Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[RearAdmiral]

I don't trust anybody with a head that isn't in proportion with the rest of their body.

 

[ichy]

Do we have a way to recreate the universe? Do we have a way to create mass from nothing? I have yet to see a scientist create a miniature universe from nothing. Lets see a scientist recreate the "big bang" from nothing.

This has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[zsdersw]

I see no problem withdrawing public funding, which is what this is apparently referring to. Private money is still perfectly free to flow into the school.

 

[HAL9000]

Can't we test certain theories, such as mass, friction and gravity?

We can do certain test to prove friction exist, and how it works.

To a degree, obviously that's the point all science can be tested to a degree.

Do we have a way to recreate the universe? Do we have a way to create mass from nothing? I have yet to see a scientist create a miniature universe from nothing.

Good god you sound like you were taught creationism at school.

The universe is, and always has been expanding, it's movement can be measured, if we extrapolate this data backwards then all matter in the universe returns to a single point. We also have carbon dating, we know that singularities exist, then there's the research being done at the LHC.

All of that is science, which using we can rationally determine that the universe began from a single point, rapidly expanding outwards, a calculable amount of time ago, we call that event the big bang. It's a scientific theory, with valid evidence supporting it.

Creationism has the bible.

 

[HAL9000]

It's England. Don't care.

That said, I don't see a problem with a teacher teaching anything, be it creationism, intelligent design, or evolution. Since none of those are proven, and as long as the teacher states that everything being taught is in fact theory or fairy tale, I don't see a problem.

I remember my teachers doing that all the time: "I'm going to go through this for an alternate viewpoint, even though personally I don't believe it to be true." The more information given to anybody is fine.

But don't you think that public funding should only be given to schools teaching valid theory, I don't think we should be funding schools that teach that the universe was created by a unicorn...

Look at it this way. If Creationism was taught, and Evolution as well, which one holds more scientific "weight"? Which ones makes the other one look silly? If both were taught to school kids, don't you think Creationism would fall flat on its face, and kids would be more apt to follow evolution as the one closer to the truth?

It depends how it's taught, if it's taught that "a supreme being instigated the beginnings of the word in it's present form" and that the alternative theory is "we all used to be monkeys ages ago."

That phrasing makes evolution sound worse.

 

[heymrdj]

I love how people get so worked into knots defending their little theory as fact. Everything about what we "know" about the beginning of the universe is a theory. There is no empiracle evidence, there is no proof. Until it is validated with 100% unfalterable proof, it's a theorem, and according to this, does not belong in schools.

We don't need anything about God, Buddha, the tree of life, flying spaghetti monsters, evolution, darwinism, or big bang in any public classroom. It is not proven 100% with unfalterable proof.

And before any numbskulls come in here with "well evolution has a substancial amount of proof...we're just still missing things..but we'll find it!" just do like my math teacher told my class. "Shut up, your answer was 99% correct, but in math that's 100% wrong".

 

[zsdersw]

I also don't think creationism/ID has any more of a place in science curricula than science has a place in theology curricula..

 

[brandonb]

Errm no, Evolution has valid science behind it, we have evidence of many different stages of evolution, we have the genetic similarities, we have carbon dating.

Creationism has the bible.

How do you test that carbon dating is accurate back 4 billion years? We'd have to create a test which would prove the tests are accurate. We can't, and will never be able to. We assume the scale is linear, when we have no way to know for sure.

Here is what wiki says:

Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years.

How do we know it is 5730 years? How did they determine this?

 

[HAL9000]

I love how people get so worked into knots defending their little theory as fact. Everything about what we "know" about the beginning of the universe is a theory. There is no empiracle evidence, there is no proof. Until it is validated with 100% unfalterable proof, it's a theorem, and according to this, does not belong in schools.

We don't need anything about God, Buddha, the tree of life, flying spaghetti monsters, evolution, darwinism, or big bang in any public classroom. It is not proven 100% with unfalterable proof.

And before any numbskulls come in here with "well evolution has a substancial amount of proof...we're just still missing things..but we'll find it!" just do like my math teacher told my class. "Shut up, your answer was 99% correct, but in math that's 100% wrong".

You can't pop evolution in with flying spaghetti monsters.

How do you test that carbon dating is accurate back 4 billion years? We'd have to create a test which would prove the tests are accurate. We can't, and will never be able to. We assume the scale is linear, when we have no way to know for sure.

Here is what wiki says:

Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years.

How do we know it is 5730 years? How did they determine this?

True, but when talking about evolution it's important.

 

[brandonb]

But don't you think that public funding should only be given to schools teaching valid theory, I don't think we should be funding schools that teach that the universe was created by a unicorn...



It depends how it's taught, if it's taught that "a supreme being instigated the beginnings of the word in it's present form" and that the alternative theory is "we all used to be monkeys ages ago."

That phrasing makes evolution sound worse.

I believe the way it should be taught is this: "Nobody will ever know how the universe was formed, because there is not enough information up to this point to determine what happened in the very beginning of time."

Anything else is not valid, and ends up making a leap of faith in some way or another.

 

[heymrdj]

You can't pop evolution in with flying spaghetti monsters.



True, but when talking about evolution it's important.

Lol wonderful way to side step the answers. It's all bull with no evidence period. We can't know nor will ever know wiht 100% accuracy, so our beginnings will always be a theory.

 

[HAL9000]

I believe the way it should be taught is this: "Nobody will ever know how the universe was formed, because there is not enough information up to this point to determine what happened in the very beginning of time."

Anything else is not valid, and ends up making a leap of faith in some way or another.

Or possibly

"All scientific theory, is just that the best theory we have based on the evidence available to us at the time, scientific theory is never fact, it is rational conclusions based on evidence, which changes as technology and science advances. Here's the science of gravity, evolution, friction and the beginnings of the universe"

 

[HAL9000]

Lol wonderful way to side step the answers. It's all bull with no evidence period. We can't know nor will ever know wiht 100% accuracy, so our beginnings will always be a theory.

We can't know anything with 100% accuracy except maths and the fact that we exist. Everything else is theory.

 

[Cerb]

Why should we take something that is always changing as fact? If it changes, then its clearly not fact. Since science changes its opinion on the history of the universe and how life began, then it should not be blindly accepted as fact.

It is not taken blindly as fact. It is taken as fact because it can be proven to not be incorrect, within the bounds of our current ability to understand and test it. It's not so purely binary as you seem to think it is.

People are, today, constantly trying to come up with solutions for how the Universe came into being, how to fill in those gaps in evolution theory, how light, electricity, magnetism, and gravity work, etc..

These are not absolutely known things. If you want to sleep at night with the knowledge that everything can be explained, you need religion. Science is only going to show you, with every new provable fact, about 10 new mysteries, that we previously did not even know we did not know. But, what little we do know can get us to the moon, make nuclear reactors, and build binary computers with circuit components merely a few molecules wide.

Now, sadly, science curricula, especially at the low levels, and with bad teachers being the norm, may tend to teach it as a form of faith. That does no one any good, and is flat out wrong.

2+2 = 4 is fact. We can prove that all day long.

Wait a few months or a few years, and science will change its opinion on the universe. But yet we are supposed to accept it as fact?

No. What can be proven is fact. However, science has very little in the way of absolutes. It does not have the nicety of 2+2=4. It has the ambiguity of, "about 2 plus about 2 comes to about 4, plus or minus some error." Over time, what 2 is, what 4 is, and what the error is, are narrowed down more and more. Your concept of how science works is very different from those that value it, much less those putting their lives into it.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

YAY! Need this passed in the US as well.

Victory in crushing opposing opinions.

Don't like someones opinion, just regulate it out of existence.

I think equal time should be given to different opinions on how the universe and life began. Science has proven itself to be wrong from time to time.

Why should we take something that is always changing as fact? If it changes, then its clearly not fact. Since science changes its opinion on the history of the universe and how life began, then it should not be blindly accepted as fact.

2+2 = 4 is fact. We can prove that all day long.

Wait a few months or a few years, and science will change its opinion on the universe. But yet we are supposed to accept it as fact?

Victory in crushing teaching non-scientific things in science class with public funding, yes. Oh, and since when should any *opinion* be taught in science class? Science is based on facts and evidence, which opinions do not always have.

You're an idiot if you think that ID and evolution should be taught as equal. They aren't. Period. If you want to believe in ID, that is your right to turn your back on science and rational thought. Also, you need to learn what evolution really is teaching. It doesn't give a fuck how life began. All it says is that once life started, things evolved.

What about evolution has changed since Darwin first published? What has science ever changed it's so called "opinion" (which is not correct as they vetted through the scientific method and not just "opinion")? Please provide links to support your claim that science has changed it's "opinion" about how life began.

So by your logic, since 2+2=4 and that is fact (which evolution has about as much supporting evidence as 2+2=4) then we should also teach 2+2=22 since it's an alternative theory (which is about as full of evidence and supporting evidence as ID is)?

You just lost all credibility, because its clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Instead of repeating what you have heard others say, do your own research and try posting you own opinions.

I see a problem when one opinion is allowed to oppress other opinions.

Please provide links so that we can do our own research on how ID is based in any kind of fact or evidence?

I see a problem when a fairy tale with no evidence is allowed to be taught in public education system as an actual scientific theory (which is not the same as a theory in the lexicon).

 

[cybrsage]

I think it should be taught in science class...but not for the reasons the close minded would think. There are two reasons:

1. To teach people that Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism. Only idiots believe that...and they believe it because they want to lump them to gether as a mental shortcut rather than address the two seperately as they should.

2. ID is a perfect example of what a scientific theory is not. ID is not falsifiable, and therefor fails as a scientific theory. It needs to be taught so people can see WHY it is not a valid theory...not taught as if it was one. When they do, they can also use String Theory as an example of another invalid theory (due to being unfalsifiable).

A lot of learning can be had from ID...just not in the way ID supporters want.

 

[ichy]

I love how people get so worked into knots defending their little theory as fact. Everything about what we "know" about the beginning of the universe is a theory.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.

There is no empiracle evidence, there is no proof. Until it is validated with 100% unfalterable proof, it's a theorem, and according to this, does not belong in schools.

It's empirical, not empiracle. A theorem is also not the same thing as a theory. There's not such thing as a theorem in science, that is a mathematical term.

And before any numbskulls come in here with "well evolution has a substancial amount of proof...we're just still missing things..but we'll find it!" just do like my math teacher told my class. "Shut up, your answer was 99% correct, but in math that's 100% wrong".

God, the arguments just get dumber and dumber. Math is NOT the same thing as science and you do not prove a scientific theory the same way you do a mathematical theorem.

 

[cybrsage]

Oh, and just a note, using Dawkins as any kind of support on anything religious (which ID is not, but creationism is) destroys the entire argument. The guy is so rabidly anit-religion that he actually said it is better to sexually molest children than to teach them the foundations of a religion. The guy lets his insane hatred of religion cloud his reason.

 

[heymrdj]

It is not taken blindly as fact. It is taken as fact because it can be proven to not be incorrect, within the bounds of our current ability to understand and test it. It's not so purely binary as you seem to think it is.

People are, today, constantly trying to come up with solutions for how the Universe came into being, how to fill in those gaps in evolution theory, how light, electricity, magnetism, and gravity work, etc..

These are not absolutely known things. If you want to sleep at night with the knowledge that everything can be explained, you need religion. Science is only going to show you, with every new provable fact, about 10 new mysteries, that we previously did not even know we did not know. But, what little we do know can get us to the moon, make nuclear reactors, and build binary computers with circuit components merely a few molecules wide.

Now, sadly, science curricula, especially at the low levels, and with bad teachers being the norm, may tend to teach it as a form of faith. That does no one any good, and is flat out wrong.
No. What can be proven is fact. However, science has very little in the way of absolutes. It does not have the nicety of 2+2=4. It has the ambiguity of, "about 2 plus about 2 comes to about 4, plus or minus some error." Over time, what 2 is, what 4 is, and what the error is, are narrowed down more and more. Your concept of how science works is very different from those that value it, much less those putting their lives into it.

Sounds to me like you have a discomfort in the fields imperfections. It's not proven..it's a faith. Being close to an answer, or closer to what you're saying, believing your close to an answer to only find more questions than when you started, just aids to prove we really know nothing about beginnings...and we'll never know. Unless someone pulls a god move, figures it out, and recreates a scale of life to prove the theorem is correct. Otherwise you're just putting faith into a theorem some men wrote into a book.

Sounds an aweful lot like what alot of what people say about another book huh?

 

[ichy]

Lol wonderful way to side step the answers. It's all bull with no evidence period. We can't know nor will ever know wiht 100% accuracy, so our beginnings will always be a theory.

There is an enormous amount of evidence behind the theory of evolution.

 

[zsdersw]

I think it should be taught in science class...but not for the reasons the close minded would think. There are two reasons:

1. To teach people that Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism. Only idiots believe that...and they believe it because they want to lump them to gether as a mental shortcut rather than address the two seperately as they should.

Mentioning it in a science class as an example of what it is not is one thing... teaching it as an alternative theory of equal validity to the theory of evolution is what doesn't belong in a science class.

 

[Cerb]

Sounds to me like you have a discomfort in the fields imperfections. It's not proven..it's a faith. Being close to an answer, or closer to what you're saying, believing your close to an answer to only find more questions than when you started, just aids to prove we really know nothing about beginnings...and we'll never know. Unless someone pulls a god move, figures it out, and recreates a scale of life to prove the theorem is correct. Otherwise you're just putting faith into a theorem some men wrote into a book.

Sounds an aweful lot like what alot of what people say about another book huh?

Not at all. I've never been able to test whether a man will lose strength from getting a haircut, nor have I been able to test whether the Babylonian gods were false or not. I have been able to test how close to a target a projectile will land, given measured inputs.

 

[cybrsage]

Mentioning it in a science class as an example of what it is not is one thing... teaching it as an alternative theory of equal validity to the theory of evolution is what doesn't belong in a science class.

Absolutely correct. Not because it is religious in nature. Intelligent Design does not care who or what the designor is (God, aliens, something we have not yet even thought of). It fails because it is not falsifiable.

 

[cybrsage]

Not at all. I've never been able to test whether a man will lose strength from getting a haircut...

That is because you have not bothered to try. You have to use men who have taken a Nazarite Vow, though...and none of them exist today (that I am aware of).

The main reason no one takes Nazarite Vows any longer is because you cannot complete the vow without offering sacrifices at The Temple...and until the Abomination of the Rock is removed, the Temple cannot be rebuilt.

So you cannot do your testing due to a lack of subjects for the test.

 

[Cerb]

That is because you have not bothered to try. You have to use men who have taken a Nazarite Vow, though...and none of them exist today (that I am aware of).

The main reason no one takes Nazarite Vows any longer is because you cannot complete the vow without offering sacrifices at The Temple...and until the Abomination of the Rock is removed, the Temple cannot be rebuilt.

So you cannot do your testing due to a lack of subjects for the test.

:hmm: :\