Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?

2012-06-04T05:55:51Z

SEdwin: /* Yes */

==Yes==
I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).

In order to save our economy, we must criminalize homosexuality. Punishing them by death is a bit too extreme, as we Americans need to show that we are more moral than those who punish homosexuality through death. Instead, I suggest we ''deport'' them any communist/socialist state (Cuba, Venezuela, China, and North Korea). These countries are definitely more tolerant towards their gay population since there is never any communist state that criminalizes homosexuality. Or maybe we should send the entire gay population in America to Japan. Since many anime portray homosexuals in a more positive light and Japan happens to be the gay friendliest country in the world, we deport homosexuals there instead.--[[User:JacobMS|JacobMS]] 23:42, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
:I am afraid to say that unfortunately JacobMS, you seem to not understand the difference between correlation and causation. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:22, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:: Homosexuality wasn't legalised until well into the 1970s in Britain, the empire was crumbling well before then [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:48, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Christianity clearly prohibits homosexuality, and since America is a CHRISTIAN country, we need to outlaw homosexuality to protect the country from sin. ---[[User:DennisRifkin|DennisR]] 07:32, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::According to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, America is not a Christian nation. See: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html. And I quote: "Art. 11. The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" From the founding fathers themselves, practically. John Adams was president at the time and proudly signed and announced it, and it, along with the rest of the treaty of course, was unanimously agreed upon by the senate. I needed to point that out. --[[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:28, 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

Yes. After Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas is the worst Supreme Court Decision in the history of the United States. It needs to be overturned and a federal anti-Homosexuality law passed. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:02, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. Please see: [[Homosexuality and murders]], [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]] and [[Homosexuality and health]]. When one looks at the [[homosexuality and health]] article, it is really not that surprising that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=undP3-0yEn8 Indian lady Christian dancers are far more graceful] than the [[Lesbianism and obesity|obesity infested lesbian population.]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH4ZTSUZQWM&list=PLFD5B143F743EB6B1] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's also [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] and [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:28, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OliviaB, you are being redundant. Is that not covered under [[Homosexuality and health]]? (you are probably not the first parodist guilty of being redundant) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal "gay rights." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).
:I believe ''white people'' are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that ''doesn't have many white people'', and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized ''being white'' or have more liberal "white folks." And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of ''white people'' (Every place colonized by Spain and England before 1900).
:I think you're onto something. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:55, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

==No==

The last thing we need in this country are more liberal, nanny state policies like this. The only thing criminalization of homosexuality would accomplish is more spending on law enforcement and increased governmental control of our lives. There would also be no way to enforce it, since making love in the street is already illegal, and homosexuals could just claim public displays of affection as political statements protected by the first amendment, which would clog our court systems even worse than they already are. There is no objective way to prove homosexuality outside the bedroom, so that throws a giant wrench into any possibility of enforcement.

Government control is a slippery slope. It starts with the criminalization of deviant sexual practices, and before you know it, the government is controlling who breeds with who and when. Homosexuality may be sinful and immoral, but it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:19, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Technically, Homosexuality is not in major violation of the majority of the country's morals, and so there's not reason to criminalize it. What happens in the bedrooms of a loving, consensual couple should not be of any concern to anyone else. [[User:Geosurgeon|Geosurgeon]] 16:19 PM August 28, 2011 (EDT)

No. Even if I did agree that homosexuality is wrong(which I don't), I don't think it could make it through the house or senate. Evidence from both sides is way too shaky, and the religious motive behind it would be dangerously close to being unconstitutional. It would also bring up many comparisons to Nazi Germany, where they criminalized homosexuality, by punishment of death, and while I'm fully aware that even if such legislation was to be written up, it wouldn't be nearly as terrible as Nazi Germany, the comparison would stick the moment it became public. Furthermore, the amount of money such legislation would cost(sinking money into already overzealous law enforcement, and the prison system for a completely ridiculous piece of legislation would be a terrible idea no matter how you look at it) in the end would be enormous and a terribly unnecessary and unaffordable burden on America and Americans in today's economic climate. [[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:37 28 August, 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Debate:Why do fundamentalists take mistranslations seriously?

2012-06-04T05:48:38Z

SEdwin: Created page with "The original Bible says the savior will be born ''not'' from a virgin, but from a woman who has never given birth before. In other words, the savior has to be a first-born. Funda..."

The original Bible says the savior will be born ''not'' from a virgin, but from a woman who has never given birth before. In other words, the savior has to be a first-born. Fundamentalists have taken this mistranslation to "virgin" seriously, and it has become important in many churches that Mary was a virgin rather than a first-time mother. Why has this point become so important? [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:48, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2012-06-04T05:46:04Z

SEdwin: /* Religious debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Why do fundamentalists take mistranslations seriously?]] (on "virgin" Mary)
# [[Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?]]
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]
#[[Debate: When are you lot just going to grow ?]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
#[[Debate: Do genuinely saved Christians sin?]]
#[[Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]
# [[Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions]]
# [[Debate: What does Evolution attempt to explain?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]
# [[Debate:Is Anime and Manga Ok?]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?

2012-06-04T05:43:40Z

SEdwin: Created page with "Not a fair question. That's like asking "Was Mozart not intelligent enough to produce Bach's Tocatta and Fugue on his own?" Even if a god exists, his existence doesn't make it ne..."

Not a fair question. That's like asking "Was Mozart not intelligent enough to produce Bach's Tocatta and Fugue on his own?" Even if a god exists, his existence doesn't make it necessary for him to create every possible thing in every possible location. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 01:43, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?

2011-07-31T01:24:11Z

SEdwin: /* Semantics */

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]If the universe is defined as everything then of course anything which is not part of everything is outside the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: The phrase "being outside the universe" is an oxymoron. The universe contains all of space. You can't be outside of something which contains every point that exists. It's a nonsensical idea. It's like "whiter than white". Good poetry, bad logic. --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 14:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I guess that was my point. It's just semantics and not a real question or a real answer. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Please see the entry on the [[Multiverse]]. If this debate is to begin to make sense, then it needs to incorporate current ideas on how "the universe" might actually be constituted.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, you might want to read up on the [[string theory]]. This theory states that there are twelve dimensions, and MANY universes. It also has a pretty good explanation of the big bang.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 01:14, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

With the current level of technology that humans have to explore space we won't be able to answer this question definitively for a long time. Though we won't be able to test any hypotheses that are created to answer this question both Pacman and Everwill are wrong that the question is semantic based because with the technology we do have at our disposal we can prove that the universe is expanding, leaving the question "expanding into what?" The answer to the question might come with a breakthrough into the nature of dark matter and dark energy or maybe the only way to find out is to break space-time. Its a long way off. --blutengel

Many Scientists belive that there are alternate universes that exist out of our space and time

Separate "does the universe exist and does it include 'everything'?", from "what is the universe?" - if you can't tell the difference between the questions, abandon your -pedia, it's valueless.

The universe is one entity by definition. The question then becomes what exacly is the question. Is the quesion: "Is there anything beyond what we know exists in the universe?" to which the obvious question is yes. Is it: "Is there anything beyond what there is somewhere beyond what we know exists in the universe?" which is what I believe the initial question was, and which I question its asking. or is the question: "is there anything which is unaccessable to our universe" to which there is speculation, but needlessly as if it is not accessable it will forever be unknown and if it becomes known it is no longer inaccessable.

Can an ant comprehend or even see the birds?

==No==
God is outside the universe. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 22:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

He is also inside - aka omni-presence. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 23:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)

What I mean is, God is infinite, he is not, and cannot be contained in the universe. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:26, 27 January 2008 (EST)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ayn Rand taught me the notion of an '''invalid question''', which is tied to the concept of an [invalid concept]. Asking about a ''qualified, physical'' universe avoids the heart of the matter. As stated above, the universe, by definition, includes '''ALL''' that exists, not merely all that ''physically'' exists. This concept is not something for scientific observation to "prove" or "disprove."

To say the universe is both finite and growing are natural corrolaries of understanding the concept of all that exists. For instance, what is beyond the edge of the universe is an invalid question because it refers to something that does not exist. How do I know? Have I been to the edge of the universe? No. It is not a matter of ''perception''; it is a matter of ''conception''.

String theory may suggest multiple dimensions but conceptually, each dimension is part of a connection with all that exists, i.e., the universe. A property of existence is that it is part of the universe. It is not that God cannot exist "outside" the universe, it is that "outside" has no reference. As the distance between matter expands, space is created, thereby enlarging the universe.

==Semantics==
This debate is a semantic debate. What is a "universe?" If the universe contains everything, then nothing can be outside everything. This is a mathematical fact easy to prove. If God exists, he must exist within the universe. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:44, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
:To elaborate, if you define the universe as "everything physical" then there can be non-physical things outside it (if non-physical things exist). Some people define it as the (forgive me, but I use wikipedia links) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe observable universe], which only includes objects we can observe from Earth. This is why it's a semantic debate, until you know what each side is talking about. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 21:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Who created God?

2011-07-31T01:19:35Z

SEdwin: /* No one */

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros

Why is it necessary for God to have been created? God could always have existed. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]]

:I'm sure Philip will get involved here—and believe you me, he is far more qualified to answer this question—but I'm going to take a stab at it. The problem that most can't get past is the notion that God "is, was, and ever shall be," the alpha and omega, so on and so forth. God supersedes time; he in fact ''created'' time according to the Judeo-Christian theology. There was no past before God/YHWH. Nothing needed to come before him, because he is the source of all things, including time itself. It gets complicated there because it's hard to imagine a universe without time; though technically, there wasn't a universe at all until he created it (once again, according to Judeo-Christian theology or at least my best knowledge of it). I'm going to let Philip chime in here and correct any mistakes I've made, and maybe give you a bit more concise explanation as I'm sure he—or one of the many others here—have come across this question far more often than I have. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Typical Darwin lover know-it-all question. Ok smart guy, tell me where space ends and I will tell you who created God.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: Okay, Jeffrey W. Lauttamus invited me here to comment, so here I am. God is an uncreated being, so it is nothing more than a nonsense question to ask who created an uncreated being.
: That likely then raises the question about how He could be uncreated, to which there are at least two replies:
:* As Jeffrey explained, God exists outside of time. He created time; He is not subject to it. A beginning implies a point in time, but as God is outside of it, that He had a beginning doesn't follow.
:* ''Something'' (or someone) ''must be'' eternal. If it's not God, it might be this universe. But science now has good reason to think that the universe is not eternal, which begs the question of who or what created the universe. (And the universe, by the way, is known as the space/time continuum; time itself began with the universe.) Ultimately, as you go back, the only option left is something or someone that is eternal. And as the laws of physics don't allow for something physical to be eternal, then that something/someone must be non-physical, or spiritual.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok... That makes since. We cannot bound God to logic because he created it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Ros

: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting subject. One of the most common argument's for God's existence is some form of the 'watchmaker' analogy - I.E. that the existence of the universe implies that it was created & therefore the existence of a creator (God). Does the existence of God also imply that He was created? And if not, why not? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
: The watchmaker analogy is referring to something that was obviously designed because of it's complexity of multiple interacting parts that would not occur naturally. God is not a complexity of multiple interacting parts, so the same argument does not apply to him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally. But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created. That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally. It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::: No, it's not a circular argument at all. It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things). That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof. And we are talking about the ''origin'' of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally. Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::::See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
::::: See my problem is that I don't understand how something could have 'just happened' out of absolutely nothing. If you want to fantasize that absolutely nothing can become something for no reason, then I can't stop you, but that is the realm of fantasy and blind faith, whereas I prefer to stick to reason and observation (we ''observe'' that everything that happens has a cause). That something must be eternal is a deduction from that. The logic for God is that this physical universe must have had a beginning, all events have a cause, the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural), therefore there must be a God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Haha oh how I have missed debating against you. OK. Well I don't quite see it as that. I don't think that something can come from absolutely nothing either. But I cannot postulate a God to solve that problem because God himself is complex. Certainly we cannot see or examine him to prove how complex he is physically. But an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the entire universe and life itself? That cannot be anything BUT complex. And something that complex has to have a starting point because only something simple, incredibly simple can come about by chance. Something like a singularity. Note that I'm not saying that the Big Band did come around by chance, only that it is far more likely then God coming about by chance. I admit that this is not as scientific or provable as I would like it to be, it does involve some blind faith, however I think that you're position involves more blind faith then mine.
::::::I do take issue with your assertion that "the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural)". Why do you say that? I cannot see how you reached that conclusion. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:49, 29 September 2008 (AEST)

::::::: God is not complex: He is not composed of parts. See an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&diff=504256&oldid=504017 earlier post] of mine.
::::::: If the cause of all physical reality was something physical, then something physical must have existed before something physical existed. This is an impossibility, so the only option left is that the cause of all physical reality must be something ''non''-physical.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually thats the only option the bible leaves open, just because its the only possiblitiy you believe in doesn't mean its the truth. Logiclly there is no 'truth' nothing can ever really proven to be 'right' only that it cannot be proven wrong. Its why everything is considered a 'theory' including my claim i just made. You simply leave out the fact that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the universe can be of something that can rationally be explained without help of a greater being. Your saying that we cannot examine the thing that started the universe, and yet somehow you were able to magically understand that it created the universe. Before you can claim something you need to prove it. Just because some people are ignorant and dont understand the thinkings of logic and reason doesn't mean everyone will, your claim only pulls us further into the question of what created the non-physical then? What is the non-physical? If it doesn't consist of atoms than what does it consist of? how did this nothingness create something? [[User:ChillinBM]]

:I might not have put it as bluntly as Chillin did, but he's certainly made a clear point. For me, the claim that God is not complex seems to be supportless other then by continuous assertion that it is the case. All I have seen is "God is not complex. Why? Because we can't understand him." and maybe I have missed an important point.
:You're argument there is one of infinite regress and there is a problem with that. Just because you seem to have an infinite regress does not mean that you need invoke something supernatural as a terminator. For example, it was long wondered what would happen if you cut iron into the smallest possible pieces, and then cut it in half again. Surely, by logic, you could continue to halve the pieces infinately. In fact, the once you reach a single atom of iron, the regress has a natural terminator, if you cut the atom in half, whatever is left is no longer iron, it is some other element. I do not know what natural terminator solves the cause and effect regress however I feel justified in not assuming a supernatural terminator for this regress. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 8:34, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

::No, ChillnBM, it is not the Bible that leaves only that option, but logic. But perhaps I was remiss in not explaining myself properly. I was working on the basis that there is the ''natural'' (or physical) and the ''supernatural'' (or non-physical). That is, ''physical'' and ''non-physical'' are, between them, all-encompassing. There can be nothing that is neither physical nor non-physical. So having eliminated one, you are left with the other.
:: If "logically there is no truth", then that statement itself is not true. So logically, there ''must'' be "truth". What you are getting confused with is ''scientific proof''. In that you are correct; science can only ''disprove'', it can't ''prove''. But that's different to ''truth'', which ''must'' exist. See also sections 1 and 2 of my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]].
:: I can't prove ''scientifically'' that God exists, but I can prove it ''logically'' by eliminating the alternatives. Science has eliminated an eternal universe, which means that the universe had a beginning, but has not explained (and cannot explain) what caused the universe to begin. Logically, the beginning of the universe (all of physical reality) must have a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) cause.
:: We know that the ''physical'' must have had a beginning, but we don't know that the ''supernatural'' must have had a beginning, so there is no necessity to explain how the supernatural began. Furthermore, science also shows that ''time'' is an integral part of the universe, so without the universe, i.e. in the realm of that deduced supernatural, ''time'' does not exist. Which means that talking about a ''beginning'' for the supernatural is a bit of nonsense anyway.
:: Deducing that ''something'' supernatural must have created the universe is not at all contradictory to saying that science can't ''study'' the supernatural, so there's no "magic" involved.
:: "''Before you can claim something you need to prove it.''": And yet you didn't bother to prove that claim before you made it. Or prove it afterwards either. Furthermore, you yourself said that things ''can't'' be proved.
:: I don't have to explain every point of something in order to claim the basic point. That is, I can legitimately claim that there must be a supernatural creator without having to explain what He is made of or how He created. And by the way, your final question was a loaded one, referring to the supernatural as "nothingness". Being non-physical doesn't mean that it is "nothingness". In fact, it is ''you'' who has this problem. If you discount God (the supernatural), then you are left with the Big Bang, which is ''nothing'' exploding and becoming everything. So I ask ''you'', "how did this nothingness create something?".

:: Bolly, the quote that I linked to was not just "continuous assertion", and neither was it "because we can't understand him". Admittedly that quote didn't go into much detail, but it indicated that there's been plenty of study of this matter (and ''study'' implies something more than "continuous assertion" or "because we can't understand him") and it also briefly explained some of the rationale.
:: Your "satisfaction" in not assuming a supernatural terminator seems mere wishful thinking, given that you've found a ''different'' infinite regress case that didn't need one. That's not a solid argument at all.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:25, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I do not find that rationale convincing at all, and I still feel that it has little substance. From what I can understand, you outline the reasons why people like me think that God must be complex and they seem to me to be fairly convincing. In return you seem to say "how do you know that he cannot be complex?". Which is true, i don't 'know' that, however it is no real argument, simply a statement.
:::It's not wishful thinking to posit a natural terminator when there are situations in which a former infite regress is shown to have a natural terminator. I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, and certainly not 'proof'. But I would argue that it is a lot more simple and more likely considering that the evidence for any form of supernatural activity, being or event seems to be very limited. So while we 'know' that natural things can exist, we cannot have the same certainty about anything supernatural. I apologise if my argument is not concise but I think you can understand where I am coming from. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:06, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

:::: Is the evidence for the supernatural really that limited? Or is it just that you choose to not believe it? Or haven't looked for it? What sort of evidence would you expect? Even apart from the origin of the universe, there is the matter of the origin of life, and the incredible design and information evident in it. We know from observation that design requires a designer, and information requires an intelligence. We have no viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. I would consider that to be evidence for the supernatural. Then there is historical documentary evidence, i.e. the Bible. It records various supernatural events. True, one cannot ''scientifically'' test those claims, but one ''can'' look at the source of those claims and conclude that the source is a very reliable one. So again, that becomes ''evidence'' (albeit not scientific proof) of supernatural activity. So I reject your claim that there is very limited evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::I think it is. No, because although you might laugh at this claim, I have an open mind. If the evidence is there I am more then willing to look at it, examine it, and then accept it if it's satisfactory. Ah, the design = designer argument. You are correct that 'design' requires a designer, however it can be easy to mistake complexity for design. I don't think they're the same thing. I think evolution more the adequately explains the complexity of life. Leaving that aside, you are correct that the beginning of the universe and the origin of life are two events that we have almost no knowledge of, or evidence based theory for. However lack of a naturalistic explanation does not automatically mean that it must have been supernatural. And the bible. While I don't wish to start this argument again because it stalemates so easily and neither of us achieves anything, I do not accept the bible as anything more then a collection of anecdotes with some small historical accuracy, that only comes from an event that is recorded several generations after its occurence. That's not to say that the bible is worthless, only that you cannot use it on its own to support supernaturalism. For example, some conspiracy theorist whos name sounded dutch but I cannot remember it, claimed that the story of Sodom was actually about an alien civilisation nuking the city. Ridiculous? Almost certainly, but his "theory" almost perfectly explained the origin of that bible story. I'm definately not saying that he was correct, just that the bible can prove a lot of things if you want it to. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 9:52, 2 October 2008 (AEST)

:::::: Almost everybody thinks that they have an open mind, so thinking it is not much in the way of evidence.
:::::: Is it truly easy to mistake complexity for design? What complexity do you know of that wasn't designed? Of course, if you mention ''life'', you are begging the question, and evolution ''can't'' explain it.
:::::: The origins of the universe and of life are not simply things for which there is a "lack of a naturalistic explanation", but for which the naturalistic explanation is ''against''. For example, experiments, such as Stanley and Miller’s(?), show that life ''could not'' occur naturally. I'm not saying that such experiments rule out all possible explanations; rather, I'm saying that the experiments not only did not support naturalistic origins of life, but also provided reasons ''against'' a naturalistic explanation. To provide an example of that example, life requires optically-pure amino acids, whereas their experiment produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids. That is, their experiments produced a ''problem'' for naturalistic explanations to explain. In summary, the available evidence is not simply ''missing'', but ''opposed'' to a naturalistic explanations.
:::::: The Bible has far more than just "small historical accuracy", and most of it is eye-witness accounts, not "recorded several generations after its occurence".
:::::: Are you thinking of Von Daniken? Without knowing his "explanation", I can't comment much, but most explanations I’ve seen of biblical events simply ignore large parts of what the Bible actually says. A good example is the claim that the flooding of the Black Sea is the origin of the Bible's flood account.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392]
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You are right of course, but I still like to think so!

I think it is. You're correct that if I say 'life' it does beg the question but what about something like the water cycle? You know, evaporation over the sea, condensations in the clouds, precipitation over land or sea and it all starts again. Sure its not really complex but many tribes and civilisations over the years have worshipped a rain god or something like that. I already know that you're objection to evolution is that you think that mutations destroy genetic information. I fail to understand how you can think this when, while mutations will often destroy some information it instantle 'creates' new information. If GVA mutates to GHA, then the V has been destroyed and the H has been created. Massive, massive oversimplification I know but I still think it shows my point.

I agree that Stanley and Miller's (I think thats right) experiment did not support a naturalistic explanation however I think you overestimate the magnitude of the 'problems' it places in front of it. Life ''as we know it'' requires optically-pure amino acids, but that may be only because life very quickly evolved to be able to produce its own pure amino acids and thus no longer needed to rely on impure, left and right handed, amino acids. Over time we lost the ability to use these impure acids. Look I know that may sound far-fetched but it didn't take much effort to show that their experiment really simply failed to provide any evidence either way.

Von Daniken! Thats him! Thankyou, yes I love that guys writing, sure it's probably all completely wrong, but its great fun to read. No, because, if I remember correctly, his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said about the story. It explained everything I think, like why Lot's wife became a pillar of salt, and why the angel hurried them out of the city, and why that city was chosen to be nuked or something. And while I definately don't believe any of it is true, it has just as much evidence to support it as the bibles version of events does which casts some doubt onto the Bible's claim to historical accuracy. As for Noah's ark, I still think it has something to do with the end of the last ice age or something like that. I can't prove it, I know. But most civilisations have different flood myths, and you'd think they'd all have the same if a worldwide complete flooding had happened and everyone on earth was descended from Moses. By the way, minor unimportant question, If Adam and Eve had two sons, one of whom killed the other, how did Cain have children? Sorry, it's just kinda bothered me ever since I heard that story... [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 07:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

: Yeah, I like to think I'm open-minded too, but I know plenty would disagree with that!
: Your example of the water cycle fails because, like life, you haven't shown that it ''did'' occur naturally (without design). I could also object on another ground, but that would be tantamount to defining complexity as something that can't occur naturally, which is a valid argument, but perhaps I won't use it right now.
: Your mutation example (also) fails because of a misunderstanding of what "information" is. [[Information]] is something that conveys ''meaning''. Words are information. So if you "mutate" "my name is Philip" to "my nsme is Philip", what new ''information'' is created? None. Rather, the information has been ''damaged'' (if not destroyed) (ignoring that our brains are smart enough to figure out what must have been intended). (And by the way, I created that mutation by "chance", by closing my eyes, cursoring back a few characters, and randomly pressing a key. I possibly ''could have'' created new information if I had ''intelligently designed'' the "mutation".) It is false to say that any change constitutes new information.
: Regarding Stanley and Miller's experiment, I already acknowledged that it doesn't rule out all possible explanations. But the point is that it is positive ''evidence'' opposed to the naturalistic position. Yes, perhaps it only rules out life ''as we know it'', but then it is this ''life that we know'' that we are talking about. It's an interesting characteristic of believers in naturalism that they claim to be scientific, but when scientific evidence is presented that opposes their ideas, they resort to ''ad hoc'' speculation to explain away the evidence. So, it's inaccurate to say that the experiment failed to produce any evidence either way. It didn't absolutely ''prove'' anything (and "scientific proof' is an oxymoron anyway), but it did produce ''evidence'' against a naturalistic explanation.
: Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't give your claim that "his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said" much credibility when it is clear that your knowledge of the biblical account is somewhat lacking. See the following comments.
: As for Noah's flood, you wouldn't expect all the stories to be identical, as stories that are retold and retold verbally tend to change, often inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately (parents telling children using locations, creatures, etc. that they are familiar with rather than having to explain unfamiliar concepts). But it's still the case that there is a lot of similarity; too much to explain other than with a common origin. See [[Great Flood]] for more on this. And everybody on Earth is descended from ''Noah'', not Moses.
: The Bible records that after Cain killed Abel, they had another son, named Seth. So there's three sons, not two. Further, it also says that they had "other sons and daughters", so there's a lot more (Jewish tradition is two or three dozen of each, I believe), including potential wives for Cain. (How did he have children? The same way everyone else does: The Bible says that "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant".) Now that may well raise another question in your mind, in which case I recommend that you read [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter8.pdf this].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't know about open-minded, but I see you as a decent person, and what more can you do?
::True. Very true. I'm making assumptions. Well in that case I ask, what do you need for me to prove, as much as is possible, that it is indeed not designed. For example I can point to a water molecule and show that its properties allow it to exist easily as a liquid and a lighter than air gas. Hydrogen bonding and so on, gravity causing it to fall and so on. Also I can talk about Mars, and how it has been discovered that it snows there, which is part of the water cycle, and thus say that if it had been designed for Earth, why does it also work on Mars? Yet I'm not sure if this will satisfy you.
::Again, true. I apologise for misrepresenting your argument. You are right, however genetic information doesn't work like that either. Because genetic information creates proteins, a mutation of that gene could result in a protein with differing properties. Mostly these probably make little difference, however sometimes the difference is significant, or it is a significant difference (I didn't just repeat myself, I did reread it to check) and so it has an affect on the organism. You know that, or at least some of it and you don't believe the rest. So changing the information isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It's more like changing an ingredient or an instruction in a recipe. It changes the taste, or the appearance (yeast in bread) but it is still relevant and the cake, or the bread, or the animal is different. Sometimes worse, sometimes better.
::Yeh I did kinda start postulating. Alright, I admit defeat on that one, Stanley and Miller's experiment did provide some evidence against a naturalistic explanation for the creation of life. I still believe that a naturalistic explanation is the best one, but I cannot argue against you here.
::Touche. Noah, not Moses. I apologise, that wasn't a mistake based on lack of knowledge or familiarity, but rather an honest slip. A stupid, honest slip. So I don't blame you. But I maintain that Von Danikin's story, myth, etc, was just as well supported by the Bible's evidence as the Christian story is. If you don't believe me, then don't, it doesn't bother me because I don't actually subscribe to Von Danikin's beliefs. But if you ever have the time to read his books, I do recomend them as they are great fun.
::Yes they wouldn't be identical, but I would at least expect them all to mention an ark, and remember the name 'Moses' as their ancestor and so on. I think the differences in the stories are far to great to allow for a single event, rather they point to a rise of sea levels or something similar that occurred around the world and affected a variety of peoples.
::Ok thanks, I read the link, that explains it. Well not the whole link, but it answered my questions anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 09:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Further experiments similar to the Urey-Miller experiments have been performed since then. Perhaps it's best to start with those, /recent/ studies than couching an entire argument in an experiment that we know today was not without flaws. It may also be best not to take out of context what the experiment meant to prove; that the building blocks of life could be created under circumstances (then) believed to be similar to those of ancient Earth. In this regard they were right; all that comes after is beyond the scope of the study in question.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 16:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you would like to play the logic game, heres a fun point of view. And your logic is still flawed.

1. The Creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality and the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator we can conceive a greater being - namely one who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. God does not exist.

Just to clear some things up, Nothing can be considered to be PROVEN in the term that a theory is only true until it is proven wrong. People like to say that things such as the big bang theory and evolution aren't true because they are just a theory. When in actuality, everything is a theory. Secondly you didn't seem to have read my other point, i said it can't be proven right, but also it continues to work until it is proven WRONG. In which case, you haven't proven my theory wrong, you pointed out that i dont have evidence, but the truth is, its true until proven wrong. My claim simply says that you need evidence before you can prove another theory wrong, or to prove yours is right. My evidence, look at the whole reason for debates and the scientific process. They are meant to find information on their subject and back it up so that it is evident that what they are saying is in fact logically possible or right.

Secondly, the big bang unlike God is something that has been debated and studied by scientists who spend their lives trying to understand the origins of the universe. The 'Nothingness' inside the singularity that started the big bang, has been recorded in other places in the universe, such as black holes. Its simple, the spec where the everything was inside was so infinity dense, that in technical terms is 'nothing'.

Science cannot study the 'supernatural' because it doesn't 'exist'. You claim that you cannot study god, and yet SOMEHOW the people that wrote the bible understood him? And Adam and Eve?

With your logic there we can say that since science cannot examine my imagination, im imagining that the world is a giant pillow. Since you can't go into my imagination and specifically EXAMINE the aspects of my realm, you cannot prove that its not real, therefore the world is but one giant pillow.

[[User:ChillinBM]]

:Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Break to assist editing ==

To '''Bolly''':

How can you prove that the water cycle is not designed? You can't, because you were not there when it began, and neither do you know of anybody who was (except God, but we're ignoring him for this exercise). What you need to do is to find an example where its origin ''was'' observed, so that there is documentation of just how it came about. Now don't even think of claiming that there are no examples of complex things forming without anybody being there to observe them, because there are plenty being formed all the time, such as machines, books (the arrangement of letters is complex), and so on. Yeah, okay, they are things that humans have created, so they don't count as being undesigned—''but that's the point: all the examples we '''know''' of were designed''!

The difference between English (for example) words and genetic information doesn't change things. I'll explain. In English, words can be any (reasonable) length, and not all combinations of letters are used. This is unlike DNA where each "word" is three characters, and all 64 combinations are used. However, this is not the whole story. In English, it's not just the letters that have to be right, but the words, sentences, and paragraphs. Just suppose that every possible "mutation" of an English word produced another English word. That "mutated" word will still not make sense in the sentence. Similarly with DNA. A mutation will form another "word" (rather than nonsense), which will equate to a particular amino acid, but will the resulting protein make sense? Or the molecule which incorporates that protein? No. So you haven't really solved the problem.

Some changes are indeed like changing an ingredient in a recipe. The genes for recognising smells and viruses work this way I believe. But that's because the recipe for the fruit cake can accept any fruit. It can't accept rat poison being substituted for raisins, for example.

As for mentioning Moses when Noah was meant, I can understand and accept a simple mistake (and that's one that many make). (But then you made the ''same'' mistake in your reply!) However, it wasn't just that simple mistake, but ''also'' the mistake of claiming that Adam and Eve only had two sons. One simple mistake—a simple slip. Two mistakes, with one being more than just the wrong name—I question your familiarity.

I think that you expect too much in what you would expect the flood legends to include, and especially if you think that they would have the same words for them. The word "ark", from memory, basically means "box". The Greek account on the [[Great Flood]] page refers to a "chest". Is that really any different, when you allow for different languages, cultures, and etc.? And the Hawaiian account has "Nuu" in place of "Noah". That could easily be a version of the same name. And by the way, that page only has a small sampling of the similarities. Yet even so, there are some parallels that I consider remarkable. Why would independently-invented flood stories have a bird being sent out to see if the flood had subsided? That doesn't even seem to make that much sense, except in the case of Noah's Ark which may not have offered a view of the surroundings. Yet a number of stories have it. One of the birds that Noah sent out was a dove, and at least one of the other accounts specifically has a dove. And why the promise of the rainbow? It's understandable that a rainbow might be associated with a flood story, and even that the rainbow might be a ''reminder'' of the flood. But why would the rainbow be a sign that a similar flood would not happen again, per the Australian aboriginal account quoted?

To '''Jirby''':

Do any of those more recent studies actually show anything more substantial? And in one point you are right: the experiments were done assuming certain conditions then believed to be the case on ancient Earth. Specifically, they assumed an oxygen-free atmosphere, because that was the belief, because an atmosphere containing oxygen would have destroyed the molecules being formed. But the view now is that the atmosphere had oxygen, which means that the experiment showed that they wouldn't get the right amino acids ''even assuming an atmosphere more favourable than would have existed''.

To '''ChillinBM''':

As Bolly says, your logic is easy to dismiss. Points 5 and 6 are pure nonsense, and even if true, point 7 doesn't follow from the previous points.

A theory is not "true" until it is proven wrong. It cannot (correctly) be proven wrong unless it ''is'' wrong, in which case it could not have also been ''true''. And no, not ''everything'' is a theory. Some things are merely hypotheses, and some things are fact (such as my name being Philip).

Yes, some people do like to say that evolution is "just a theory", but this argument ''is specifically rejected by leading creationists''[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory] (and I hope Ajkgordon will bother to clarify his misleading claims in that regard).

God has also been debated and studied by many people, including scientists, so the Big Bang is not "unlike God" in that respect at all.

Black holes are not "nothingness"; they are ''something''. Note in the following view from Big Bang expert (he invented one of the Big Bang versions) Alan Guth it does not say that stuff came from black holes or anything similar, but from "absolutely nothing":
{{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507]}}

Science cannot study the supernatural because the scientific method and its tools are only capable of studying ''physical'' stuff; not because the supernatural doesn't exist. I didn't say that you cannot study God. I said that ''science'' can't study God. But science is not the only way to learn things. We can study God because He has told us much about Himself, and because He came to Earth in human form 2000 years ago, and in other similar ways. And Adam and Eve, who had freshly-created brains without any flaws, knew Him personally.

Your last paragraph is illogical, and not the same logic I'm using. There are two flaws, if I understand you correctly. First, you seem to be arguing that because I can't examine ''your imagination'', therefore I can't examine ''the world'' to see if your imagination is providing correct information. This is nonsense. Second, not being able to prove that something is not real doesn't mean that it ''is'' real. I'm not claiming that God is real simply because you can't prove He's not. If that's what you think, you've read your own preconceptions into what I said.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.
Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.

:Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.

:- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.

:- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.

:- God doesn't exist.

:Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.

:Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.

:[[User:ChillinBM]]

:: "''Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood..''": I don't claim that the supernatural can't be understood, so I don't have to prove it.
:: "''...if it cannot be examined...''": But it ''can'' be examined, if it chooses to reveal itself to us. Which God has, Christians believe.
:: "''God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.''": No, that's a non-sequitur.
:: "''...the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.''": That's still simply nonsense.
:: "''Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot.''": There is ''likely'' to be such debates (and there is in the case of the supernatural), but it's not a given that there necessarily ''will be'' such debates.
:: "''In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists.''": Huh?
:: "''If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941]''": No, ''you'' raised it, so I will debate it with ''you''.
:: "''Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.''": Then can I suggest that you ''do'' study the Christian view, instead of trying to refute something that you haven't studied enough to know what you are talking about?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Ahh! Noah/Moses! I do apologise again. That was just plain ridiculous. Maybe the very fact I got it wrong once means I was more likely to get it wrong again? I don't know. Well you don't have to believe me, and it has been a while since I did last read it, maybe I'm becoming forgetful.....maybe I have Moses on my brain. I wonder why?

:::Chillin does actually have a point though. He's using the ontological argument against itself, which, if you don't buy into that argument, is pointless.

:::The recipe analogy does work though, because a cake made from rat poison would not 'survive'. A fruit cake could indeed have chocolate substituted and it might still work and be tasty. The protein doesn't have to 'make sense' because it only has to perform a simple function, with complex results. Regardless of how it performs, or fails to perform, its task, it still has an affect on the organism. So any viable permutation of the DNA will have a 'meaning'. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 00:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Arguing with me is fine, but i wont be able to show the evidence as well as the people on the forum i just submited as well because i do not study the topics as well as them. If you dont want to go there, its you choice, but it shows that you dont want to deal with who really knows more information. Just so you know, I study both, i've seen the christian view, went to church and christian school for my elementary years. Just doesn't seem logical to me, too many contradictions.

By the model of god put from the bible god should be omnipotent, and omniscience, there should be NOTHING that exists that can be more powerful than him. In which case, he cannot exists, because if he did exist, he wouldn't have the most power, because if something were to create the universe from a nonexistance, it would be more powerful than him.

By the way, I love your responses, quoting everything i say and put a simple 'nonsense' or 'doesn't make sense' next to it. Maybe thats how we should explain everything in the world.

Science is the simple step of anylizing anything. In this case, this 'anything' is supposedly nothing. I have a question for those who say that we cannot examine god. If it cannot be examed, how can it happen? Logically, if something is afflicted by god, god has to use something existing, or physical to alter what is happening in the physical world, in which case, non of it has been found nor detected in any manner.

And we seem to still miss the question, If god has been here from the beginning of time, who created time? Who created God? How come people can always say 'well what happend before the big bang?' but yet they cant face thier own problem of 'well what happend before god?'

:As mentioned above, there was nothing before God, for two reasons. Firstly, God is eternal. Secondly, God invented and created the timestream. "Before" refers to something that existed in the timestream before God, but God is outside of the timestream entirely, therefore this question doesn't apply to him. [[User:DavidBG|David]] [[User talk:DavidBG|Talk]] 14:21, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

== No one ==
There is no God. Life came from molecules, which evolved to make life diverse as it is today. The Big Bang was created by a singularity. Time as we perceive it could have well began after the Big Bang. The belief in the Judeo Christian God is irrational because of Judges 1:19, "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron". The Judeo Christian God is less powerful than iron chariots? Belief in any benevolent omnipotent God is irrational because if God was both benevolent and omnipotent than he would stop all suffering in the world. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 15:07, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
:First, you need to prove there is no God; second, you need to prove that life evolved as you specified above; third, you need to prove whether or not it was God who was "less powerful" then the iron chariots, or the tribe of Judah. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

God is eternal and cannot be created, as the Bible confirms. Since God is eternal and has always been in existence, and since he is outside of time, there can never be a time to create God. John 1 clarifies this as plenty of other verses. (Nash)
:If God exists, he didn't have to necessarily be created. He could have always existed. Likewise, it's not necessary that the universe had to be created. It could have also always existed. When you get to this level (ie the period before the current incarnation of the universe), God and Universe are really the same thing, and we won't ever know (unless God is real and tells everybody about it). Time goes forward indefinitely, there's no reason it can't also go back indefinitely. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:50, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

[[User:ChillinBM]]

:''"Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation"''
:There are a few things wrong with that statement.
:#Theories are supported by evidence. There is no scientific evidence for any higher beings. Creation is a hypothesis - a guess. It is not a theory.
:#Is is not rational to defy Occam's Razor (which one does when they say Creation is a better alternative to chance and known, testable physical laws).
:#It is not the ''only'' <s>rational</s> explanation. There are a handful of scientific models that are consistent with current data on how the universe began. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 21:19, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Who created God? - the alternate point of view==
Man appeared on the face of the Earth, after a while he tried to understand the really important stuff like why the sun shone, and the tides came in and went out. He thought about this long and hard. Maybe there was a sun god that hauled the sun across the sky each day, he thought. Many thousands of years later, man decided that maybe God had created everything, and once a critical number of humans (more than one, as it is not infradig to believe one's own hallucinations, but when two or more share them, then maybe it's real after all) started believing in this God, he came into being. The conditions were right for this to happen. God, having now appeared realized he had to do a major retcon on everything. The first was changing man to look like God, as he had made man in his own image.[[User:Pinkfloyd|Pinkfloyd]] 22:55, 1 March 2011 (EST)

:Not bad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:38, 2 March 2011 (EST)

According to Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality. There is no other concept known to humanity that rationally explains the observable reality, other than Eternal Creator(s). If there is no Eternal God, then there is no reason, no rationality and no science. What human beings call "science" historically, has long been the BEST explanation until proven otherwise. Thus, Eternal Creator(s) remains the ultimate correct postulate of science until proven otherwise, as it remains both the BEST and ONLY rational explanation known for the observable universal reality.

Debate:Why Reason?

2011-07-31T01:13:08Z

SEdwin: /* Only the Bible is Infallible */

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
::What you wrote suggests that "liberals" don't realize "their gravity" weakens further away from Earth. It turns out they do. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:If you can throw a penny out of Earth's gravitational field with just your own arm, I will call you God. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:51, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there

Actually, unless the penny was thrown at 23,000 miles per hour it would fall back to Earth. It may take a substantially longer amount of time but it would happen. Thats why there are no satillites from the 1950's in orbit anymore, gravity pulled them back down to Earth. And as for the penny that WAS thrown at 23,000 MPH. What we liberals call gravity would eventually pull it onto the moon or into the sun by gravity--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 17:55, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

What ''liberals'' call gravity? What do you call it? --[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 23:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Okay, question, are you implying that you would only believe the Bible as being infallable if it was written by God Himself rather than man? The argument fails in this respect. If you question the reliability of man then why do you put so much stock in yourself? Does this mean you criticize your teachers of science, logic and reason because the subjects were written by men? You give all credance to others as authorities yet you choose to not believe the Bible because it was written by men. Sounds like a double standard. valenciathegr8

:Any decent scientist would conclude that god "probably" does not exist. No good scientist would say it with certainty, because nothing in science is certain. However, it's ''more likely'' that there is no god, given the evidence (or lack thereof).
:Also, to rebut Cranky Joe's argument, if you throw a penny out of the atmosphere, it will land ''somewhere'' eventually. In fact, if you launch two pennies at the same velocity within a second of each other, they will land close to each other, wherever that may be. You still have not shown that gravity fails in this case. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 21:09, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::Or else the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy would have been disproven by high school chemistry students long ago. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==The Reliability of Logic Cannot Be Debated==

As has been said, logic cannot be used to disprove its own reliability. Logic is reliable because it is supported by the facts and the truth. IE if I throw the penny in the air, and it hits every time, then it is logical to assume it will do so again. There must be an objective truth, because if there was not, the statement "there is no objective truth" would be an objective truth. If there is an objective truth, it follows that it can be logically understood. Of course, this argument relies on logic. Do you see the futility of this debate?

I am not sure that it is logical to assume anything, but that there is a progression of events to which we have become accustomed, it seems that we must make a series of assumptions about the world, i.e. that the penny will react similarly, because otherwise we would not be able to function effectively. In that sense, God might only be the mind's assumption to cope with the seemingly illogical or ineffable reality in which we believe ourselves to be. Similarly, the radically subjective position from which we likely (assumption) perceive reality would leave us with the understanding that any form of logic which we use to more easily cope with reality would be flawed at best and inconsequential to any objective perception of reality, if there could be such a thing. I would also say that if there is an Object Truth, it does not necessarily follow that it could be logically understood, but simply Objectively understood, or perhaps only perceived, just as when a camera "perceives" a tree, it simply perceives it and doesn't even observe it, let alone understand it or logically arrive at the tree. And although this argument relies on logic, it could easily have nothing to do with Objective Truth, if the Objective Truth is itself neither logical nor illogical (something that might be more...logical... given that Objective Truth would more likely exist independent of our reality, unless one thinks of God as pure logic, i.e. Objective Logic, of course.) [[User:Mentisendium|Mentisendium]] 22:56, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Why Reason?

2011-07-31T01:09:50Z

SEdwin: /* Only the Bible is Infallible */

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
::What you wrote suggests that "liberals" don't realize "their gravity" weakens further away from Earth. It turns out they do. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:If you can throw a penny out of Earth's gravitational field with just your own arm, I will call you God. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:51, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there

Actually, unless the penny was thrown at 23,000 miles per hour it would fall back to Earth. It may take a substantially longer amount of time but it would happen. Thats why there are no satillites from the 1950's in orbit anymore, gravity pulled them back down to Earth. And as for the penny that WAS thrown at 23,000 MPH. What we liberals call gravity would eventually pull it onto the moon or into the sun by gravity--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 17:55, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

What ''liberals'' call gravity? What do you call it? --[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 23:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Okay, question, are you implying that you would only believe the Bible as being infallable if it was written by God Himself rather than man? The argument fails in this respect. If you question the reliability of man then why do you put so much stock in yourself? Does this mean you criticize your teachers of science, logic and reason because the subjects were written by men? You give all credance to others as authorities yet you choose to not believe the Bible because it was written by men. Sounds like a double standard. valenciathegr8

:Any decent scientist would conclude that god "probably" does not exist. No good scientist would say it with certainty, because nothing in science is certain. However, it's ''more likely'' that there is no god, given the evidence (or lack thereof). [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 21:09, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::Or else the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy would have been disproven by high school chemistry students long ago. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==The Reliability of Logic Cannot Be Debated==

As has been said, logic cannot be used to disprove its own reliability. Logic is reliable because it is supported by the facts and the truth. IE if I throw the penny in the air, and it hits every time, then it is logical to assume it will do so again. There must be an objective truth, because if there was not, the statement "there is no objective truth" would be an objective truth. If there is an objective truth, it follows that it can be logically understood. Of course, this argument relies on logic. Do you see the futility of this debate?

I am not sure that it is logical to assume anything, but that there is a progression of events to which we have become accustomed, it seems that we must make a series of assumptions about the world, i.e. that the penny will react similarly, because otherwise we would not be able to function effectively. In that sense, God might only be the mind's assumption to cope with the seemingly illogical or ineffable reality in which we believe ourselves to be. Similarly, the radically subjective position from which we likely (assumption) perceive reality would leave us with the understanding that any form of logic which we use to more easily cope with reality would be flawed at best and inconsequential to any objective perception of reality, if there could be such a thing. I would also say that if there is an Object Truth, it does not necessarily follow that it could be logically understood, but simply Objectively understood, or perhaps only perceived, just as when a camera "perceives" a tree, it simply perceives it and doesn't even observe it, let alone understand it or logically arrive at the tree. And although this argument relies on logic, it could easily have nothing to do with Objective Truth, if the Objective Truth is itself neither logical nor illogical (something that might be more...logical... given that Objective Truth would more likely exist independent of our reality, unless one thinks of God as pure logic, i.e. Objective Logic, of course.) [[User:Mentisendium|Mentisendium]] 22:56, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Why Reason?

2011-06-21T02:52:40Z

SEdwin: /* Only the Bible is Infallible */ wrong placement

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
::What you wrote suggests that "liberals" don't realize "their gravity" weakens further away from Earth. It turns out they do. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
:If you can throw a penny out of Earth's gravitational field with just your own arm, I will call you God. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:51, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there

Actually, unless the penny was thrown at 23,000 miles per hour it would fall back to Earth. It may take a substantially longer amount of time but it would happen. Thats why there are no satillites from the 1950's in orbit anymore, gravity pulled them back down to Earth. And as for the penny that WAS thrown at 23,000 MPH. What we liberals call gravity would eventually pull it onto the moon or into the sun by gravity--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 17:55, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

What ''liberals'' call gravity? What do you call it? --[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 23:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Okay, question, are you implying that you would only believe the Bible as being infallable if it was written by God Himself rather than man? The argument fails in this respect. If you question the reliability of man then why do you put so much stock in yourself? Does this mean you criticize your teachers of science, logic and reason because the subjects were written by men? You give all credance to others as authorities yet you choose to not believe the Bible because it was written by men. Sounds like a double standard.

valenciathegr8

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::Or else the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy would have been disproven by high school chemistry students long ago. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==The Reliability of Logic Cannot Be Debated==

As has been said, logic cannot be used to disprove its own reliability. Logic is reliable because it is supported by the facts and the truth. IE if I throw the penny in the air, and it hits every time, then it is logical to assume it will do so again. There must be an objective truth, because if there was not, the statement "there is no objective truth" would be an objective truth. If there is an objective truth, it follows that it can be logically understood. Of course, this argument relies on logic. Do you see the futility of this debate?

I am not sure that it is logical to assume anything, but that there is a progression of events to which we have become accustomed, it seems that we must make a series of assumptions about the world, i.e. that the penny will react similarly, because otherwise we would not be able to function effectively. In that sense, God might only be the mind's assumption to cope with the seemingly illogical or ineffable reality in which we believe ourselves to be. Similarly, the radically subjective position from which we likely (assumption) perceive reality would leave us with the understanding that any form of logic which we use to more easily cope with reality would be flawed at best and inconsequential to any objective perception of reality, if there could be such a thing. I would also say that if there is an Object Truth, it does not necessarily follow that it could be logically understood, but simply Objectively understood, or perhaps only perceived, just as when a camera "perceives" a tree, it simply perceives it and doesn't even observe it, let alone understand it or logically arrive at the tree. And although this argument relies on logic, it could easily have nothing to do with Objective Truth, if the Objective Truth is itself neither logical nor illogical (something that might be more...logical... given that Objective Truth would more likely exist independent of our reality, unless one thinks of God as pure logic, i.e. Objective Logic, of course.) [[User:Mentisendium|Mentisendium]] 22:56, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Why Reason?

2011-06-21T02:51:53Z

SEdwin: /* Only the Bible is Infallible */

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
::What you wrote suggests that "liberals" don't realize "their gravity" weakens further away from Earth. It turns out they do. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there
:If you can throw a penny out of Earth's gravitational field with just your own arm, I will call you God. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:51, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Actually, unless the penny was thrown at 23,000 miles per hour it would fall back to Earth. It may take a substantially longer amount of time but it would happen. Thats why there are no satillites from the 1950's in orbit anymore, gravity pulled them back down to Earth. And as for the penny that WAS thrown at 23,000 MPH. What we liberals call gravity would eventually pull it onto the moon or into the sun by gravity--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 17:55, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

What ''liberals'' call gravity? What do you call it? --[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 23:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Okay, question, are you implying that you would only believe the Bible as being infallable if it was written by God Himself rather than man? The argument fails in this respect. If you question the reliability of man then why do you put so much stock in yourself? Does this mean you criticize your teachers of science, logic and reason because the subjects were written by men? You give all credance to others as authorities yet you choose to not believe the Bible because it was written by men. Sounds like a double standard.

valenciathegr8

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::Or else the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy would have been disproven by high school chemistry students long ago. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==The Reliability of Logic Cannot Be Debated==

As has been said, logic cannot be used to disprove its own reliability. Logic is reliable because it is supported by the facts and the truth. IE if I throw the penny in the air, and it hits every time, then it is logical to assume it will do so again. There must be an objective truth, because if there was not, the statement "there is no objective truth" would be an objective truth. If there is an objective truth, it follows that it can be logically understood. Of course, this argument relies on logic. Do you see the futility of this debate?

I am not sure that it is logical to assume anything, but that there is a progression of events to which we have become accustomed, it seems that we must make a series of assumptions about the world, i.e. that the penny will react similarly, because otherwise we would not be able to function effectively. In that sense, God might only be the mind's assumption to cope with the seemingly illogical or ineffable reality in which we believe ourselves to be. Similarly, the radically subjective position from which we likely (assumption) perceive reality would leave us with the understanding that any form of logic which we use to more easily cope with reality would be flawed at best and inconsequential to any objective perception of reality, if there could be such a thing. I would also say that if there is an Object Truth, it does not necessarily follow that it could be logically understood, but simply Objectively understood, or perhaps only perceived, just as when a camera "perceives" a tree, it simply perceives it and doesn't even observe it, let alone understand it or logically arrive at the tree. And although this argument relies on logic, it could easily have nothing to do with Objective Truth, if the Objective Truth is itself neither logical nor illogical (something that might be more...logical... given that Objective Truth would more likely exist independent of our reality, unless one thinks of God as pure logic, i.e. Objective Logic, of course.) [[User:Mentisendium|Mentisendium]] 22:56, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Who created God?

2011-06-21T02:50:08Z

SEdwin:

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros

Why is it necessary for God to have been created? God could always have existed. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]]

:I'm sure Philip will get involved here—and believe you me, he is far more qualified to answer this question—but I'm going to take a stab at it. The problem that most can't get past is the notion that God "is, was, and ever shall be," the alpha and omega, so on and so forth. God supersedes time; he in fact ''created'' time according to the Judeo-Christian theology. There was no past before God/YHWH. Nothing needed to come before him, because he is the source of all things, including time itself. It gets complicated there because it's hard to imagine a universe without time; though technically, there wasn't a universe at all until he created it (once again, according to Judeo-Christian theology or at least my best knowledge of it). I'm going to let Philip chime in here and correct any mistakes I've made, and maybe give you a bit more concise explanation as I'm sure he—or one of the many others here—have come across this question far more often than I have. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Typical Darwin lover know-it-all question. Ok smart guy, tell me where space ends and I will tell you who created God.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: Okay, Jeffrey W. Lauttamus invited me here to comment, so here I am. God is an uncreated being, so it is nothing more than a nonsense question to ask who created an uncreated being.
: That likely then raises the question about how He could be uncreated, to which there are at least two replies:
:* As Jeffrey explained, God exists outside of time. He created time; He is not subject to it. A beginning implies a point in time, but as God is outside of it, that He had a beginning doesn't follow.
:* ''Something'' (or someone) ''must be'' eternal. If it's not God, it might be this universe. But science now has good reason to think that the universe is not eternal, which begs the question of who or what created the universe. (And the universe, by the way, is known as the space/time continuum; time itself began with the universe.) Ultimately, as you go back, the only option left is something or someone that is eternal. And as the laws of physics don't allow for something physical to be eternal, then that something/someone must be non-physical, or spiritual.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok... That makes since. We cannot bound God to logic because he created it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Ros

: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting subject. One of the most common argument's for God's existence is some form of the 'watchmaker' analogy - I.E. that the existence of the universe implies that it was created & therefore the existence of a creator (God). Does the existence of God also imply that He was created? And if not, why not? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
: The watchmaker analogy is referring to something that was obviously designed because of it's complexity of multiple interacting parts that would not occur naturally. God is not a complexity of multiple interacting parts, so the same argument does not apply to him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally. But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created. That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally. It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::: No, it's not a circular argument at all. It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things). That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof. And we are talking about the ''origin'' of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally. Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::::See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
::::: See my problem is that I don't understand how something could have 'just happened' out of absolutely nothing. If you want to fantasize that absolutely nothing can become something for no reason, then I can't stop you, but that is the realm of fantasy and blind faith, whereas I prefer to stick to reason and observation (we ''observe'' that everything that happens has a cause). That something must be eternal is a deduction from that. The logic for God is that this physical universe must have had a beginning, all events have a cause, the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural), therefore there must be a God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Haha oh how I have missed debating against you. OK. Well I don't quite see it as that. I don't think that something can come from absolutely nothing either. But I cannot postulate a God to solve that problem because God himself is complex. Certainly we cannot see or examine him to prove how complex he is physically. But an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the entire universe and life itself? That cannot be anything BUT complex. And something that complex has to have a starting point because only something simple, incredibly simple can come about by chance. Something like a singularity. Note that I'm not saying that the Big Band did come around by chance, only that it is far more likely then God coming about by chance. I admit that this is not as scientific or provable as I would like it to be, it does involve some blind faith, however I think that you're position involves more blind faith then mine.
::::::I do take issue with your assertion that "the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural)". Why do you say that? I cannot see how you reached that conclusion. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:49, 29 September 2008 (AEST)

::::::: God is not complex: He is not composed of parts. See an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&diff=504256&oldid=504017 earlier post] of mine.
::::::: If the cause of all physical reality was something physical, then something physical must have existed before something physical existed. This is an impossibility, so the only option left is that the cause of all physical reality must be something ''non''-physical.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually thats the only option the bible leaves open, just because its the only possiblitiy you believe in doesn't mean its the truth. Logiclly there is no 'truth' nothing can ever really proven to be 'right' only that it cannot be proven wrong. Its why everything is considered a 'theory' including my claim i just made. You simply leave out the fact that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the universe can be of something that can rationally be explained without help of a greater being. Your saying that we cannot examine the thing that started the universe, and yet somehow you were able to magically understand that it created the universe. Before you can claim something you need to prove it. Just because some people are ignorant and dont understand the thinkings of logic and reason doesn't mean everyone will, your claim only pulls us further into the question of what created the non-physical then? What is the non-physical? If it doesn't consist of atoms than what does it consist of? how did this nothingness create something? [[User:ChillinBM]]

:I might not have put it as bluntly as Chillin did, but he's certainly made a clear point. For me, the claim that God is not complex seems to be supportless other then by continuous assertion that it is the case. All I have seen is "God is not complex. Why? Because we can't understand him." and maybe I have missed an important point.
:You're argument there is one of infinite regress and there is a problem with that. Just because you seem to have an infinite regress does not mean that you need invoke something supernatural as a terminator. For example, it was long wondered what would happen if you cut iron into the smallest possible pieces, and then cut it in half again. Surely, by logic, you could continue to halve the pieces infinately. In fact, the once you reach a single atom of iron, the regress has a natural terminator, if you cut the atom in half, whatever is left is no longer iron, it is some other element. I do not know what natural terminator solves the cause and effect regress however I feel justified in not assuming a supernatural terminator for this regress. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 8:34, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

::No, ChillnBM, it is not the Bible that leaves only that option, but logic. But perhaps I was remiss in not explaining myself properly. I was working on the basis that there is the ''natural'' (or physical) and the ''supernatural'' (or non-physical). That is, ''physical'' and ''non-physical'' are, between them, all-encompassing. There can be nothing that is neither physical nor non-physical. So having eliminated one, you are left with the other.
:: If "logically there is no truth", then that statement itself is not true. So logically, there ''must'' be "truth". What you are getting confused with is ''scientific proof''. In that you are correct; science can only ''disprove'', it can't ''prove''. But that's different to ''truth'', which ''must'' exist. See also sections 1 and 2 of my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]].
:: I can't prove ''scientifically'' that God exists, but I can prove it ''logically'' by eliminating the alternatives. Science has eliminated an eternal universe, which means that the universe had a beginning, but has not explained (and cannot explain) what caused the universe to begin. Logically, the beginning of the universe (all of physical reality) must have a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) cause.
:: We know that the ''physical'' must have had a beginning, but we don't know that the ''supernatural'' must have had a beginning, so there is no necessity to explain how the supernatural began. Furthermore, science also shows that ''time'' is an integral part of the universe, so without the universe, i.e. in the realm of that deduced supernatural, ''time'' does not exist. Which means that talking about a ''beginning'' for the supernatural is a bit of nonsense anyway.
:: Deducing that ''something'' supernatural must have created the universe is not at all contradictory to saying that science can't ''study'' the supernatural, so there's no "magic" involved.
:: "''Before you can claim something you need to prove it.''": And yet you didn't bother to prove that claim before you made it. Or prove it afterwards either. Furthermore, you yourself said that things ''can't'' be proved.
:: I don't have to explain every point of something in order to claim the basic point. That is, I can legitimately claim that there must be a supernatural creator without having to explain what He is made of or how He created. And by the way, your final question was a loaded one, referring to the supernatural as "nothingness". Being non-physical doesn't mean that it is "nothingness". In fact, it is ''you'' who has this problem. If you discount God (the supernatural), then you are left with the Big Bang, which is ''nothing'' exploding and becoming everything. So I ask ''you'', "how did this nothingness create something?".

:: Bolly, the quote that I linked to was not just "continuous assertion", and neither was it "because we can't understand him". Admittedly that quote didn't go into much detail, but it indicated that there's been plenty of study of this matter (and ''study'' implies something more than "continuous assertion" or "because we can't understand him") and it also briefly explained some of the rationale.
:: Your "satisfaction" in not assuming a supernatural terminator seems mere wishful thinking, given that you've found a ''different'' infinite regress case that didn't need one. That's not a solid argument at all.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:25, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I do not find that rationale convincing at all, and I still feel that it has little substance. From what I can understand, you outline the reasons why people like me think that God must be complex and they seem to me to be fairly convincing. In return you seem to say "how do you know that he cannot be complex?". Which is true, i don't 'know' that, however it is no real argument, simply a statement.
:::It's not wishful thinking to posit a natural terminator when there are situations in which a former infite regress is shown to have a natural terminator. I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, and certainly not 'proof'. But I would argue that it is a lot more simple and more likely considering that the evidence for any form of supernatural activity, being or event seems to be very limited. So while we 'know' that natural things can exist, we cannot have the same certainty about anything supernatural. I apologise if my argument is not concise but I think you can understand where I am coming from. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:06, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

:::: Is the evidence for the supernatural really that limited? Or is it just that you choose to not believe it? Or haven't looked for it? What sort of evidence would you expect? Even apart from the origin of the universe, there is the matter of the origin of life, and the incredible design and information evident in it. We know from observation that design requires a designer, and information requires an intelligence. We have no viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. I would consider that to be evidence for the supernatural. Then there is historical documentary evidence, i.e. the Bible. It records various supernatural events. True, one cannot ''scientifically'' test those claims, but one ''can'' look at the source of those claims and conclude that the source is a very reliable one. So again, that becomes ''evidence'' (albeit not scientific proof) of supernatural activity. So I reject your claim that there is very limited evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::I think it is. No, because although you might laugh at this claim, I have an open mind. If the evidence is there I am more then willing to look at it, examine it, and then accept it if it's satisfactory. Ah, the design = designer argument. You are correct that 'design' requires a designer, however it can be easy to mistake complexity for design. I don't think they're the same thing. I think evolution more the adequately explains the complexity of life. Leaving that aside, you are correct that the beginning of the universe and the origin of life are two events that we have almost no knowledge of, or evidence based theory for. However lack of a naturalistic explanation does not automatically mean that it must have been supernatural. And the bible. While I don't wish to start this argument again because it stalemates so easily and neither of us achieves anything, I do not accept the bible as anything more then a collection of anecdotes with some small historical accuracy, that only comes from an event that is recorded several generations after its occurence. That's not to say that the bible is worthless, only that you cannot use it on its own to support supernaturalism. For example, some conspiracy theorist whos name sounded dutch but I cannot remember it, claimed that the story of Sodom was actually about an alien civilisation nuking the city. Ridiculous? Almost certainly, but his "theory" almost perfectly explained the origin of that bible story. I'm definately not saying that he was correct, just that the bible can prove a lot of things if you want it to. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 9:52, 2 October 2008 (AEST)

:::::: Almost everybody thinks that they have an open mind, so thinking it is not much in the way of evidence.
:::::: Is it truly easy to mistake complexity for design? What complexity do you know of that wasn't designed? Of course, if you mention ''life'', you are begging the question, and evolution ''can't'' explain it.
:::::: The origins of the universe and of life are not simply things for which there is a "lack of a naturalistic explanation", but for which the naturalistic explanation is ''against''. For example, experiments, such as Stanley and Miller’s(?), show that life ''could not'' occur naturally. I'm not saying that such experiments rule out all possible explanations; rather, I'm saying that the experiments not only did not support naturalistic origins of life, but also provided reasons ''against'' a naturalistic explanation. To provide an example of that example, life requires optically-pure amino acids, whereas their experiment produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids. That is, their experiments produced a ''problem'' for naturalistic explanations to explain. In summary, the available evidence is not simply ''missing'', but ''opposed'' to a naturalistic explanations.
:::::: The Bible has far more than just "small historical accuracy", and most of it is eye-witness accounts, not "recorded several generations after its occurence".
:::::: Are you thinking of Von Daniken? Without knowing his "explanation", I can't comment much, but most explanations I’ve seen of biblical events simply ignore large parts of what the Bible actually says. A good example is the claim that the flooding of the Black Sea is the origin of the Bible's flood account.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392]
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You are right of course, but I still like to think so!

I think it is. You're correct that if I say 'life' it does beg the question but what about something like the water cycle? You know, evaporation over the sea, condensations in the clouds, precipitation over land or sea and it all starts again. Sure its not really complex but many tribes and civilisations over the years have worshipped a rain god or something like that. I already know that you're objection to evolution is that you think that mutations destroy genetic information. I fail to understand how you can think this when, while mutations will often destroy some information it instantle 'creates' new information. If GVA mutates to GHA, then the V has been destroyed and the H has been created. Massive, massive oversimplification I know but I still think it shows my point.

I agree that Stanley and Miller's (I think thats right) experiment did not support a naturalistic explanation however I think you overestimate the magnitude of the 'problems' it places in front of it. Life ''as we know it'' requires optically-pure amino acids, but that may be only because life very quickly evolved to be able to produce its own pure amino acids and thus no longer needed to rely on impure, left and right handed, amino acids. Over time we lost the ability to use these impure acids. Look I know that may sound far-fetched but it didn't take much effort to show that their experiment really simply failed to provide any evidence either way.

Von Daniken! Thats him! Thankyou, yes I love that guys writing, sure it's probably all completely wrong, but its great fun to read. No, because, if I remember correctly, his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said about the story. It explained everything I think, like why Lot's wife became a pillar of salt, and why the angel hurried them out of the city, and why that city was chosen to be nuked or something. And while I definately don't believe any of it is true, it has just as much evidence to support it as the bibles version of events does which casts some doubt onto the Bible's claim to historical accuracy. As for Noah's ark, I still think it has something to do with the end of the last ice age or something like that. I can't prove it, I know. But most civilisations have different flood myths, and you'd think they'd all have the same if a worldwide complete flooding had happened and everyone on earth was descended from Moses. By the way, minor unimportant question, If Adam and Eve had two sons, one of whom killed the other, how did Cain have children? Sorry, it's just kinda bothered me ever since I heard that story... [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 07:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

: Yeah, I like to think I'm open-minded too, but I know plenty would disagree with that!
: Your example of the water cycle fails because, like life, you haven't shown that it ''did'' occur naturally (without design). I could also object on another ground, but that would be tantamount to defining complexity as something that can't occur naturally, which is a valid argument, but perhaps I won't use it right now.
: Your mutation example (also) fails because of a misunderstanding of what "information" is. [[Information]] is something that conveys ''meaning''. Words are information. So if you "mutate" "my name is Philip" to "my nsme is Philip", what new ''information'' is created? None. Rather, the information has been ''damaged'' (if not destroyed) (ignoring that our brains are smart enough to figure out what must have been intended). (And by the way, I created that mutation by "chance", by closing my eyes, cursoring back a few characters, and randomly pressing a key. I possibly ''could have'' created new information if I had ''intelligently designed'' the "mutation".) It is false to say that any change constitutes new information.
: Regarding Stanley and Miller's experiment, I already acknowledged that it doesn't rule out all possible explanations. But the point is that it is positive ''evidence'' opposed to the naturalistic position. Yes, perhaps it only rules out life ''as we know it'', but then it is this ''life that we know'' that we are talking about. It's an interesting characteristic of believers in naturalism that they claim to be scientific, but when scientific evidence is presented that opposes their ideas, they resort to ''ad hoc'' speculation to explain away the evidence. So, it's inaccurate to say that the experiment failed to produce any evidence either way. It didn't absolutely ''prove'' anything (and "scientific proof' is an oxymoron anyway), but it did produce ''evidence'' against a naturalistic explanation.
: Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't give your claim that "his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said" much credibility when it is clear that your knowledge of the biblical account is somewhat lacking. See the following comments.
: As for Noah's flood, you wouldn't expect all the stories to be identical, as stories that are retold and retold verbally tend to change, often inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately (parents telling children using locations, creatures, etc. that they are familiar with rather than having to explain unfamiliar concepts). But it's still the case that there is a lot of similarity; too much to explain other than with a common origin. See [[Great Flood]] for more on this. And everybody on Earth is descended from ''Noah'', not Moses.
: The Bible records that after Cain killed Abel, they had another son, named Seth. So there's three sons, not two. Further, it also says that they had "other sons and daughters", so there's a lot more (Jewish tradition is two or three dozen of each, I believe), including potential wives for Cain. (How did he have children? The same way everyone else does: The Bible says that "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant".) Now that may well raise another question in your mind, in which case I recommend that you read [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter8.pdf this].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't know about open-minded, but I see you as a decent person, and what more can you do?
::True. Very true. I'm making assumptions. Well in that case I ask, what do you need for me to prove, as much as is possible, that it is indeed not designed. For example I can point to a water molecule and show that its properties allow it to exist easily as a liquid and a lighter than air gas. Hydrogen bonding and so on, gravity causing it to fall and so on. Also I can talk about Mars, and how it has been discovered that it snows there, which is part of the water cycle, and thus say that if it had been designed for Earth, why does it also work on Mars? Yet I'm not sure if this will satisfy you.
::Again, true. I apologise for misrepresenting your argument. You are right, however genetic information doesn't work like that either. Because genetic information creates proteins, a mutation of that gene could result in a protein with differing properties. Mostly these probably make little difference, however sometimes the difference is significant, or it is a significant difference (I didn't just repeat myself, I did reread it to check) and so it has an affect on the organism. You know that, or at least some of it and you don't believe the rest. So changing the information isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It's more like changing an ingredient or an instruction in a recipe. It changes the taste, or the appearance (yeast in bread) but it is still relevant and the cake, or the bread, or the animal is different. Sometimes worse, sometimes better.
::Yeh I did kinda start postulating. Alright, I admit defeat on that one, Stanley and Miller's experiment did provide some evidence against a naturalistic explanation for the creation of life. I still believe that a naturalistic explanation is the best one, but I cannot argue against you here.
::Touche. Noah, not Moses. I apologise, that wasn't a mistake based on lack of knowledge or familiarity, but rather an honest slip. A stupid, honest slip. So I don't blame you. But I maintain that Von Danikin's story, myth, etc, was just as well supported by the Bible's evidence as the Christian story is. If you don't believe me, then don't, it doesn't bother me because I don't actually subscribe to Von Danikin's beliefs. But if you ever have the time to read his books, I do recomend them as they are great fun.
::Yes they wouldn't be identical, but I would at least expect them all to mention an ark, and remember the name 'Moses' as their ancestor and so on. I think the differences in the stories are far to great to allow for a single event, rather they point to a rise of sea levels or something similar that occurred around the world and affected a variety of peoples.
::Ok thanks, I read the link, that explains it. Well not the whole link, but it answered my questions anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 09:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Further experiments similar to the Urey-Miller experiments have been performed since then. Perhaps it's best to start with those, /recent/ studies than couching an entire argument in an experiment that we know today was not without flaws. It may also be best not to take out of context what the experiment meant to prove; that the building blocks of life could be created under circumstances (then) believed to be similar to those of ancient Earth. In this regard they were right; all that comes after is beyond the scope of the study in question.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 16:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you would like to play the logic game, heres a fun point of view. And your logic is still flawed.

1. The Creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality and the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator we can conceive a greater being - namely one who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. God does not exist.

Just to clear some things up, Nothing can be considered to be PROVEN in the term that a theory is only true until it is proven wrong. People like to say that things such as the big bang theory and evolution aren't true because they are just a theory. When in actuality, everything is a theory. Secondly you didn't seem to have read my other point, i said it can't be proven right, but also it continues to work until it is proven WRONG. In which case, you haven't proven my theory wrong, you pointed out that i dont have evidence, but the truth is, its true until proven wrong. My claim simply says that you need evidence before you can prove another theory wrong, or to prove yours is right. My evidence, look at the whole reason for debates and the scientific process. They are meant to find information on their subject and back it up so that it is evident that what they are saying is in fact logically possible or right.

Secondly, the big bang unlike God is something that has been debated and studied by scientists who spend their lives trying to understand the origins of the universe. The 'Nothingness' inside the singularity that started the big bang, has been recorded in other places in the universe, such as black holes. Its simple, the spec where the everything was inside was so infinity dense, that in technical terms is 'nothing'.

Science cannot study the 'supernatural' because it doesn't 'exist'. You claim that you cannot study god, and yet SOMEHOW the people that wrote the bible understood him? And Adam and Eve?

With your logic there we can say that since science cannot examine my imagination, im imagining that the world is a giant pillow. Since you can't go into my imagination and specifically EXAMINE the aspects of my realm, you cannot prove that its not real, therefore the world is but one giant pillow.

[[User:ChillinBM]]

:Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Break to assist editing ==

To '''Bolly''':

How can you prove that the water cycle is not designed? You can't, because you were not there when it began, and neither do you know of anybody who was (except God, but we're ignoring him for this exercise). What you need to do is to find an example where its origin ''was'' observed, so that there is documentation of just how it came about. Now don't even think of claiming that there are no examples of complex things forming without anybody being there to observe them, because there are plenty being formed all the time, such as machines, books (the arrangement of letters is complex), and so on. Yeah, okay, they are things that humans have created, so they don't count as being undesigned—''but that's the point: all the examples we '''know''' of were designed''!

The difference between English (for example) words and genetic information doesn't change things. I'll explain. In English, words can be any (reasonable) length, and not all combinations of letters are used. This is unlike DNA where each "word" is three characters, and all 64 combinations are used. However, this is not the whole story. In English, it's not just the letters that have to be right, but the words, sentences, and paragraphs. Just suppose that every possible "mutation" of an English word produced another English word. That "mutated" word will still not make sense in the sentence. Similarly with DNA. A mutation will form another "word" (rather than nonsense), which will equate to a particular amino acid, but will the resulting protein make sense? Or the molecule which incorporates that protein? No. So you haven't really solved the problem.

Some changes are indeed like changing an ingredient in a recipe. The genes for recognising smells and viruses work this way I believe. But that's because the recipe for the fruit cake can accept any fruit. It can't accept rat poison being substituted for raisins, for example.

As for mentioning Moses when Noah was meant, I can understand and accept a simple mistake (and that's one that many make). (But then you made the ''same'' mistake in your reply!) However, it wasn't just that simple mistake, but ''also'' the mistake of claiming that Adam and Eve only had two sons. One simple mistake—a simple slip. Two mistakes, with one being more than just the wrong name—I question your familiarity.

I think that you expect too much in what you would expect the flood legends to include, and especially if you think that they would have the same words for them. The word "ark", from memory, basically means "box". The Greek account on the [[Great Flood]] page refers to a "chest". Is that really any different, when you allow for different languages, cultures, and etc.? And the Hawaiian account has "Nuu" in place of "Noah". That could easily be a version of the same name. And by the way, that page only has a small sampling of the similarities. Yet even so, there are some parallels that I consider remarkable. Why would independently-invented flood stories have a bird being sent out to see if the flood had subsided? That doesn't even seem to make that much sense, except in the case of Noah's Ark which may not have offered a view of the surroundings. Yet a number of stories have it. One of the birds that Noah sent out was a dove, and at least one of the other accounts specifically has a dove. And why the promise of the rainbow? It's understandable that a rainbow might be associated with a flood story, and even that the rainbow might be a ''reminder'' of the flood. But why would the rainbow be a sign that a similar flood would not happen again, per the Australian aboriginal account quoted?

To '''Jirby''':

Do any of those more recent studies actually show anything more substantial? And in one point you are right: the experiments were done assuming certain conditions then believed to be the case on ancient Earth. Specifically, they assumed an oxygen-free atmosphere, because that was the belief, because an atmosphere containing oxygen would have destroyed the molecules being formed. But the view now is that the atmosphere had oxygen, which means that the experiment showed that they wouldn't get the right amino acids ''even assuming an atmosphere more favourable than would have existed''.

To '''ChillinBM''':

As Bolly says, your logic is easy to dismiss. Points 5 and 6 are pure nonsense, and even if true, point 7 doesn't follow from the previous points.

A theory is not "true" until it is proven wrong. It cannot (correctly) be proven wrong unless it ''is'' wrong, in which case it could not have also been ''true''. And no, not ''everything'' is a theory. Some things are merely hypotheses, and some things are fact (such as my name being Philip).

Yes, some people do like to say that evolution is "just a theory", but this argument ''is specifically rejected by leading creationists''[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory] (and I hope Ajkgordon will bother to clarify his misleading claims in that regard).

God has also been debated and studied by many people, including scientists, so the Big Bang is not "unlike God" in that respect at all.

Black holes are not "nothingness"; they are ''something''. Note in the following view from Big Bang expert (he invented one of the Big Bang versions) Alan Guth it does not say that stuff came from black holes or anything similar, but from "absolutely nothing":
{{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507]}}

Science cannot study the supernatural because the scientific method and its tools are only capable of studying ''physical'' stuff; not because the supernatural doesn't exist. I didn't say that you cannot study God. I said that ''science'' can't study God. But science is not the only way to learn things. We can study God because He has told us much about Himself, and because He came to Earth in human form 2000 years ago, and in other similar ways. And Adam and Eve, who had freshly-created brains without any flaws, knew Him personally.

Your last paragraph is illogical, and not the same logic I'm using. There are two flaws, if I understand you correctly. First, you seem to be arguing that because I can't examine ''your imagination'', therefore I can't examine ''the world'' to see if your imagination is providing correct information. This is nonsense. Second, not being able to prove that something is not real doesn't mean that it ''is'' real. I'm not claiming that God is real simply because you can't prove He's not. If that's what you think, you've read your own preconceptions into what I said.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.
Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.

:Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.

:- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.

:- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.

:- God doesn't exist.

:Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.

:Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.

:[[User:ChillinBM]]

:: "''Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood..''": I don't claim that the supernatural can't be understood, so I don't have to prove it.
:: "''...if it cannot be examined...''": But it ''can'' be examined, if it chooses to reveal itself to us. Which God has, Christians believe.
:: "''God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.''": No, that's a non-sequitur.
:: "''...the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.''": That's still simply nonsense.
:: "''Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot.''": There is ''likely'' to be such debates (and there is in the case of the supernatural), but it's not a given that there necessarily ''will be'' such debates.
:: "''In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists.''": Huh?
:: "''If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941]''": No, ''you'' raised it, so I will debate it with ''you''.
:: "''Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.''": Then can I suggest that you ''do'' study the Christian view, instead of trying to refute something that you haven't studied enough to know what you are talking about?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Ahh! Noah/Moses! I do apologise again. That was just plain ridiculous. Maybe the very fact I got it wrong once means I was more likely to get it wrong again? I don't know. Well you don't have to believe me, and it has been a while since I did last read it, maybe I'm becoming forgetful.....maybe I have Moses on my brain. I wonder why?

:::Chillin does actually have a point though. He's using the ontological argument against itself, which, if you don't buy into that argument, is pointless.

:::The recipe analogy does work though, because a cake made from rat poison would not 'survive'. A fruit cake could indeed have chocolate substituted and it might still work and be tasty. The protein doesn't have to 'make sense' because it only has to perform a simple function, with complex results. Regardless of how it performs, or fails to perform, its task, it still has an affect on the organism. So any viable permutation of the DNA will have a 'meaning'. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 00:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Arguing with me is fine, but i wont be able to show the evidence as well as the people on the forum i just submited as well because i do not study the topics as well as them. If you dont want to go there, its you choice, but it shows that you dont want to deal with who really knows more information. Just so you know, I study both, i've seen the christian view, went to church and christian school for my elementary years. Just doesn't seem logical to me, too many contradictions.

By the model of god put from the bible god should be omnipotent, and omniscience, there should be NOTHING that exists that can be more powerful than him. In which case, he cannot exists, because if he did exist, he wouldn't have the most power, because if something were to create the universe from a nonexistance, it would be more powerful than him.

By the way, I love your responses, quoting everything i say and put a simple 'nonsense' or 'doesn't make sense' next to it. Maybe thats how we should explain everything in the world.

Science is the simple step of anylizing anything. In this case, this 'anything' is supposedly nothing. I have a question for those who say that we cannot examine god. If it cannot be examed, how can it happen? Logically, if something is afflicted by god, god has to use something existing, or physical to alter what is happening in the physical world, in which case, non of it has been found nor detected in any manner.

And we seem to still miss the question, If god has been here from the beginning of time, who created time? Who created God? How come people can always say 'well what happend before the big bang?' but yet they cant face thier own problem of 'well what happend before god?'

:As mentioned above, there was nothing before God, for two reasons. Firstly, God is eternal. Secondly, God invented and created the timestream. "Before" refers to something that existed in the timestream before God, but God is outside of the timestream entirely, therefore this question doesn't apply to him. [[User:DavidBG|David]] [[User talk:DavidBG|Talk]] 14:21, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

== No one ==
There is no God. Life came from molecules, which evolved to make life diverse as it is today. The Big Bang was created by a singularity. Time as we perceive it could have well began after the Big Bang. The belief in the Judeo Christian God is irrational because of Judges 1:19, "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron". The Judeo Christian God is less powerful than iron chariots? Belief in any benevolent omnipotent God is irrational because if God was both benevolent and omnipotent than he would stop all suffering in the world. [[User:KenJ|KenJ]] 15:07, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
:First, you need to prove there is no God; second, you need to prove that life evolved as you specified above; third, you need to prove whether or not it was God who was "less powerful" then the iron chariots, or the tribe of Judah. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

God is eternal and cannot be created, as the Bible confirms. Since God is eternal and has always been in existence, and since he is outside of time, there can never be a time to create God. John 1 clarifies this as plenty of other verses. (Nash)
:If God exists, he didn't have to necessarily be created. He could have always existed. Likewise, it's not necessary that the universe had to be created. It could have also always existed. When you get to this level (ie the period before the current incarnation of the universe), God and Universe are really the same thing, and we won't ever know (unless God is real and tells everybody about it). Time goes forward indefinitely, there's no reason it can't also go back indefinitely. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:50, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

[[User:ChillinBM]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Who created God? - the alternate point of view==
Man appeared on the face of the Earth, after a while he tried to understand the really important stuff like why the sun shone, and the tides came in and went out. He thought about this long and hard. Maybe there was a sun god that hauled the sun across the sky each day, he thought. Many thousands of years later, man decided that maybe God had created everything, and once a critical number of humans (more than one, as it is not infradig to believe one's own hallucinations, but when two or more share them, then maybe it's real after all) started believing in this God, he came into being. The conditions were right for this to happen. God, having now appeared realized he had to do a major retcon on everything. The first was changing man to look like God, as he had made man in his own image.[[User:Pinkfloyd|Pinkfloyd]] 22:55, 1 March 2011 (EST)

:Not bad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:38, 2 March 2011 (EST)

Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?

2011-06-21T02:44:43Z

SEdwin:

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2011-06-21T02:37:34Z

SEdwin: /* Basically... */

{{debate}}

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.
:Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You'd have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.
:: Loads of sane people sin. Sex before marriage, murder greed, etc.
Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. <ref> Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" class notes, p. 1 [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. <ref name="SecondRef"> http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.
:*My scientific and theological statements each stand on their own. Please respond to science with science and theology with theology, rather than dismissing my statements. Otherwise, there is no debate.
:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:*Your accusation of dishonesty is misplaced. Positions taken by the APA or WHO are not related to the science; those organizations are politicized (see [[politicized science]]). What matters is the research.
:*Additionally, your reference to a biological basis is incorrect, as scientists have yet to find one - despite media campaigns about a "[[gay gene]]", the research points '''away''' from genetics.
:*As to "environment", if you mean the way children are brought up in their families, then this proves my point. If homosexuals are made, then homosexuals can be cured (although this is harder: see [[reparative therapy]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:If "attempts to consider [homosexuality] 'normal' are politically and ideologically motivated," then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

:I'm really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop "from unhappiness with the family?" And does it lead "to further unhappiness when embraced?" That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I'll explain how that is just plain false.

:People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

:By far the biggest concern with Ed's statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to "Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School" at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

:The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to "cure" homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. <ref> http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html] </ref> Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

<blockquote>
"NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education." <ref> http://www.narth.com [http://www.narth.com] </ref>
</blockquote>

:Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

:Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. <ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] </ref>

:Finally, N.E. Whitehead's, or Neil E. Whitehead's, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the "outlaw" aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn't mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that "outlaw" behavior is negative. "Outlaw" behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally "value life?" Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. --[[User:Edge333|Edge333]] 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Is ''Sin'' a mental illness? It does affect the mind. You can't seperate God from man. Man was created in His image and likeness. To go against the Creator and sin, you are writing checks to the Devil and his demons.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don't have to think it's totally alright. Heck, I don't think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn't mean that I'm an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. --[[User:SapphoChan17|SapphoChan17]] 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you kidding me? Whoever thinks homosexuality is a mental illness is so wrong. The majority of homosexuals are mentally sane and probably moreso than most of the idiots who think there is something wrong with it. Have you people been living in caves? A large proportion of people who have really made an impact on the world in some way are/were homosexuals...think about Oscar Wilde etc!
You people who think it is a mental illness, I have one more thing to say to you,
Return to your amish hovels and churn butter until you can do so no more, then sod-off back to the dark ages from whence you came! [[User:bealecr]] 14:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don't want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Someone said it is "a development disorder which begins in early childhood". That is not true. They are confused with an actual psychological disorder called Gender Identity Disorder, or GID. Gender Identity Disorder is commonly first seen in childhood. Children who show these symptoms are sometime called tom boys or nancy boys. Those with GID are homosexual, but they are homosexuals who seek a relationship with a heterosexual. An example would be a natural born male who dresses in woman clothing who seekes a relationship with a heterosexual man. He feels he was born in the wrong body and he should be a female. Many crossdress and consider sex reassignment surgury.

just as much as heterosexuality-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:07, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it anyones fault that they like the color blue? Is it anyones fault they like coffee? Is it anyones fault that they're sexually attracted to animals, corpses, or little children? If that's the case, then bestiality, necrophilia, and child molestation aren't immoral either. I mean, you can't help that you want to partake in sexual intercourse with an animal or corpse or child, right? Moral and immoral are based on how you feel towards a matter. Thats great to know you don't think its immoral, just know you speak for yourself and your own feelings. I would say to leave morality out of this since obviously there will be different truths. In terms of feelings and most everything, truth is in the mind of the beholder. but back to mental illness, mental illness is a health condition that changes a person’s thinking, feelings, or behavior or all three. But the question with that is, changes their thinking feelings or behavior from what? normal? natural? who decides what is normal or natural? the answer to that is popular opinion. its not necessarily truth, its just an agreement amongst multiple people. So why did the majority of people decide that homosexuality was a mental illness (before 1973 when popular opinion changed) ? I guess that they looked around for answers instead of just deciding things based on feelings. Penis and anus, vagina and vagina, they cant reproduce. The survival of a species is based on its ability to survive and reproduce. If we didn't have the technology we have (such as artificial insemination) , and if everyone was homosexual, there would eventually be no more humans. I guess that people said it was a mental illness because they figured that the want of survival of ones' species is normal or natural. (i say we need both homosexual and heterosexual in order to limit the population so that theres enough recourses to go around so that the race of human can continue.) -nathan

The real mental disorder is in believing what Conservapedia writes of homosexuality. Not only is the information misrepresentative, it excludes the fact that while some cases are inflicted by psychosocial causes, homosexuality can sometimes be genetically predisposed and has been observed in many species of animals, but most famously sheep. Either way, homosexuals are still people too and discrimination and persecution is not the answer. There once was a time when interracial marriage was illegal. Gays may become the blacks of tomorrow.

Freud stated that religion is a psychosis. A mental illness. When someone with mental illness accuses someone else of having mental illness, is he informed or crazy? James101.

Being black is genetic, homosexuality on the other hand is behavior, thus a comparison of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, makes no sense-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

In some cases, homosexuality has been proven to be genetic.

:My following reply answers both this question and if homosexuality is a choice.
:No, it's just a sin. With what previous people have stated, mental illnesses dictate a person's actions. Only with medication and severe therapy are they able to overcome it.
:Homosexuals, whether someone thinks they are (choice) or they were actually melded into that state, they have will power. They can '''choose''' whether to act upon it or not. Summary: Homosexuality (attraction) is not a choice. Fake homosexuality (experimentation) is a choice. Homosexuals are not sinful (in this one sexual immorality sense) unless they act upon their attraction.
:Counterpoints/criticism encouraged on my above comments. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:41, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

yeah of course being gay is amental illness just like being left handed those revolting left handers how dare they go against the norm! and those people who can't curl their tongue in a tube why it sickens me just to look at them something is obviously wrong with them. and last the most disgusting of all those people who are immune to poison ivy eww can't believe they chose such sick lifestyles can you.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

==More Research Needed==

I dunno about this one. I know it's not normal, but I think before we go trying to fix or change something, we should understand it. I'm definitely in favor of research into homosexuality. Only then can we find the right way to fix it. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 23:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)
:Why would we need to fix something that does not need to be corrected? [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]] 22:40, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: That is the major point. Where is the problem? As far as we know, Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, Torquemada, Musolini, all the current African dictators, Somoza, Pinochet, all Chinese presidents or emperators, and so on (we may fill several pages), are/were not homosexual, however, just one of them made more crimes that all the homosexual men together. We need to focus.....
::Are we talking about homosexuality as an attraction or acting upon homosexuality? God doesn't hate His children, He hates their sins. Fellow God-believers...am I right? o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 14:46, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>
Hellooooooooooo??
Just because it is not "Normal" ~ doesn't mean it needs to be "fixed".
Some of history's greats are also not "normal".
We have a Taiwanese basketball star in Houston who is 7 feet tall.
He doesn't need to be "fixed".
Some more "not normal" greats in history are:
Michaelangelo, Alexander The Great, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ira Gershwin, Sir Elton John, Daniel of the Bible, ............. Oh, I could go on and on.

:Daniel of the Bible was not a homosexual; he knew what God's law was and knew it was an abomination. Your rants have been noted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Basically... ==
People hate homosexuality because it's different. It's as normal as heterosexuality is, but because it's not the norm, people hate it. It's that simple. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:54, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
:You should refine your comment and say, "ultra Conservative Christians" instead of "people". o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because people listen to what I say?]] 17:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

::Opposition to homosexuality is based on religious and scientific principles. We oppose race prejudice and discrimination without hating racists, simply because we believe that each person should be "judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin."<ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanrhetoric.com%2Fspeeches%2Fmlkihaveadream.htm&ei=m72zSYymApaitgeFibjEBw&usg=AFQjCNEju4lodXxTPiTbb_rbD1h-PisYiA&sig2=IdyzsshL9YRXCVqS2fcDwg I have a dream] - [[Martin Luther King]]</ref> Doctors try to cure [[mental illness]] out of concern for their patients' well-being. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==By definition, NO==
A mental illness is something that disrupts a person's ability to reason and perform everyday activities. Homosexuality does neither of these. There are plenty of intelligent, successful homosexuals that contribute to society. They can still drive their cars, go to work, and do everything else a heterosexual person can do. They can even have sex with the opposite gender, they just don't prefer that. Homosexuality is far from a mental illness. This should really be a morality issue, not an mental health issue. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

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

2011-06-21T02:29:18Z

SEdwin: /* Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design. */

{{debate-politics}}

==='''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. --[[User:Kirby|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.

::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! --[[User:Cranky Joe|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?[[User:Niwrad|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:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. 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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.[[User:Jaques|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Jaques|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.--[[User:Tims|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.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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? [[User:PhilipB|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! --[[User:Ashens|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. [[User:Tsumetai|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? [[User: sundevilfire|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. --[[User:steponme1623|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.--[[User:Tims|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". [[User:Human|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. [[User:Thatguy|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. [[User:Smurge|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? [[User:FPiaco|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.--[[User:Tchonody|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. --[[User:ALFa|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. --[[User:NVConservative|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. --[[User:ALFa|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]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|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. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|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. --[[User:ALFa|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). [[User:Bluecarrot16|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. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|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. --[[User:Beanbag|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. [[User:Czolgolz|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. --[[User:Beanbag|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# 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. [[User:Myk|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:
::::#It will fall to the ground and prove gravity exists.
::::#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 <s>theories</s> 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. [[User:SEdwin|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|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 [[User:AtheistKathryn|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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?--[[User:Tims|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. --[[User:Beanbag|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?

--[[User:CatWatcher|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. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|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! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#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]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#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?)
#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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#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.
#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.
#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?
#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.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|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. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|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:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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: <s>God</s> 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.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|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? [[User:Underscoreb|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]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|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.--[[User:Urban67|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. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Uh, no...==

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 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. {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
: 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 [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.)

{{unsigned|BenP}}, 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Markr|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:29, 20 June 2011 (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...--[[User:CoyPraetorian|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.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|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 [http://creationontheweb.com here]. However, if you want an example, try [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/ this].
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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:
:::{| class="wikitable"
! || 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]]
|-
| colspan="6" |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 ''un''biblical) views.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|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).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.[[User:JHanson|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 [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution#Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington|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.[https://store.creationontheweb.com/au/product_info.php?products_id=740&osCsid=0e2a49ce6bb8f57186f7edbeb9c78636] See also [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|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 [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution#Cobb County School District|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.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)

==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 {{unsigned|Bohemianwriter1}}

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

2011-06-21T02:24:19Z

SEdwin: /* Teach all theories */

{{debate-politics}}

==='''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. --[[User:Kirby|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.

::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! --[[User:Cranky Joe|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?[[User:Niwrad|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:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. 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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.[[User:Jaques|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Jaques|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.--[[User:Tims|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.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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? [[User:PhilipB|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! --[[User:Ashens|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. [[User:Tsumetai|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? [[User: sundevilfire|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. --[[User:steponme1623|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.--[[User:Tims|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". [[User:Human|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. [[User:Thatguy|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. [[User:Smurge|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? [[User:FPiaco|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.--[[User:Tchonody|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. --[[User:ALFa|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. --[[User:NVConservative|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. --[[User:ALFa|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]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|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. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|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. --[[User:ALFa|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). [[User:Bluecarrot16|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. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|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. --[[User:Beanbag|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. [[User:Czolgolz|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. --[[User:Beanbag|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# 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. [[User:Myk|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:
::::#It will fall to the ground and prove gravity exists.
::::#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 <s>theories</s> 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. [[User:SEdwin|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|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 [[User:AtheistKathryn|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|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.--[[User:Tims|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.--[[User:Roopilots6|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?--[[User:Tims|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. --[[User:Beanbag|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?

--[[User:CatWatcher|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. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|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! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#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]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#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?)
#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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#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.
#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.
#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?
#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.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|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. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|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:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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: <s>God</s> 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.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|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? [[User:Underscoreb|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]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|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.--[[User:Urban67|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. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Uh, no...==

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 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. {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
: 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 [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.)

{{unsigned|BenP}}, 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Markr|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 12 October 2008 (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...--[[User:CoyPraetorian|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.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|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 [http://creationontheweb.com here]. However, if you want an example, try [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/ this].
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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:
:::{| class="wikitable"
! || 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]]
|-
| colspan="6" |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 ''un''biblical) views.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|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).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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.[[User:JHanson|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 [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution#Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington|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.[https://store.creationontheweb.com/au/product_info.php?products_id=740&osCsid=0e2a49ce6bb8f57186f7edbeb9c78636] See also [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|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 [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution#Cobb County School District|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.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)

==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 {{unsigned|Bohemianwriter1}}