Why should creation be taught in public education science classes?

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: glenn1
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.

Oh, look, another dope wants to play "The Apologists Semenatics Game!" Yea! Whoopie! Time for church yet?

 

[trenchfoot]

It isn't written in stone, it is ever changing according to the evidence. What is written in stone is Creationism/ID.

touche - in a convoluted sense, i think you and i are on the same page, and that if there is a difference of opinion, its in the datails and not in the gist of the matter.

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

point well taken. thanks.

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.

thank you for the guidance. in this case, i may be misguided, but i am forever guide-able. i hope the OP is benefitting from your post as well.

it seems i've misled you all somehow as to my opinion about evolution and creationism, as my misuse of scientific form and terminology from a lay point of view may be the culprit.
allow me this forum a layman's chance to edify:

however, this idea does not mean that the theory of evolution should be written in stone and alternative thinking be discouraged. science progressed precisely because conventional scientific and theological misconceptions and restrictions were discarded in the pursuit of higher knowledge.

my use of the term "alternative thinking" was meant say that from within the same discipline that the theory of evolution came from, so too should we all strive for higher knowledge to either enhance or alter the theory.
that statement was not meant to discredit darwin's theory or his methodology in any way.

evolution may sound logical within the parameters of current thought. however, all it would take to disprove this theory is one single discovery or creation, not unlike what many scientists, including darwin, have done in the past

in the same vein as my previous statement, what i'm attempting to convey here is that the process that gave darwin his theory of evolution should be pursued further and not limited to his original findings, to the point where a new theory "may" emerge.
again, i am not discounting or discrediting darwin's theory.

the idea that science is a higher school of thought that should replace the primitive need for the all-powerful deity(ies) is also a factor that needs to be wieghed when comparing the two institutions

i can see where a person who supports the discipline of science might take offense to this statement in the form of a defensive reflex. however, do note that in this statement, i am neither condoning nor disapproving of either discipline. i am merely making the statement that this line of thought does exist in some quarters, and the OP should take note of this.

i do support the process that led darwin to his discovery, and hope that this same process leads us to an unending chain of new knowledge.

i hope this clears things up, (and not actually make things worse.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 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.

This is a fine statement of faith and one with which I concur. Of course it is judgment based on the highly slippery words, 'best explanation' and I can foresee difficulties ahead for those who become, as it were, emotionally attached to their own personal choices as to what is best. Here, I think, we slide out of the pure scientific and need to draw on our full capacities to judge. Good judgment and scientific knowledge, alas, are not necessarily concomitant capacities. Judgment and wisdom arise out of self love and self understanding as far as I can tell. And in the area of self-love there is almost an infinite blindness. The result, of course, is that, almost without exception, whatever YOU think is best IS best. My best is better than your best and so on.

We actually know nothing at all. Have a banana. Have a beer. A bird sings in the garden.

 

[piasabird]

Today we still can not account for the weak force of gravity. Einstine himself realized it should have been stronger, yet we still are researching Gravity to fully understand it. Any idiot can drop a can of soup on their foot and realize that some force cased it to break the bones in his/her foot. So dont be an idiot or an embicile. There are no people I know of claiming angels hold up the stars or the planets. If that is the best argument a scientific person can come up with, then they need to go back to kindergarten. Prove Evolution! Without proving how life began, you can not have any hope of proving evolution. It is unscientific and therefore it can not be taught. For evolution to be teachable you have to resolve how life began. This is one major flaw in the theory of evolution.

Creation is a theory, a belief system, even a faith. If you study History, sociology, Psychiatry, or relegion it is a significantly important part of the study of society and how and why a people are motivated to do things down through history. Every culture has had its theories or stories to explain creation and their place on this planet and in the universe. Studying creation and also religion is part of studying History. You can not understand a culture without understanding its religion, and creation is part of that history. To refuse to teach any religious information is to live in ignorance of the truth about all the cultures of the earth. It is just plain stupidity and ignorance.

I have yet to use any of the advance College Algebra Techniques I learned in College. Yet it can be of some value for some people. This is not a completely true statement, but I dont use college algebra very much for any real purpose. I have not had any reason to compute the square route of -1 for anything useful.

So is Creation just part of Anthrapology or is there enough evidence that God or some being created the earth, the universe, or all intelligent life? Call it science if you wish. How does Science say life began? Are any of those theories proveable? Life is part of creation last time I checked.

Ask yourself what you think in your heart when you look up at the stars? Is the universe an endless system of chaos and circumstance with no purpose or design? What do you think?

I think if you teach anything about creation of the universe you have to teach creationism as well as the Scientific theory of Chaos. In biology, chaos is called cancer.

If you are really going to prove scientific studies for Evolution or creation then list the arguments for the side you wish to prove.

There is always the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) Theory for the creation of the universe.

What do you know about Scientific Creation Theories?

Is the Big Bang theory the only answer to creationism? Is it a viable scientific theory or is it a generalization? If you choose science try to prove it.

What theory for creationism did the people of Egypt have? Do you even know? For all I know, you may have knowledge of many creationist stories. Western Culture is only one way of thinking.

I think it was the japanese that use to say that "life is but a dream and then we die." I think that is from Shogun. It is not an exact quote.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Sadaiy
Creation should be taught because students should hear different perspectives and different ideas so they know that those ideas are out there.

Good idea for his paper, but I hope you don't believe this.

 

[piasabird]

The interesting part of this type of paper is it is harder than you think. It is up to you to prove your point and then to try to prove the counter point. You only have to present credible arguments. It has to be a comparative paper from the sound of it. You could also take the Athiest point of view (Agnostic?) or take the point of view that man has no idea how life began and state your reasoning for that.

Feel free to post your essay.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective

What the hell is evolution? Can you even define what it is? It is so vague that its own definition is vague.

I have studied the biblical form of Creationism form the Bible. The Word that create was interpreted means "TO ORGANIZE". Organize is what you do when you bake a cake or if your are designing a new genetic structure. Very interesting.

 

[Bitek]

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

This isn't even a accurate comparison. The Earth was beleived flat not based on any scientific evidence, (other than it would look that way standing on the ground) but in spite of any supporting evidence. IE, belief was defined by people's ignorance and lack of imagination thinking the situation could be any other way. Ironically, I would compare this to Creationism.

Hubris is always a danger, but that is why scientific knowledge is based and debated on measurements and demonstraitable facts, not the forcefullness of one's retorical arguement.

 

[jackschmittusa]

piasabird

Prove Evolution! Without proving how life began, you can not have any hope of proving evolution. It is unscientific and therefore it can not be taught. For evolution to be teachable you have to resolve how life began. This is one major flaw in the theory of evolution.

Evolution does NOT deal with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life. Nor does it have to to be be valid, scientific, and teachable. You are really off base here.

Evolution is all about how species developed. There is a great deal of evidence from many scientific disiplines to support the validity of evolution. Since there is no science behind ID or creationism, there is no reason to teach either as science.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Prove Evolution! Without proving how life began, you can not have any hope of proving evolution. It is unscientific and therefore it can not be taught. For evolution to be teachable you have to resolve how life began. This is one major flaw in the theory of evolution.

I want what you've been smoking.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Without proving how life began, you can not have any hope of proving evolution.

By that logic, you should equally dispute physics and chemistry, since we do not know how matter began, or how the 4 fundamental forces came to be. At that rate, we might as well as completely ignore all of science, since we have yet to fully tease about the genesis/creation/formation of matter and energy in the known universe.

Anyways, a non-mathematical principle of science cannot be proven. We do not have an infinite number of trials, time, or energy to measure anything to 100% certainty. The only things provable in science is mathematical relationships, but anything else cannot be proven. So demanding that something in science is provable ignores what science was build upon.

Originally posted by: piasabird
What the hell is evolution? Can you even define what it is? It is so vague that its own definition is vague.

Evolution is genetic change over time, and with natural selection and fercundity, evolution describes the avenue in which life as we know it today developed and formed the already present relationships seen in phylogenetic trees, archeology, and genetic studies.

 

[fjord]

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.

Thanks.

For an old standard on the themes of this discussion go to talkorigins.org.
You can also google "Evolution misconceptions" for your research.

Also grasp the conflicting core-concepts explaining the divirsity of all life on earth (extant and extinct). Either by evolution or by devine fiat.

 

[theeedude]

It should be taught in modern mythology class. Frankly I wouldn't mind kids writing papers on "Jesus horses," at least they'll learn how to write papers. Frankly if by 8th grade you haven't figured out that creationism is a bunch of baloney, you probably aren't going to become a great biologist anyways. So if you want to write papers on the subject of creationsim, at least you'll develop some writing skills.

 

[trenchfoot]

This isn't even a accurate comparison. The Earth was beleived flat not based on any scientific evidence, (other than it would look that way standing on the ground) but in spite of any supporting evidence. IE, belief was defined by people's ignorance and lack of imagination thinking the situation could be any other way. Ironically, I would compare this to Creationism

as you have framed it, i concur. however, you seem to have taken my thoughts out of context.

the essence of this sentence lies within the boundaries of prevalent thought at the time the statement was promulgated. although hisotrically short-lived and always contentious, was not this "belief" based on some of the "best knowledge available at the time"? to compare what is currently known as "good scientific technique" with what was the "best knowledge available" at that time in history was not my intention.
as an interesting aside, most intellectuals within the christian church of that time promoted the spherical earth theory, as it was so described in the bible.

Hubris is always a danger, but that is why scientific knowledge is based and debated on measurements and demonstraitable facts, not the forcefullness of one's retorical arguement.

i'm not certain if you're directing that comment to me personally, but if you are, please let me know so that i may address your comment correctly.