewis makes a similar mistake in this "trilemma" - his claim that Jesus was either liar, lunatic, or Lord. Lewis said that well, it seems to him that Jesus was neither a liar or lunatic, so he must be lord.
But there are other possibilities. Perhaps he was just mistaken. Or perhaps he was misrepresented by this followers.
I mean c'mon. Even in this modern age, people can think that "ionizing bracelets" worn on the wrist can improve health and reduce pain (even after double blind studies show there is no effect. How much more so might there have been misunderstandings in our superstitious past?
1) evolution is just but 1 theory of life's origin, there're plenty of others including extraterrestial
2) let's say we're able to prove that life on earth is created by a god or a group of gods, that only means that such a god or gods exist. i mean there're so many religions out there, this so-called creator may be the jewish/christian/islamic god, hindu god, taoist god, greek/roman/pagan god, voodoo god or may be even the flying spaghetti monster. so which version of creationism is true? does that mean that the teaching of creationism has to include the "genesis" in all the religions in the world?