Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is a debate page, not an article.
Opinions are welcome. Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.


Contents

No:

Anyone should be able to learn in a public school, not just Christians. If Creationism is taught, every other scientific/non-scientific alternative should also be taught. And that includes things like Spaghetti Monster theory in Pastafarianism. To those who say that Christianity is the most believed, just because lots of people believe in it doesn't mean it's right. -RaymondW

Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)? Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.


I'm Another Editor: The basic argument here is whether Creationism should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The prior is not a science and can not be taught as a science because there are no scientific findings to back it up. Believing in evolution does not require atheistic viewpoints. There is no doubting that animals even during the presence of human observation change over the course of time and evolve. This does not say that at some point god did not create the world and animals and people but rather that the people and animals that god created change over the course of time. This is a fact and has been observed on many occasions. There is no argument here. The two ideas can go hand in hand.

Teach Them Everything

If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --Kirby 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

yes...

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school. You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

Anything in science is just a "theory". If you don't want just "theories" in science, why teach the subject? - RaymondZ
Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --Cranky Joe 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?Niwrad 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

I suggest that you see this website:[1]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--Roopilots6 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Has creationism been proven? it had a lot longer than one hundred and forty eight years.... - Jimbobjeff18

Today's assignment: Read in my essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia the parts about "proof", then explain how you are using the word in your question. Philip J. Rayment 05:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Misconceptions

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.Jaques 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--TimS 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory OF gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. Jaques 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--TimS 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Gravity is a law, not a theory. A theory is not "as close to proven as science gets", a law is. Furthermore, genetic evidence is against the original Darwinian theory of evolution, while "Puncuated Equilibrium" and "Neo-Darwinism" are ruled out by mere probability. Furthermore, is the belief that there may be a God or other Designer who created the universe unscientific because it does not agree with naturalistic prejudice? Give me a break.Lordofthemarsh 01:23, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

I suspect it's both (gravity, that is) a law and a theory. That is, there is a theory to explain the law. Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

no...

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?


REPLY
Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? PhilipB 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the evidence! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

Creationism is by deffinition not science. Science is the explination of the world without resorting to supernatural means. creationism is that life, the universe and everything were created by a supernatural entity

"Reply" What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.

Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.
REPLY

The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

REPLY

You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --Ashens 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

REPLY It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument: 1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could support that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.
Cats giving birth to dogs would falsify evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. Tsumetai 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? sundevilfire

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

why not?

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --steponme1623 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--TimS 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". Human 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Taught, perhaps, but not as science

Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a philosophy, some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. Thatguy 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. Smurge 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? Fpiaco 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--Tchonody 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Science" is irrelevant.

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --ALFa 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply: In Science Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --NVConservative 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --ALFa 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --User:Desmond
COUNTER: Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.No energy is ever destroyed, it is simply recycled. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 13:10, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Reply: Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?

Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --NVConservative 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Prove it. --Realitycheck 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --NVConservative 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't think so.
The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --ALFa 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck
   NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a 'scientific' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
   The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). Bluecarrot16 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Science is neutral toward Creationism.

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares only about testable explanations of natural phenomena. It does not care about untestable explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They also learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught better than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and test creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of predictions about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

Listen to Science, not religion.

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory. Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being more true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least equally true that the Second World War happened. Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, but likelihood does. It is equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --Ben Talk 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)


I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --Beanbag 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Let the Children Decide

I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things. Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution. I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific. We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. Czolgolz 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


REPLY
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be disproven. This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is not shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have based upon the evidence. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --Beanbag 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Teach all theories

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--Roopilots6 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--TimS 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being
corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--Roopilots6 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.
  1. It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
  2. It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
  3. It can disprove evolutionary theory
Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. Myk 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Myk, you're making a lot of assumptions there. First, you assume that the outcome of any experiment is purely random. I get this from your 33% chance thing. Let me do what you just did: If I drop a ball close to the Earth's surface, one of two things will happen:
  1. It will fall to the ground and prove gravity exists.
  2. It will float in mid-air and disprove gravity.
Using math skills, I can ascertain that there is a 50% chance that gravity doesn't exist whenever anything is dropped from mid air. Since things are dropped near Earth's surface all the time, the chance that gravity exists is almost nothing.
Do you see the problem with your logic? When there's a system in place, the chance of something tested within it being untrue is actually very, very low. The chance that gravity exists is actually very close to (but not exactly) 100%. The same applies to evolution. It's a natural phenomenon that you can test. It's a system that has a (close to) 100% chance of being true. It's entirely possible that creation happened, it's entirely possible that there's no such thing as the past and we're all living within a snapshot of time. However, the chances of either of those being true, according to current information, is very very low.
As for "Teaching all theories explanations," here's the problem with that. By the time we teach our children every single explanation about where the Earth came from, their grandchildren will be about fifty years old. There are too many explanations from all parts of the world to possibly teach to someone in a reasonable amount of time. The best we can do is to teach the most probable (or most successful) explanations, of which creationism is not one of. If anyone comes up with a model that explains things better than the current one, we will switch to that.
As for "Teaching all theories": A theory is a set of models that has an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence to support it and that hasn't been sufficiently falsified. The Big Bang theory and the five or so competing theories in science fit into this category, and we don't even teach all of those! Creationism doesn't, because there is very little evidence supporting it, and things like rocks and fossils seem to contradict it. SEdwin 22:24, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--TimS 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--Roopilots6 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--TimS 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--Roopilots6 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--TimS 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?


Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--Roopilots6 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--TimS 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. Bluecarrot16 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism! Barikada 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Don't

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P AtheistKathryn 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

Already_there

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--Roopilots6 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--TimS 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--Roopilots6 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--TimS 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--Roopilots6 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--TimS 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think before asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --Beanbag 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

QM is an Object Lession in Science

If you want to really understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?


--CatWatcher 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --Roopilots6 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
CatWatcher, that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! Human 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The big picture

The question raises bigger questions:

  1. What should the scope of public education be?
  2. Should children be taught how to do science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
    • During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See Eugenics.)
  3. Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
  4. What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
    • Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
  5. Should children be taught to think for themselves?
    • See Values clarification - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
    • Should children be taught to rebel against authority?
    • Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --Ed Poor 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:

  1. What should the scope of public education be?
  2. Should children be taught how to do science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
    • Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
    • During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See Eugenics.)
      • Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
  3. Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
      • See my point about Values Clarification below.
    • Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
      • No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
    • Is belief in the Anthropogenic global warming "scientific" or "religious"?
      • Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
  4. What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
    • This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
    • Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
      • What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
  5. Should children be taught to think for themselves?
    • If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
    • See Values clarification - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
      • Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
    • Should children be taught to rebel against authority?
      • Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
    • Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
      • Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new. Bluecarrot16 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Be careful what you wish for

In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --Jalapeno 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm cool with that. Flippin 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

YES and NO

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but Creationism should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:

  1. Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
  2. Creationism is religion
  3. Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a sound argument.

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the theory of evolution has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the philosophy of science. It gets into the philosophical issues of methodology and epistemology. --Ed Poor Talk 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: God The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science. Bluecarrot16 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

A Radical Alternative

Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? Underscoreb 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I dare you all...

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Definitely

If one theory is to be excluded, it should be that pseudo-science fairy tale aka evolution.--Urban67 16:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Proverbs 26:4

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him."

I don't think we should have to bring down God's Word to the level of the evolutionists in an attempt convince them. They have already decided that they would rather put their faith in Satan's Lie rather than God's Truth. They will never believe the evidence just based off the evidence because of this. The only solution to stop evolutionists and evolutionism is for evolutionists to have a personal encounter with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can change their minds. We Christians are not strong enough because we are not really taking on the evolutionists, but trying to take on Satan because he is the one that has made their hearts so hard. That is why the only way to win the battle is to show evolutionists the love of Christ. LyleB 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Uh, no...

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --transResident Transfanform! 17:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

What if we nab Him and He says "I didn't do it?

From what I understand from the ongoing debate, scientists/evolutionists take the stand that a theory cannot be considered scientific if it cannot be falsifiable, or proven wrong. For example, the current theory of evolution could be proven wrong if in the future we excavate human bones in a jurassic layer. (Actually, wouldn't that just push the time frame back a bit?) Therefore evolution theory is scientific. Evolutionists say that since there is no way to disprove whether God created the world, the theory of intelligent design is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. In fact, there is one way to falsify the theory of intelligent design, isn't there? What if, someday, we run into God, and He denies having created the world? That would falsify the theory of intelligent design, making ID, by definition, science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimtitcomb (talk)

As you said, they might just put the time frame back a bit. Or they might claim it to be an intrusive burial. Or they might claim that it's not actually Jurassic after all. Whichever it is, they can find some excuse, so it wouldn't falsify it at all, which means that the theory as a whole (as distinct from some details) is not falsifiable. Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)


Implementation: A question for those who support Creationism in the classroom

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had the power to implement the changes you wanted. This still leaves a problem: large numbers of science teachers who are not qualified to teach Creationism (certainly not from a strictly Biblical standpoint) and who may be strongly motivated not to teach Creationism.

Now: it's been my experience that having a teacher who is ignorant and/or actively hostile to a concept "educate" children is frequently worse than simply not teaching the concept at all. Such a teacher can easily impart ideas that are inaccurate or downright wrong.

That being the case, how would you propose dealing with this problem? I see a few options:

A. Leave it up to individual teachers whether or not to teach Creationism

B. Require teachers, regardless of their personal beliefs, to teach Creationism according to a curriculum approved by Biblical experts, with penalties if they fail to do so.

C. Implement a code of conduct requiring all teachers to be good Christians. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; such codes of conduct were common in this country up until the second half of the twentieth century.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenP (talk), June 2008.

Given that option B is what happens now, but for evolution (i.e. teachers who don't believe in evolution are still required to teach it according to a curriculum approved by evolutionists), then I could ask what would be wrong with option B? Except that I would substitute creationary scientists for biblical experts. However, what the leading creationist organisations propose (and I go along with this) is basically option A; that teachers who want to teach it be able to and be legally protected. And that includes not just teaching creation science and/or intelligent design, but teaching the problems with evolution. Yes, there has even been a case where a teacher was not allowed to use papers by Gould, etc. if they pointed out problems for evolution. Philip J. Rayment 22:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design.

Yes if there is a teachable theory that complies with scientific method No if there isnt I firmly believe that students need to learn that everything they are taught , in all subjects is a beginning of the subject , and they exceptions, problem areas , will make more sense if taught after the basics are understood. Markr 22:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

ID is a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. Philip J. Rayment 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. SEdwin 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
ID is not science. In the 2005 trial "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688", the judge provided a 139 page ruling, which included on page 64 the statement "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." The judge's justification for this statement continues up to and including page 89. I am not aware of any legal attempt to overthrow this ruling. RolandPlankton 18:49, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It...

It occurs to me that a similar debate could have occurred 500 years ago, but first, some clarification:

A number of people seem confused on the use of several terms that have been floating around this debate page so I've decided to post some pertinent definitions along with citations just to clear some things up:

All definitions come from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Phenomenon: plural phenomena : an observable fact or event

Now that that's cleared up I'd like to justify my earlier statement. We seem to be entering yet another period of history where (relatively) new scientific theories (see above) are conflicting with previously accepted religious beliefs and as a result the scientists positing these theories are coming under attack from the religious institutions that these theories threaten. I am, of course, alluding to Nicolaus Copernicus. If we examine the progression of Copernicus' and subsequently Gallileo's ideas, we see that for some time, there was a debate about whether the Geocentric or Heliocentric theory of universal organization was to be accepted, and we no longer debate whether we should teach the earth as the center of the solar system/universe. In the end, history shows us that the theory backed by available scientific data prevailed, although not before scientific progress in this area was stymied by fear of religious persecution. There are a number of similarities to be drawn between the Copernicans and the Darwinists, in my opinion. I welcome corrections and comments, but please no mudslinging...--CoyPraetorian 14:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Copernicus and Galileo were creationists whose view were not inconsistent with the biblical account. Their dispute was not one of religion vs. science but of their (creationist-compatible) science vs. the secular "science" of Aristotle that the church had adopted.
The parallel today is of the battle between creationary "science" and secular evolutionary "science". So the parallel is between Darwinists and Aristotelians, not Darwinists and Copernicans.
Yes, the theory backed by the available scientific data prevailed, as I hope will happen in the future, with creation prevailing, as it is more compatible with the available scientific data than is evolution.
Philip J. Rayment 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
The parallel I was trying to make was not that Galileo and Copernicus were Darwinists, my point is that they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations. Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion. Today, scientists favoring the Theory of Evolution are coming under attack for a similar set of reasons. The distinction to be made is that we no longer say that the Earth is at the center of the universe just because the church said so. I am simply positing that we take the same stance on evolution based on a preponderance of evidence. In response to your last statement with regards to the scientific data in support of creationism, I respectfully ask that you be more specific, as I am not sure which studies/papers/research/etc. you're referring to.--CoyPraetorian 13:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
"...they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations.": You mean like modern-day creationists?
"Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion.": But it wasn't. Geocentricism is not taught in the Bible. The church was arguing from the secular science that they had adopted. Yes, they may have quoted a few biblical passages in support, but the "science" of the day was what they were arguing from, just a many Christians and churches today argue from secular science that evolution is true and try and find biblical passages in support.
As for supportive scientific data, I was meaning overall, rather than anything specific, and as such all I can do is point you to here. However, if you want an example, try this.
Philip J. Rayment 07:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
To try and make that clearer for those not following, here's it laid out in a table:
Copernicus, Galileo, etc. Modern creationists Church establishment of Galileo's time Modern church establishment Modern secular science
Position Creationist (you wouldn't think so from anti-creationist arguments) Creationist (as you'd expect) Creationist (as you'd expect) Evolutionist (to a fair extent) (as anti-creationists keep reminding us). Evolutionist
Basis of particular beliefs Bible and scientific research Bible and scientific research Aristotelean "science" Secular "science"1 Philosophical Naturalism
1. The modern church establishment would reject the philosophical naturalism of modern science, but, for the most part not being scientists, put their trust in the "science" of those scientists.
From this it can be seen that modern creationists, not modern secular scientists, are the parallel to Galileo and co., whilst in both cases the church establishment opposed on the basis of extra-biblical (I'd say unbiblical) views.
Philip J. Rayment 08:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear. My point is not that Copernicus and his disciples were preaching evolution. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that they were creationist. My point is that their position of geocentrism was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs. The distinction is that the debate about what lies at the center of our solar system is no longer relevant because observational and scientific evidence arose in overwhelming support of geocentrism, while there is still debate about our origins even in light of observable evolutionary progression in the case of viruses and bacteria, as well as fossil evidence and carbon dating.--CoyPraetorian 15:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not suggesting that you were claiming that Copernicus and others were preaching evolution. My comment in the table above about not realising that Copernicus et. al. were creationists is not because they are claimed to have been evolutionists, but because their case is used as an example of science supposedly winning out over religion, whilst ignoring that they were doing their science within their religious framework.
"...their position of geocentrism [I assume you mean heliocentricism?] was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs.": This is about as ambiguous as it could be:
  • Scripture was used to oppose it, but Scripture was not opposed to it. Similarly today, Scripture is used to oppose young-Earth creationism, but Scripture is not opposed to it.
  • The "popular religious opinion" was actually the popular scientific opinion within the church. Just as evolution is the "popular religious opinion" today.
The geocentricism/heliocentricism debate is (all but) over, because they rely on observational evidence (because we can observe the present). The origins debate is not over because it relies on philosophy about the unobservable past. Viruses and bacteria show no changes that would produce microbe-to-man evolution, fossil evidence is missing the fossils that evolution would predict, and radiometric dating methods are unreliable and biased (and carbon dating has little to do with it).
Philip J. Rayment 21:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Teaching ID/Creationism is unfair

Letting ID be taught in the classroom is not a fair treatment of theories.

Let me give an analogy. Every World Cup somebody complains that it's unfair that Brazil and Italy always seem to win. Surely it would be fairer if Switzerland had a chance for a change? Well, no, because for Switzerland to have a chance at winning the rules would have to be changed substantially to favour Switzerland, so for example while every other team has to field only 11 players, Switzerland get 22. And if rules are to be fair, they must apply equally to all teams. Switzerland (or any other team) doesn't have a right to win every now and again, it must win according to the set of rules all teams are subject to. Even when these rules are applied equally, they will still favour certain teams - the best teams, made up of those who can play best within the rules. And that's a good thing, because whatever team it is, we want the best team to win, we think the best team should win. Sometimes the best team doesn't win (I think France were the best team in 2006), and there's always some disagreement, but everyone accepts that it's always the teams that are very good who win the Cup - the winner isn't selected by the rules at random.

The same is all true of the scientific review of theories and their acceptance into classrooms. It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught. All theories are subject to the same rules, they all have to pass through the same rigorous testing, peer review process, educational committees and so on before they get to the classrooms, and I hope we can all agree that that's a good thing (yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair). The process favours the best theories, those suitable for being taught in a classroom. ID has not gone through this process, and so it is unfair that it becomes taught in the classroom.

Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so." They may feel similar to how I would feel if every world cup was won by Morocco or Australia because of corruption by officials or something along those lines. However, if every world cup were being won by those teams for those reasons, I would argue that the officials be sacked and for abuses to be investigated, but never that Italy or Brazil should just be declared winners without having to go through the tournament at all. I would want a new tournament where the rules were being properly enforce to be held, and only if Brazil or Italy were to win it should they be declared winners. In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring, and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated, instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory. Once the rules are enforced properly, then YEC/ID should, if well supported by evidence, be able to successfully pass through the process and only then should they be taught in the classroom. If a YEC/ID believes that it's not just how the rules are being enforced but the rules themselves that are at fault, then they must take into account how their rule changes might affect theories that they believe to be unscientific. For example (and I am not arguing that this is a view YEC/IDs hold) if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population, then such things as astrology and mysticism would, by our principle that our rules should apply to everyone equally, be allowed to slip in.

I'll be interested in PJR's response to this. I hope my analogy was clear, and my post not too long. And finally, if anybody wants to post a criticism of my view, please take the entire post into account, because I don't want one of my claims being picked on when I've already provided counter-criticisms elsewhere in the post.JHanson 22:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Your analogy was clear, and I don't mind (moderately-) long posts. However, your analogy was not entirely appropriate and ignores some underlying assumptions.
The soccer (World Cup) analogy is actually quite interesting—in the World Cup, the opposing sides are at least allowed to compete. This is not the case with ID nor creation. If the rules of the World Cup said that Australia was not allowed to compete because Australia can't win, it would hardly be a fair rule, would it?
"It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught.": And I guess it's not the case that any team has the right to compete? Oh, wait...
"All theories are subject to the same rules,...": No, ID and creationism are ruled out a priori. The Biological Society of Washington, for example, published in their journal a pro-ID paper. They received massive criticism for it—because it was pro-ID. So they declared that they would not publish pro-ID papers again. Note that they didn't say that any future pro-ID papers would be properly peer-reviewed or etc. They said they would not be published. See here. What's that about the same rules?
"...(yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair...": I'm glad you agree. Because that is precisely the problem. Just look at all the anti-creationist arguments that claim that creationism is not science because it invokes God. In other words, it's not science unless it's materialistic.
"Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so."": That's not exactly how I'd put it, but that's close enough for now. But keep in mind that the "rules" are not formally laid down like the rules of the World Cup. You can't take a scientific journal to court and say that "the laws of [insert country] say that scientific journals must accept all papers that pass a specified peer-review process". There are no such "rules" in that sense. You can really only appeal to their sense of fair play (which is obviously absent in these cases) or appeal to public sympathy.
"In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, ...": Qualified by my comments in the previous paragraph, this is the case.
"...then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring,...": Dr. Jerry Bergman in particular has done this sort of study.[2] See also here.
"...and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated...": Wouldn't getting school boards to adopt a fairer approach amount to this? Yet the evolutionists fight it at every turn. Even claiming that evolution is not a fact was disallowed.
"...instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory.": Tell the evolutionists that. They use the courts to decide what is allowed in science. Isn't that a case of bypassing the system?
"...if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population...": Yet that argument ad populum is the very sort of argument that evolutionists use. Evolution is believed by the majority of scientists, so therefore that's the only one to be taught. Part of the problem is that we are not talking about hard science (observable, testable, science) here. That is, nobody can run any experiments to see if dinosaurs really did turn into birds tens of millions of years ago. (Even if we ran experiments that should that scales could turn into feathers, it would not prove that this did happen.) We are, to a fair extent, talking about history. So evolutionists can't say "we've proved [goo-to-you] evolution is true in the laboratory; see, here's the experiments, and you can run them again yourselves if you don't agree", so they have to resort to "most scientists agree"-type arguments.
Another problem, although already mentioned above, is that the "rules" are stacked against creation and ID. Or you could say that creation and ID has to pass rules that evolution doesn't have to pass. For example, in the case linked above, the court ruled that the school board decision was unconstitutional because the proponents of the decision had "religious" motives. That is, they had a view about God that was behind their decision. But this ignores that many evolutionists also have a view about God that drives their views—but these are atheistic views. So pro-theistic motives are not allowed, but anti-theistic motives are!
Note also that the main creationist groups do not support teachers being forced to teach creation and ID, although they do support teachers being allowed to teach it.
Philip J. Rayment 08:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)

IT'S NOT SCIENCE

Several large court cases had the proponents of ID state that ID is not science! ID has virtually no scientific papers up for peer review To qualify ID as science, you'd also be qualifying Astrology as science.

Teach it in Philosophy / World History (when discussing Christianity)- NOT science class, where there is no science behind it! Valuables 11:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

No!

If ID, or creationism should be tought at school, keep it out of science classes.

Why?

Because neither of themhave any scientific merrit. It's a poor attempt to use some scientific method to fit their perception of the world into biblical context. If Creationism should be tought at school well, then ALL creationist ideas should be tought at school. not only christian Creationism, but hinduism, Shamanism, Asatru Creationism, Aborigini creationism, and shyamanism.

Creationism is nothing more than a prolonged arm of a religious agenda.

Want fair and balanced knowledge?

Let the students learn about all religions in school. but keep it ou of bioogy classes, or anything that remotelly resembles science. Because science it is not.

Thanks

Bohemianwriter1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bohemianwriter1 (talk)

Absolutely not!

Science is valuable and precious. Scientists work hard and diligently to search for the answers to the universe's great mysteries. Intelligent design is not science, but rather, pseudo-science. Intelligent design is a hypothesis, and if it is to be taught, then it should be taught merely as a hypothesis. With no evidence to support it, and no work done in the way of attempting to falsify it, it is merely a hypothesis which makes no testable predictions. Without testable predictions, a hypothesis contributes nothing to science. How can the information of intelligent design be used to better understand the nature of life? Evolution has done so by giving us genetic insight and advanced vaccination techniques. The theory of evolution is a complex framework of ideas, nomenclature, and verified facts. Intelligent design is just a simple statement: an intelligent designer created all life.

Naturalistic views on the origin of life and the universe as we know it do have spiritual and religious implications. Evolution compromises many people's religious faith, which is very understandable. This is a concern that I think needs to be addressed honestly, and putting intelligent design into science classes is not an honest way to do that. I think that it should be addressed in religious contexts. But let science be science. Undermining science is not a way to address the cultural and religious concerns of people.

Personal tools