Why should creation be taught in public education science classes?

[jackschmittusa]

tweaker2

The word theory as used in a scientific connotation is far different than its use in casual conversation.

Evolution is not a flimsy guess just because it is referred to as a theory. Any new evidence will likely just refine the theory, not blow it out of existance.

There is no other explination for species that can compete with evolutionary theory that has any scientific validity. No science behind ID/creationism means it cannot be included in science classes.

edit: There are NO valid arguments for teaching ID/creationism in science classes. Guess that makes it a pretty tough assignment. You may as well argue for teaching astrology and alchemy too.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
the only little detail i object to about the theory of evolution is when this theory is considered fact simply for the lack of any other timely explanation.

just what is the difference between a theory and a belief if neither is "proven" to be "factual"?

it's the same line of reasoning that led the brightest minds of the time to agree to the fact that the earth was flat.

theories formulated in the field of science are being disproved on a daily basis by members of their own discipline. it's part of a process they all use. i see no reason why the theory of evolution should be held to higher esteem.

*edit* - to clarify

You're thoroughly misguided. The ancient explanations of natural phenomena were not "theories", but rather suppositions and assumptions, laced with myth, poor logic, and an absolute lack of scientific rigor... sort of like Creationism/ID. You can't draw a parallel between Artistotle's hypotheses and modern scientific theories simply because there aren't any. By definition, he arrived at his conclusions through some observation, followed by years of philosophical contemplation... not experiment. So however bright his mind was, it was not doing a good job because his studies lacked the necessary structure to result in definitive conclusions... again, like ID.

 

[piasabird]

It is just as valid a topic as evolution or the Big Bang!

Big Bang is just some mumbo jumbo that some people made up when they did not know what they should really call the creation of the universe. No one can explain what exactly the big bang is or how it works, so they just invented a term with little or no Scientific knowledge about it. All we really know is the Universe looks like it is expanding. This knowledge that it seems to still be expanding is a recent development because just 5 years ago people in science might have said it is collapsing and not expanding.

We have people cloning sheep and yet we somehow bawk at the possiblity that some intelligent force could have created all forms of life through knowledge that is superior to our own. We have proof that this may be possible, yet people claim that it is unscientific. It is more scientific than evolution. All we can really say is that there are some species that do not any longer exist that are extinct. We do not have any concrete evidence of Evolution.

I think the problem is that the schientific community somehow thinks they are so smart that they know everything. We know that they have very little knowledge. Compared to what has been learned in the last 50 years. They are trying to make themselves up as some kind of all-seeing Gods. In Science we should be learning to question what is considered scientific knowledge and search for new ways of looking at our universe, not accepting what they tell us like we are sheep. Dont you think the Pope wanted the same thing?

Are you a dumb sheep following the heard or do you have the guts to challenge the status quo? Ask these so-called scientists how life began. They will not be able to tell you, because they do not know and do not have any proof one way or the other. I applaud the work of biologists in the discovery of DNA and hope there will be more useful biological and scientific breakthroughs in the future that will actually benefit mankind, But I refuse to beleive what they can not prove. I see the Sun and it rises every day, but I can not swallow evolution hook line and sinker.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Josh7289
I'm doing a research paper right now, and I need at least three reasons why creation must be taught in public eductation science classes, and I also need a reason for each why each of these reasons is not valid. I hope that makes sense. You see, for my paper, I need at least three reasons why evolution must be taught (since taht's what I'm arguing for), and at least three why creation must be taught, but I also have to disprove each of the creation reasons.

Again, I hope someone can help me.

You have to learn to think for yourself. Asking others to come up with arguments for you is not good enough.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
3. Intelligent design is different from creationism, it's a valid scientific theory backed up by scientific reasoning
Calling something by a different name does not make it something different. While it is true that ID has somewhat more reasoning behind it than creationism, it's still too much hand waving to be science. The concept of "some sort of intelligent beign designed life" is not supported by any evidence, other than rather specious reasoning that anything else doesn't make sense. However, the only theory that is attacked is evolution, and even if the attacks are scientificly valid, evolution being wrong would not make ID right. In science, you can't prove something merely by disproving something else, unless you manage to also prove that the two are mutally exclusive and one of them must be true. In other words, you can't put forward two competing theories, attack one, and claim the other must be true.

Yes you seem to have spotted an important point which at least the media misses.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Theb
I think astronomy classes should include the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's important to expose children to wide variety of perspectives regardless of how outdated and obviously flawed they are. WE MUST TEACH THE ARGUMENT.

 

[JacobJ]

Evolution is a fact.



(reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)
(reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)
(reference: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml)
(reference: http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/evolu_fact_theo.htm)
(reference: http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml)
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Distinctions_between_theory_and_fact)
(reference: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm)
(reference:http://www.textaddons.com/Docs/10_2004_Biology_Miller_Levine.pdf)
(reference: R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981))
(reference: Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434)
(reference: Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972)
(reference: Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15)
(reference: H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. 1959)
(reference: Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262.)
(reference: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&...ct%22&sig=nA9GNEDtI3UiTuRTJHhVpPTPId8)
(reference: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&...onist&sig=T4EDIRQbd5nqcjN7Xp3fe5YvKqo)
(reference: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&...ionism&sig=IBbt6IhPoYk18a4feqI80t9w3ZQ )

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: JacobJ
Evolution is a fact.

(reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)
(reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)
(reference: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml)
(reference: http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/evolu_fact_theo.htm)
(reference: http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml)
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Distinctions_between_theory_and_fact)

I just wonder how rigorous does an explanation have to be, in order to satisfy the fundies' desire for "fact". Apparently, being able to observe it, both pro-actively and retro-actively under controlled conditions and isolated variables is not enough. Hmm... I wonder what would happen if they subjected their own views to the same scrutiny.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1
Here's a serious answer for you: because 99% of the people out there (and probably close to 100% of science teachers) are either ignorant of, or deliberately obfuscate the difference between the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis. Teach Theory of Evolution as factual (since it is) and leave abiogenesis and all other widely-known theories about the origin of life as an open-ended and unanswereable ontological questions.

Shall I assume you mean evolution there? If so, I agree with you. While the theory of evolution is well supported, the concept of how the FIRST life began is more hazy, and really isn't suited to the science classroom, except in the terms glenn1 suggested.

Not true, there are testable theories about abiogenesis/origin of life, creation is not testable. Science is about developing TESTABLE hypotheses, as far fetched as they maybe, they must be testable. Creationism is VERY far fetched and not testable.

@glenn, evolution is a scientific theory with a sh!tload of evidence to support it. Do you have any that refutes it? Didnt think so...

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Shall I assume you mean evolution there? If so, I agree with you. While the theory of evolution is well supported, the concept of how the FIRST life began is more hazy, and really isn't suited to the science classroom, except in the terms glenn1 suggested.

That is very suprising, coming from you. Your posts are usually right on target. I understand your sentiment, but you're incorrect... there is a lot of evidence for several pathways demonstrating the possibility for abiogenesis. Read up on 'RNA World', for instance, which is the most widely accepted one. In short, RNA is required and sufficient for a self-reproducing entity. Since RNA has been created in the laboratory from inorganic compounds under conditions similar to what we know of the primordial Earth, it is a perfectly valid hypothesis for how life came about. Obviously it is not entirely testable, given that we do not have a primordial planet and a billion years at our disposal... but none of the other hypotheses have even a fraction of the logical and scientific rigor that this theory does.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: piasabird
homer decides to snippy da sheet...

Your post actually made me laugh out loud. No stupid intarweb acronyms, literally i laughed out loud. I feel so sorry for your stupidity. What scientific evidence do you have that refutes evolution? Your claims make me want to nominate you for the Nobel. :thumbsup:

 

[daniel49]

ok, disassembling my grandfather clock. bang, bang ,creak, squeak.
Now am throwing all the parts into a large box........thud, thud ,tinkle
Ok, now am going to shake it for a billion years and when I am done I will open the box and reveal a perfectly functioning pocket watch to you and it will be set at the right time..You see not only did it mutate from the big clunky clock into a nice classy pocket watch , but it also reassembeled itself.

Isn't it wonderful I can use unprovable arguments like mutation and billions of years...
although we know that the vast majority of mutations produce something defective not something more highly evolved and I have a funny hunch no matter how long I shake this box its probably not going to assemble itself, but theres the beauty you won,t be here to say ah ha " I told you so"

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: daniel49
ok, disassembling my grandfather clock. bang, bang ,creak, squeak.
Now am throwing all the parts into a large box........thud, thud ,tinkle
Ok, now am going to shake it for a billion years and when I am done I will open the box and reveal a perfectly functioning pocket watch to you and it will be set at the right time..You see not only did it mutate from the big clunky clock into a nice classy pocket watch , but it also reassembeled itself.

Isn't it wonderful I can use unprovable arguments like mutation and billions of years...
although we know that the vast majority of mutations produce something defective not something more highly evolved and I have a funny hunch no matter how long I shake this box its probably not going to assemble itself, but theres the beauty you won,t be here to say ah ha " I told you so"

I'm thinking you're good to go for 5th grade science. When you come up with an argument that does not involve the dumbest comparison ever, you can participate in the conversation.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: daniel49
ok, disassembling my grandfather clock. bang, bang ,creak, squeak.
Now am throwing all the parts into a large box........thud, thud ,tinkle
Ok, now am going to shake it for a billion years and when I am done I will open the box and reveal a perfectly functioning pocket watch to you and it will be set at the right time..You see not only did it mutate from the big clunky clock into a nice classy pocket watch , but it also reassembeled itself.

Isn't it wonderful I can use unprovable arguments like mutation and billions of years...
although we know that the vast majority of mutations produce something defective not something more highly evolved and I have a funny hunch no matter how long I shake this box its probably not going to assemble itself, but theres the beauty you won,t be here to say ah ha " I told you so"

I'm thinking you're good to go for 5th grade science. When you come up with an argument that does not involve the dumbest comparison ever, you can participate in the conversation.

no dumber then evolution being taught as fact when there are so many holes in it its absurb.
And I will be sure to check with you to see if its ok. Before I participate in any more discussions:disgust:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: daniel49
ok, disassembling my grandfather clock. bang, bang ,creak, squeak.
Now am throwing all the parts into a large box........thud, thud ,tinkle
Ok, now am going to shake it for a billion years and when I am done I will open the box and reveal a perfectly functioning pocket watch to you and it will be set at the right time..You see not only did it mutate from the big clunky clock into a nice classy pocket watch , but it also reassembeled itself.

Isn't it wonderful I can use unprovable arguments like mutation and billions of years...
although we know that the vast majority of mutations produce something defective not something more highly evolved and I have a funny hunch no matter how long I shake this box its probably not going to assemble itself, but theres the beauty you won,t be here to say ah ha " I told you so"

I'm thinking you're good to go for 5th grade science. When you come up with an argument that does not involve the dumbest comparison ever, you can participate in the conversation.

no dumber then evolution being taught as fact when there are so many holes in it its absurb.
And I will be sure to check with you to see if its ok. Before I participate in any more discussions:disgust:

Don't check with me... check with your 5th grade science teacher.

I know I sound arrogant, but the thing is that your argument is baseless. If we were talking face-to-face, and I had the time, I'd explain to you why you're incorrect. Online, that makes no sense. I would seriously suggest that you first learn the science that went into the theory of evolution, and make up your mind then (a ridiculous proposition, now that I think about it, because there are few biological concepts that have been so thoroughly thought through).

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: daniel49
ok, disassembling my grandfather clock. bang, bang ,creak, squeak.
Now am throwing all the parts into a large box........thud, thud ,tinkle
Ok, now am going to shake it for a billion years and when I am done I will open the box and reveal a perfectly functioning pocket watch to you and it will be set at the right time..You see not only did it mutate from the big clunky clock into a nice classy pocket watch , but it also reassembeled itself.

Isn't it wonderful I can use unprovable arguments like mutation and billions of years...
although we know that the vast majority of mutations produce something defective not something more highly evolved and I have a funny hunch no matter how long I shake this box its probably not going to assemble itself, but theres the beauty you won,t be here to say ah ha " I told you so"

I'm thinking you're good to go for 5th grade science. When you come up with an argument that does not involve the dumbest comparison ever, you can participate in the conversation.

no dumber then evolution being taught as fact when there are so many holes in it its absurb.
And I will be sure to check with you to see if its ok. Before I participate in any more discussions:disgust:

Point out the holes an will gladly point you to http://www.talkorigins.org/.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: daniel49
ok, disassembling my grandfather clock. bang, bang ,creak, squeak.
Now am throwing all the parts into a large box........thud, thud ,tinkle
Ok, now am going to shake it for a billion years and when I am done I will open the box and reveal a perfectly functioning pocket watch to you and it will be set at the right time..You see not only did it mutate from the big clunky clock into a nice classy pocket watch , but it also reassembeled itself.

Isn't it wonderful I can use unprovable arguments like mutation and billions of years...
although we know that the vast majority of mutations produce something defective not something more highly evolved and I have a funny hunch no matter how long I shake this box its probably not going to assemble itself, but theres the beauty you won,t be here to say ah ha " I told you so"

I'm thinking you're good to go for 5th grade science. When you come up with an argument that does not involve the dumbest comparison ever, you can participate in the conversation.

no dumber then evolution being taught as fact when there are so many holes in it its absurb.
And I will be sure to check with you to see if its ok. Before I participate in any more discussions:disgust:

Don't check with me... check with your 5th grade science teacher.

I know I sound arrogant, but the thing is that your argument is baseless. If we were talking face-to-face, and I had the time, I'd explain to you why you're incorrect. Online, that makes no sense. I would seriously suggest that you first learn the science that went into the theory of evolution, and make up your mind then (a ridiculous proposition, now that I think about it, because there are few biological concepts that have been so thoroughly thought through).

Meuge is right. Your clock thingi completely leaves out where it grows to be Big Ben before becoming a pocket watch. You forgot the age of dinoclocks, my friend.

 

[Strk]

I don't get why some people have such a hard time grasping evolution. It is such a basic concept.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Strk
I don't get why some people have such a hard time grasping evolution. It is such a basic concept.

It's because they don't WANT to. It takes effort to keep an open mind... and they are either incapable, unwilling, or simply scared to do it.

 

[Theb]

I think we need to rethink teaching Einstein's theory of gravitation. After all, it's just a stupid flimsy theory.
At the very least we need to include the alternative idea that planets are held in orbit by angels beating their wings. This idea is based on much older information and as far as I know, that means it's better. This is not necessarily a religious idea, it's just another valid explanation.

 

[glenn1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: glenn1
Here's a serious answer for you: because 99% of the people out there (and probably close to 100% of science teachers) are either ignorant of, or deliberately obfuscate the difference between the Theory of Evolution and abiogenesis. Teach Theory of Evolution as factual (since it is) and leave abiogenesis and all other widely-known theories about the origin of life as an open-ended and unanswereable ontological questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall I assume you mean evolution there? If so, I agree with you. While the theory of evolution is well supported, the concept of how the FIRST life began is more hazy, and really isn't suited to the science classroom, except in the terms glenn1 suggested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true, there are testable theories about abiogenesis/origin of life, creation is not testable. Science is about developing TESTABLE hypotheses, as far fetched as they maybe, they must be testable. Creationism is VERY far fetched and not testable.

@glenn, evolution is a scientific theory with a sh!tload of evidence to support it. Do you have any that refutes it? Didnt think so...

Your reading skills obviously need some work. Read my words in the very post you quoted for my answer to your question. Of course, it might be your scientific skills that need work, in which case I'll repeat what I've said numerous times before in other posts on this subject. Evolution (taken as a verb) is an observed fact. Theories can only be factual and not facts themselves because they describe the reason why the observed fact took place. Therefore the Theory of Evolution is factual since it describes how the observed event took place, and no better Theory to describe the same event has yet been postulated.

Abiogenesis fails to achieve the level of scientific theory because there is no observation (the fact) upon which to base a theory or hypothesis to explain (apart from the ontological observation that "life exists"). Therefore you, or Meuge, or anyone else for that matter can quote the results of experiments all day long (I presume that he's referring to Miller-Urey) or you could create RNA, amino acids, or Jello pudding pops from a primordial soup in a lab and it still won't matter.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Abiogenesis fails to achieve the level of scientific theory because there is no observation (the fact) upon which to base a theory or hypothesis to explain (apart from the ontological observation that "life exists"). Therefore you, or Meuge, or anyone else for that matter can quote the results of experiments all day long (I presume that he's referring to Miller-Urey) or you could create RNA, amino acids, or Jello pudding pops from a primordial soup in a lab and it still won't matter.

Yes, but it's the best explanation we have... and it's supported by clear evidence... as opposed to bearded man in the sky ejaculating into the primordial ooze.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, but it's the best explanation we have... and it's supported by clear evidence... as opposed to bearded man in the sky ejaculating into the primordial ooze.

I didn't realize "yes, but..." was part of the scientific method nowadays.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Yes, but it's the best explanation we have... and it's supported by clear evidence... as opposed to bearded man in the sky ejaculating into the primordial ooze.

I didn't realize "yes, but..." was part of the scientific method nowadays.

It's a hypothesis, not a theory. When someone creates an RNA-based organism from inorganic compounds in a petri dish, you're going to eat those words... in the meantime, I'll support whichever hypothesis provides the best explanation for observed fact. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you rethink your intellectual abilities.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Theb
I think we need to rethink teaching Einstein's theory of gravitation.

After all, it's just a stupid flimsy theory.

we need to include the alternative idea that planets are held in orbit by angels beating their wings.

:laugh: Best explanation I've heard yet :thumbsup: