Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.

2007-06-28T23:25:07Z

Stubbstarbuck:

The bible cannot truly be taken literally, because its facts contradict itself. Take the gospels of Luke and Matthew, for example. Matthew states that in the lineage between Jesus and David there are 42 entires, and Luke proclaims only 27, and only three of them overlap. Obviously, both cannot be right, and cannot be used with literal conviction. Also, if Jesus is truly of virgin birth, then he cannot be the Messiah. The Old Testament clearly proclaims that the messiah must be David's descendant. Since Joseph was supposedly a descendant of David, this would make sense, but if he didn't shoot his DNA at Mary, then how can Jesus be the messiah at all? Something is clearly amiss here, and removes credibility from a literal bible. Finally, Matthew chronicles a census ordered by Caesar Augustus happening during the time that Mary and Joseph settled in Bethlehem. However, there were no censi taken at this time by Caesar Augustus. The closest on was done by Qurinin, and that was in 6 AD, no sooner. I question whether any of these bible literalists have actually read the bibles they claim dictate their lives, as if they did, they'd realize how truly ridiculous some of the errors are. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 23:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

==No discernment==
If you are looking for the truth then you'd better start looking harder and longer. Understanding the Word of God is a little different then reading your school textbook. It sounds like you did a rudimentary scan of the Bible only to find everything not to be totally synchronic. The lineage answer is here: http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/are-josephs-and-marys-lineage-incorrect
You go on from there, but it is only the same type of faulty logic used with an incomplete picture of actual history. You use selective facts in a subjective manner in order to prove your agenda that the Bible cannot be taken literally. What context are you trying to find these literal inconsistancies? The Creation, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, or the Exodus? These are the literal truths of the Bible. If you don't believe in the One that wrote the Bible then don't waste your time in finding any literal truth in it because you don't have the key.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''''Wow'''''. So, this book which you and your sort wish to hold out to me and [[Liberal|my]] [[Atheist|sort]] as being ultimate revealed truth, cannot be understood properly unless I have already accepted your worldview? You know, there are same Christians out there who love the bible, and Jesus, and God, and don't worry about literalism. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:49, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Typical response. My main argument against a literal interpretation of the Bible is that "the One" didn't write the entire bible, which includes texts that were never meant to be incorporated with others. Also, the Bible as we knew it has gone through numerous translations; it wasn't originally written in English, because it didn't exist back then. Because of the multiple translations needed to get to English, all sense of context is lost since the original Aramic or Hebrew. A crude but effective test can be done on those free translations websites. Take a slang phrase (or any other phrase) such as "All dressed up and nowhere to go", or something like that. Translate it from English to French, then French to German, then from German to English. You'll find that the new phrase has zero relationship with the original one. Admittedly, translation would be more sophisticated via the human element, but the point is the same. Nobody can accept a literal interpretation of the bible through the English version; the ONLY way to get an accurate interpretation of the Bible is through the original root languages. Otherwise, any literal interpretation is simply a fallacy. And I SINCERELY doubt that you have read the entire collected works of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Aramic. By the way, those websites do not describe how Jesus could have been the Messiah AND of virgin birth. He cannot be both, for if he is of immaculate conception, he doesn't meet the requirements of the prophecy in the Old Testament (on a side note, isn't it funny how god is much meaner and nastier in the Old Testament than in the New?). However, if he is descended from David through Joseph, making him the messiah, that denies a main tenet of Jesus being of immaculate conception. Ergo, it is silly and plain false to take a literal interpretation of the Bible, which was purely meant to describe a template for good and compassion in a world lacking those qualities.
One other point: after the Flood, God used the rainbow as a symbol to people that he was so distraught by his destruction of the world that he would never do anything cataclysmic again. So how does that hold against the claims of a coming Judgement or any of that other stuff? [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 12:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)]]

In the eternal worlds of Homer Simpson: 'Facts, schmacts. Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true.' That's exactly what you are doing: flying in the face of the facts. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 12:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)]]

::Typical legalism. I've heard them a thousand times. Usually a big waste of time trying to argue a point. Fine then, for you, this point is worthless. Since you won't accept what it says is the antithesis of your religious belief. Be a nihilist. You wish to slander the wisdom of a book thousands of years older then you'll ever be. You offer nothing to fill the void. By the way the rainbow was the symbol God used to show mankind He would never again destroy the entire world by flood. The Judgement day is when all of mankind will come before their Creator and be judged worthy to live or die. Then you can argue all of your legalist points and tell Him how badly he goofed everything up. That should go good for you. The final 7 year Tribulation that culminates at a little place called Har Megiddo, a.k.a. Armegedon, doesn't result in the total destruction of mankind. Just a third or two of it. But why do I wast my time here? You have no faith in Him, so His words are meaningless to you. They are foolishness to those without faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: You are right, do not waste any time of yours. If you are part of the establishment on this wiki, take such blasphemists off the board since they obviously do not believe in the book that holds ALL the truth and ALWAYS has. Evolution is a theory, what the Bible says about man/life is the truth. All the stuff about fossils and carbon dating and gene structure and function and the similarity between genes and proteins among humans, chimps, worms, mice and rats are all a scientific conspiracy designed to make believers in the literal truth of the Bible look bad. I mean, scientists make up things and are dishonest while men of God are honorable and are always seeking the truth as stated in the Bible. The real problem is that Gutenberg came along and made it possible not only to make copies of the Bible but blasphemies like textbooks in the sciences and humanities. Worse, Galileo was let off the hook last century for his blasphemies, the Sun does go around the Earth and we are the center of the Universe. The real enemies are not Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or Bahais or the Jews - but teachers and professors who have the temerity of teaching students how to think and question everything. And how dare does anyone question the eternal truths in the Bible? All of it is true, and anyone who says anything else is evil. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Roo, just s simple question, "Why do you believe the bible to be true?". Really, what happened in your life for you to believe that this 2000 year old book has more validity than physical evidence that has been provided over the past 100 years? Did you know that most people are Christian, not because they studied other religions and chose one, because they were indoctrinated into it by their parents and communities? Perhaps you should ask yourself the reason why it irritates you so much when people question your beliefs. Maybe it is because you want to answer them but can not find the answers in the religion and now you are starting to doubt what you have been taught? Take the higher road and look at research or research for yourself, if you start to make things up or provide information that is misleading then you are just getting trapped.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know the Bible to be true not only because I have studied it for decades. But because of people who know nothing about it continue to make fun of it just as little children make fun of someone they don't understand at elementary school. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. I read the simplistic little smug attacks on Judaism and Christianity and see only foolishness. Whether or not they are Humanist or Nihilist, I'd prefer them to stick to commenting on something they know something about. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It may be your just not scholarly enough. The religious beliefs in evolutionary theories are what have well documented grave errors and inconsistencies. The theory of evolution is a delusion hatched from a fantasy that never happened and continues not to happen. It is unfalsifiable. This is all that is offered as the antithesis to Gods word. This religious belief you profess as science isn't at all scientific. It's rather called a FAITH. Of which the foundations of that faith are crumbling into dust. Its priestly class of teachers and professors have indoctrinated their faithful students only to mock and belittle those who don't believe in the religion of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, Roo, sounds harsh. I just wanted to know was what made you a Christian? I have to mention that I am a bible scholar, have read many different translations and have seen first hand some of the inconsistencies found in the bible and its chapters. I keep an open mind and look at the bible as metaphorical instead of literal so that I can keep faith in its message, however logically it does have issues. Perhaps you could study it a little bit more and try to see these things yourself? The point I made above about indoctrination still holds true, very few people actually take the time to study the Quran and other religious texts, and perhaps you should spend some time to see the difference between the bible and these texts. As for Evolution, I would have to say you seem not to be aware of the biological sciences. Many biological predictions have come about due to evolution and many observable events have roots in evolutionary theory. It is far from a delusion and fare from unfalsifiable, I have pointed these things out to you on the debate page before but you have yet to respond.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TimS, Yeshua Messiach's death and resurrection is what makes me a Christian. How about you? I would be very interested to hear about some of your first hand inconsistencies that you've found in the bible and its chapters. Also, be careful in using the open mind or being more open adage. Being so open that you fall for anything while also standing for nothing comes to my mind. Not to infer to be close minded either. Just be mindful. Metaphorically speaking, as it were.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, just a few things. First, how do you know that the story of Jesus is true and not embellished? Second, I am agnostic, I do not claim to be right with any religion. Third, here is a list for you <ref>http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf</ref>. Forth, having an open mind does not mean you take everything at face value. Having an open mind means that you are willing to listen and try to understand the logic of something before judging it false. I have studied the bible, have you studied evolution yet? Here is a link to a wonderful book that would give you the background in evolutionary theory to better debate your position. <ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GOUSTR.html</ref> I believe it would help you understand the theory and perhaps come to accept it but if not then it will at least provide you with some background information so you do not fail when debating with someone.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Tims, the link you give is from the University of Maryland's Department of Computer Science. When using the search function input with bible I found the list of over 700 inconsistencies along with a description below it that says: "has been used by bible believers to justify all kinds of cruelty to ..." http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/csumd?q=bible&domains=www.cs.umd.edu&sitesearch=www.cs.umd.edu
::::Your so-called list is merely 700 childish statements of ignorant mockery towards the Word of God. None of which presented any actual inconsistencies that couldn't be solved with any serious examination. I'm sure it wasn't intended to be malicious. Since you say you are an agnostic then it's a waste of time to give you directions to a place you've no intention to go to. As for the reference to the book: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould, it is another good example of how the adherents to the ideology of Darwin keep changing itself. That's what makes it UNFALSIFIABLE. It is able to change itself by evolving to conform to any new hypothesis, or evidence, especially the lack of it, that comes down the road. Get it? It just keeps evolving.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::That is correct Roo, a link that was a PDF, easier to read. Did you happen to read through the list? There are many inconsistencies that can only be resolved by a liberal application of interpretation, like you mentioned above serious examination. If you take it literally, like you seem to take the creation account in the bible, then you can not explain the inconsistencies. For example how do you explain these two points 1. "The Amalekites were smitten before Amalek (from whom they descended) was born. Amalek was the grandson of Esau (Gen.36:12). 14:7" 2."Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark.” Just looking on line and reading the bible you can see the other inconsistencies that stand out, when you are looking. The logic of the bible is often flawed. I believe it has some very good points about how to live with others but I think it should not be taken literally when other evidence has shown it to be false.
:::::If I understand correctly you are talking about heaven when you said direction to a place where I have no intention to go. Just a point, when you look at the logic of heaven did you ever wonder how a person could be truly satisfied? Think on it, if you are in heaven and your family is below then you would have a longing for them. If you were doing the same thing day after day then you would have a longing for something different. The only logical way for a heaven to exist is to wipe the mind and individuality away of the human. So in essence destroy the being. Does not sound like heaven to me. Perhaps I am wrong but the heaven of the bible sounds worse than any prison on earth.
:::::Roo, once again you show your lack of scientific understanding. Theories do adapt to new research but if the basic premise of the theory is not proven false it still stands. For the theory of evolution the basic premise is that organisms evolve over time in response to their environment. Has anyone provided proof to the contrary of this? That is the falsifiablity of the theory. As we learn more about molecular biology we learn more about the mechanisms that contribute to evolution. It does not change the basic premise of the theory only reinforces it. Like I said it would behoove you to read more on this subject to better educate yourself.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that meets the definition of being unfalsifiable, doesn't it? There will never be the evidence that once and for all will prove its validity, so that neither can it be invalidated. A perfect example of its own circular logic. The only reinforcement you will ever see within the field of evolution theory is the evolution of the theory itself. Forever adapting to whatever the next great new hypothesis comes down the trail. But before you accuse me again of having a lack of scientific understanding let me say that you too also show a lack of understanding. By believing the statements made in the PDF from your link you have indeed proven your own lack of understanding of the Bible. Although as a matter of simple logic you wouldn't want to seek any truth within the Bible. It is inconsistant with your belief in evolutionary theory. You can't believe in a Creator since only creatures are acknowledged without their Creator to an evolutionist. It would be only logical to embrace evolution and reject the Bible. Yes, you are also way wrong with that Heaven thing you got there.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, it does not meet the definition of being non-falsifiable. I gave you examples in previous conversations as to what would falsify evolution. Please read and try to understand them. I never said I believe the statements in the PDF, just that they point out some issues in the logic of the wording. You made a claim that the bible had no errors, I just showed you some of the logic errors that have been reported. I can not understand where you get that my understanding would be flawed when what I presented was black and white. Your statement about not believing in a creator is a bit far fetched, I could be some other religion besides Christian and not believe the same as you do but believe in evolution and a creator. Your logic seems to be limited based on your worldview of the situation. I would advise that you open your mind and try reading some research and come to your own conclusions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 16:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, you say you don't believe in the statements of the PDF and yet they point out issues of logic? That in itself isn't logical. The worldview of believing in a Creator while at the same time believing in a theory of Evolution that rejects a Creator is also illogical. I also believe that the kind of open mind your talking about is the kind that stands for nothing and will fall for anything. You can begin to see where this is going, don't you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:53, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I got to say, I looked through that list of inconsistencies (reference 1), hoping to find something really juicy, but most of them were nit-picky while the rest were not 100% inconsistent. I didn't read the whole thing, but that list seems pretty bogus (that is, if it were created with the intention of proving false a literal interpretation). I don't like things like that; they foster anger and not discussion.

I just wanted to say a few things here. In reference to an earlier comment made by SeekCommon, I'm a scientist, and I don't think that I make things up more than any given man of God. We are all human, and it is all of our capacities to lie and falsify.

Also, I'd like to defend evolution. Evolution is a theory. So are gravity, the jet stream, eyesight, relativity, electricity, and so on and so on. We scientists realize that we can never be sure to know that anything is completely, certainly, without-any-doubt-at-all true. So we use the word "theory." For instance, in paper I'm writing for publication (hopefully soon), I show some peculiar behavior I've observed in certain compounds then I come up with a theory to explain it. Once published, other scientists might realize that my theory helps explain phenomenon they've noticed, so they would write a paper and reference my theory. This might continue until so much work is at least slightly based on my theory that not many people question it. But we would still call it a theory because, unless God himself comes down and tells us to grab a pen because he's about to explain it to us, we will never be absolutely sure that our theories are correct. There are cases throughout history of relatively-recent theories being proven wrong (classical physics is a famous example of a theory that couldn't understand why it couldn't explain everything), but these are surprisingly rare. That's the beauty of our system; we take nothing for granted, and this makes us able to explain how the world works (and at this point we recognize that we can't be too wrong considering that we having working cars, computers, medicine, and the like).

So, I hope that helps people understand what is meant by "theory." In some sense, the concept of evolution does have to slightly change to stay recent with respect to new research. But the sort of thing that changes in the theory are the scientific details lay-folk don't understand anyway. If the crux of the argument, that slow genetic changes occur in populations over long periods of time, turns out to be wrong, then evolution will be proven false. But a new theory will take its place. So if your problem with evolution is that it contradicts the Bible (which, judging by where this argument is taking place, it probably is), let's not argue the falsifiability since 1) making up new theories could be viewed as ways of extending evolution's lifespan and 2) I could make similar arguments about your beliefs. I read a book about evolution and creation in high school, and it seems from that book that *most* (not all) of the noted inconsistencies (used loosely) can be resolved with metaphoric interpretation of the Bible and consideration of the Bible's original language being Aramaic/Hebrew. I suppose that's why we are talking about evolution on this page.--[[User:Remainder|Remainder]] 15:08, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Two accounts of creation - the Bible contradicts itself in the first chapters of the first book==

In Genesis there are two conflicting accounts of creation that are so blatent the only logical explanation is that they are two different stories about the same thing, written at different times by different people. If the Bible is the literal word of God, this can't possibly be the case.

In Genesis 1 the animals are created on the fifth day, man and women on the sixth day (from the New American Bible):

"Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened:
God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was.
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."
God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food." And so it happened.
God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed--the sixth day.

Then in Genesis 2, the seventh day is described, where God takes a coffee break, and then he goes and creates man when the land is completely barren, and then gives man creatures to play with (again, from the New American Bible):

"Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed.
Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.
Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--
while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground--the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being."

Now, I've heard from Biblical literalists that Genesis 2 is supposed to be describing the creation of Eden, but this can't be the case because of the next verse:

"Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed."

The accounts are written in cronological order, so there is no dispute about when things happened, to me, anyway. I challenge anyone to try to give me a convincing argument about why I should believe that the Bible is the literal word of god. Where does this idea come from anyway (let me guess, from the Bible, right? Circular reasoning...)? [stubbstarbuck] 16:24, June 28th, 2007.

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2007-06-28T23:00:13Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* No */

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a false religion? Is it a threat to Christianity?

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20
Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

2007-06-28T22:55:09Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* Yes, Absolutely */

{{debate}}
jesus claimed to be the son of god...right?? according to christanity...

==According to GOD==
Matthew 3:17 "And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." That's according to the Jews of His time. The Son of God that became the sin offering for all of mankind. Need more? Read the rest of the Old and New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sorta-kinda-but-certainly-not-as-clearly-as-you'd-expect==
This is, I think, a fairly well-known puzzle. I'm no expert on this. Briefly, in the New Testament, lots of ''other'' people call him the Son of God, but Jesus consistently calls himself the "Son of man"—and nobody's absolutely sure what he meant by that—and his references to his relationship to God seem more in the nature of hints than simple statements.

In John 9:35-37 seems ''fairly'' clear:
:Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

Many others ''call'' him the Son of God. ''Mark'' opens with the words "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." And in the Annunciation, the ''angel'' tells Mary "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

When Jesus is asked about it, his replies can only be described as... puzzling or indirect. Thus, Luke 22:66-70:
:Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

At this, the priests say "And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."

Another indirect reply is this, in Matthew 16:14-17:

:When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

This certainly is close to a simple "yes," but not quite.

The topic is discussed at length [http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html here], but this seems to me like a clear case of "reading the Bible through stained glass." For example, this page says that "Matthew 26:64; parallel in Mark 14:61-4. The high priest asks Jesus directly if He is the Christ, and Jesus answers in the affirmative." Well, no, he doesn't. The affirmative would be "yes." What Jesus says is
:Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
They ''say'' that ''means'' "yes," but... well, that's not the same as ''saying'' "yes,'' is it?

I'm not saying that Jesus ''doesn't'' claim to be God. I'm saying to a non-expert it's ''puzzling'' as to why Jesus uses the roundabout language he uses, ''puzzling'' as to why he uses the phrase "Son of man" so often, and ''puzzling'' as to what, exactly he means by "Son of man" when he uses it.

The 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia says "The expression is Christ's... It was not invented by the writers of the Gospels to whom it did not appear to be a favourite title, as they never use it of Christ themselves. The early Fathers were of the opinion that the expression was used out of humility and to show Christ's human nature, and this is very probable considering the early rise of Docetism. This is also the opinion of Cornelius a Lapide. Others, such as Knabenbauer, think that He adopted a title which would not give umbrage to His enemies, and which, as time went on, was capable of being applied so as to cover His Messianic claims..." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm] So, in other words, it's puzzling to experts, too. They think, they were of the opinion, but they weren't sure. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:57, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, there is the whole issue of the messianic secret to consider, too, cf. especially Wilhelm Wrede. "...that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand," and all that (Lk 8:10). But turning the question around, he never specifically says that he is ''not'' God, does he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's why I entitled the section "sorta-kinda." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not to my limited knowledge.

Bottom line.... Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, and the only real textual support could be nothing more than a simple mistranslation. One would assume that the most fundamental belief of the Christian Church would be spelled out more clearly in a text crafted by God... however it is not.

==Yes, Absolutely==

In John 8:58 he said: "Verily, verily I say unto you, ''before Abraham was, '''I am.''''' This reference to Exodus 3:14 was not lost on the jews: they tried to stone him for it. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] <sub>[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]</sub> 14:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:Ever wonder how people can still have this question in their minds?Luke 24:44 "He (Jesus) said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." So that this has been spelled out throughout the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation through the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms and yet people will continue to say that Jesus never claimed it. Their minds remain closed for whatever rationale they have chosen. Let us pray they remain closed for not much longer. I fear that for too many that at even at His second coming they will still retain a closed mind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:20, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==It doesn't matter==

Just because a book written almost 2,000 years ago says he was god doesn't make it correct. Do you believe any other religious text on its supernatural claims? No doubt Jesus existed, and no doubt he was a good person, even a first class revolutionary, but he wasn't a deity. The most likely explanation for biblical supernatural events is that they are made up by people who wanted to be associated with Jesus because they admired him, and then these events were written down as true events. Let's put it this way. Someone wrote a comic about Batman 40 years ago. His exploits have now been copied by two movie directors over the last 50 years, adding details, taking characters, exanding story lines from the comic books. There is almost a cult following of Batman. In a few hundred years someone might unearth a text about this Batman character and think he was a real crime fighter. --[[User:stubbstarbuck] 16:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cactus

2007-05-03T02:49:20Z

Stubbstarbuck:

Agave isn't a cactus. They aren't even in the same class. If you're going to write about plants, you might want to know something about them.

****

The article about cacti is woefully inadequate, not to mention pathetically biased. A cursoy web search found the following about the etymology of Opuntia, which has an uncertain origin. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=OPUNT

"The genus name Opuntia is Botanical Latin, in scientific use since 1754, from Opos, the name of an ancient Greek village in Locria on the coast of Euboea. It was Opos, Opountis in Greek, noted for some spiny plant, but not our prickly pear cactus."

"Opuntia: a Greek name used by Pliny for a different plant which grew around the town of Opus in Greece (ref. genus Opuntia)"

"In 1700, Tournefort named opuntias Opuntia, because of their similarity to a thorny plant that grew in the town of Opus, Greece (Velázquez, 1998)."

" The succulent, ever-fresh cladodes were certainly a novelty to late fifteenth century and later Europeans and were widely included in ships’ stores as insurance against scurvy. This practice is thought to have contributed greatly to the present naturalized range of Opuntia ficus-indica throughout arid and semi-arid habitats of the world. This widespread propagation (intended and unintended) throughout the Mediterranean obscured the geographic origins of this species; many early European botanists regarded this cactus to be native, as reflected in Cactus opuntia (i.e., spiny plant from near Opus, Greece). "

There's plenty more. It's called "research". Try it. S'fun.

"there is very little biological or genetic research on cacti because such research..."

You didn't look for any research, did you? That's okay. I understand. It's hard. I know. Takes effort.

"Because of this, the early Catholic missionaries in the west thought the plants to be the work of Satan, and this is perhaps a preferable view to that of materialistic evolution since it is difficult to imagine how something like mescaline could have evolved by natural selection. Besides that, the psychoactive content of many cacti have inspired the writings of such ungodly men as Aldous Huxley and Albert Hoffman."

What does the second sentence have to do with the first? And you honestly, in the 21st century, think Satan, a made up demi-god, has some hand in "deceiving people"? If evidence doesn't fit your preconceived notions, it's because of Satan? And you wonder why no one takes (some) conservatives seriously. You're not helping your stereotype.

And this, well...really, if you want to be sarcastic, do it somewhere else. Encyclopedia. Start a blog if you want to look like a fool.

"But, since Genesis suggests that man has been given dominion over all of the earth, the environmentalist concerns on this note are entirely inappropriate. It may also be that environmentalists, in addition to flauting the Word of God, are merely concerned about the effects that declining cactus populations will have on their supply of mescaline."

Right. So if I want to protect the environment so our species continues to exist, I'm doing so to support my drug habit? And, dominion or no, if we destroy the environment, which we need to survive, then we won't be around to have dominion over anything. So, it's in our interest to protect the environment. Who the hell else are we trying the protect the environment for?

"A cursory glance suggests that it is very nearly impossible that these two distinct species of cactus share a common ancestor, as so many materialists maintain. What's more, the transition from one of these species to the other by evolutionary forces would require the purchasing of complex specified information without the intervention of intelligence and this, by William Dembski's No Free Lunch Theorem is impossible."

What? Actually, if I showed these to pictures to someone who had never seen a cactus, the first thing they would notice is that they are morphologically similar, and if they did an rRNA analysis, would find them statistically similar. Not to mention, they're in the same GENUS. Take a $%*#@4 botany class, you git!

"It could also be mentioned that Intelligent Design is possibly demonstrated in the great Saguaro cactus of the Sonoran Desert. These cactus are very slowly maturing and require a great deal of energy, have little cold tolerance, and are prone to destruction by pests. This is hardly the optimal configuration predicted by Darwinism, and presents quite a problem to the materialist point of view. On the other hand, the natives believe that the Saguaro are the incarnations of their ancestors. Because Intelligent Design endows the required designer with no attributes other than intelligence (it need only be an intelligent agent), the view that the giant Saguaro are reincarnated ancestors of the native population is a preferable scientific explanation to that of Darwinian evolution."

Okay, how about some evidence to back up your claim? A source? Anything other than your own conjecture? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia afterall. You obviously don't actually understand evolution, since you somehow believe that evolution is progressive, should create perfection, and works rigidly according to the environment a living thing happens to find itself in. Newsflash. That's no one's Theory of Evolution. Here's a tip - evolution doesn't have to work well; it just has to work. But I won't go into it. There are PLENTY of resources (an entire scientific field) devoted to it. Anyway, your whole article on cacti is a thinly veiled (and poorly executed) critique on evolution and, somehow, though I don't know what it has to do with cacti, anti-religious people. Fine. You've succeeded in looking uneducated. Not stupid - since I imagine you COULD understand these things if you wanted to, but you probably won't bother to look for any information that is counter to your beliefs. Geez our American education system sucks.

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

2007-03-19T20:02:34Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* "Science" is irrelevant. */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''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 Evololution 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.

==='''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.

==='''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.

"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)

==='''why not?'''===

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

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

===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)

=== "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)

'''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

=== 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.

== 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.-

== 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.

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

2007-03-17T01:36:09Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* '''no...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

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 Evololution 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)

==='''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.

==='''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.

"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)

==='''why not?'''===

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

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

===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)

=== "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)

'''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)

=== 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.

== 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.

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

2007-03-17T01:35:08Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* '''no...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

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 Evololution 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)

==='''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.

==='''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.

"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)

==='''why not?'''===

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

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

===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)

=== "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)

'''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)

=== 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.

== 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.

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

2007-03-14T02:25:35Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* "Science" is irrelevant. */

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-03-13T20:48:38Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* Yes */

Post Your Thoughts

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

Counter- The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another species. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
-Chris J
::: Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Which part is unclear? The statements concerning the fossil record and crossbreeding within a species are simple, factual observations. If the argument concernig rate of change in units of Darwins is not based on a linear function, what is it based on? And to clarify- by saying that Change approaches a horizontal assymptote, I mean that change continues over time, but becomes infinitely small and and never exceeds a fixed point. The dog may, through natural reproduction, become another kind of dog. But observation tells us that it will never sprout wings and become a bird.
-Chris J
:::: Ok, for starters, you refer "observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote" - it isn't clear what your relevant vairable is that is being bounded. Continuing, your next sentence claims that "it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another species." I'm not even sure what to make of this sentence since dog breeds aren't separate species. You furthermore assert that "it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed" if anything this is what one might have thought before Mendel. Since alleles come in discrete entities and one does not have genetic continua, this is false. Not only is it false, it is irrelevant, since whether we are able to breed something to be identical to some pre-existing similar organism is irrelevant. Your summary remarks that "The dog remains a dog" and your rephrase that "observation tells us that it will never sprout wings and become a bird" are simply assertions and not very relevant ones anyways(evolution wouldn't expect a dog to "sprout wings" although there are excellent examples of transitionals between true flyers and others). The terminology is so vague as to make it unclear exactly you mean that a dog will always remain a dog. Do you mean there will be never be a reproductive barrier? Do you mean that it will fit what your intuitive notion of what a dog looks like?. (Also, while we are on the topic of defintions, you use both "species" in a non-standard way, and use "kind" in a way that isn't even standard for creationists. If you are going to use terms in a non-standard fashion, defining them would be good). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::Chris, I think you have a misconception of how common descent works. The claim that no dog will become anything other than another kind of dog is, in fact, true, according to evolutionary theory, not a challenge of it. The statement is essentially no different than the claim that mammals never become anything other than mammals, or eukaryotes will never be anything other than eukaryotes. Common descent specifies that evolution happens via nested clades: groups within groups, not one group becoming another. This can be confusing because Linnean taxonomy is static, not cladistic.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:22, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::::Evolution proposes that complexity increases such that more advanced species somehow emerge from less sophisticated ones. This is has never been observed, has never been duplicated in a laboratory, and requires a reduction in entropy at constant energy that contradicts all observations. All observations are of devolution, or the disappearance or reduction in complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: That's incorrect. Evolution does not make any claims about some species being more or less advanced. Evolution does not work on a ladder. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you claim that increases in complexity have never been observed. As in many cases, this may depend on what you mean by complexity. However, regardless of what you mean a variety of mutations have been observed in humans and other species which add essentially new functions to the species. One common example of this is bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:07, 20 February 2007 (EST)

I specified that evolutionary change is the dependent variable, or Y-value, bounded by a horizontal assymptote, with time as the independent variable, or X-value. Your second remark is entirely correct- I misused the word "species" when I meant to refer only to changes between breeds. Observation has shown that some dominant genetic traits tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring, but alleles place boundaries on the change that can occur through this process. It is true that it is difficult to quantify evolutionary change, since it does not appear to progress in any certain direction- another challenge to the above argument concerning the progress of evolutionary change over time. I chose a rational graph with the dependent variable bounded by a horizontal assymptote as an illustration because the aforementioned argument seemed to assume that evolutionary change could be expressed with respect to time or reproductive cycles by a linear graph. I chose the example of cross breeding because it is an example of the reproductive cycle being manipulated to produce maximum evolutionary change. The natural rate of change would be much slower, if indeed there were any measurable change. My statements about a dog "remaining a dog" and not changing species were meant only as examples of the genetic limitations of evolutionary change through natural reproduction, which is generaly limited by species, though somtimes by more inclusive levels of biological classification.

: I'm not sure I completely follow some of what you said such as "Observation has shown that some dominant genetic traits tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring"- alleles are passed on just as frequently whether they are dominant or recessive. We are however, getting to the crux of the matter (although I incidentally note that you ignored the issue of discrete genetics), saying that change is "generaly limited by species, though somtimes by more inclusive levels of biological classification" is not useful. Beyond the species level all classification has a highly arbitrary element to it, at which point it isn't at all clear *why* you would presume that evolution at that level wouldn't occur (there is no sign of any magic barrier or such). This has also the incidental problem that speciation is in fact common. There are possibly hundreds of observed speciation events and I could easily provide (if you wanted) 10 or 15 of them and the relevant citations. (Also, many creationists support not just that speciation has occured but that rapid speciation occured right after the Deluge(indeed, in AIG's account this speciation happened far more uniformily and far faster than any biologist would ever predict and far faster than any observed level). To some extent this reflects a changing of the goalposts- 100 years ago no creationist acknowledged any form of evolution, then in the 1960s the evidence got overwhelming enough that the creationists conceded "microevolution" meaning evolution within species, and more recently many creationists now agree that evolution above the species level can occur, but not much above it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:'''
:::The boundry that defines into what an organism can and cannot evolve is not a "magic barrier" but its own DNA. An organism can only lose genetic information. There has never been an observed exception to this rule. What Chris tried to demonstrate (I think) by his example of a dog is that a dog can change but it cannot become anything beyond the limit set by its own genes; it cannot "sprout wings and become a bird"

:::--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:00, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Ben, this doesn't help at all. This is yet more vague assertions with undefined terms. And almost any defintion of the terms will in fact render the statements false. For example the claim that "an organism can only lose genetic information" - so in this context what do you mean by information? Do you mean in terms of Shannon's measure of information? This is easily seen to be false. Do you mean in terms of Kolmogorov complexity? Again, the claim is false. Indeed, by any reasonable defintion the claim is false. To see why consider the following: Consider some function f that is a function of the current genetic makeup of some creature and turns out some non-negative real number representing how much information there is in that genome. Now, suppose creature A through either mutation or recombination has offspring A' and f(A') < f(A) (that is, A' has lost information). Then the mutation that goes from A' to something with genome A is an example of a gain in information. Since all mutations are reversible, we've established that for any reasonable defintion of information, information can be gained (modulo the essentially trivial case of all genomes having the same information value) [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:27, 13 February 2007 (EST)

#*'''Counter:''' Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)

>95% of academic biologists support it.

Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology.

:'''Comment on logic''': I am sorry, but your answer is an appeal to authority, a common logical mistake. But its ok. I am sure there is still more evidence to support your point? [[User:David R|David R]]

: '''Reply''': You say that "95% of academic biologists support it." What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have often wondered if there was a place were one could view this sort of information. It would be most helpful.

: You go on to say that "Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology." Again, what evidence do you have to support this statement? Here are some creation biologists, to name a few:

* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

: All of them have doctoral degrees in some sort of biology and all argue against macro-evolution and for creationism. Are you claiming that all of them have a poor understanding of biology? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:29, 17 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Another Reply''': I assume that you have a better understanding of biology upon which to base this attack? Please enlighten us; how would a wise biologist refute the facts that seemingly disprove evolution? Where is the host of intermediate links? When have biologists observed an organism acctually '''''gain''''' genetic information through a mutation rather than lose it? [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

:: '''Response''': I take it your claim is that all mutations cause a loss of genetic information. This claim is false. Consider: if all mutations cause a loss of genetic information, then point mutations cause a loss of genetic information. But all point mutations are reversible—that is, the nucleotide that changes can change back. So if the original point mutation caused a loss of information, the reversed mutation must cause a gain in information.--[[User:Stereotypical A|Stereotypical A]] 20:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

::: REPLY: It requires intelligent intervention to reverse a mutation. Lost genetic information will not be restored simply by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Absolutely false. Point mutations can go either way (and frequently do). In fact, there are a number of tests which measure how mutagenic various mutagens are by using this property. Basically, you take a type of bactera which has a point mutation that leaves it unable to synthesize a necessary amino acid and then you grow a colony of that bacterium and expose them to the desired mutagen. Then you measure what fraction of the colony can survive if you remove the necessary amino acid from the medium. This sort of test has been done for about 30 years now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:58, 20 February 2007 (EST)
Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution. The late evolution-promoter Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College. Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while. Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory. But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation.

>It is at least a puzzle to understand how Creationism accounts for seemingly-badly-designed aspects of anatomy and physiology. For example, the eyes of cephalopods (squid, octopus) and those of vertebrates (mammals, including humans) are strikingly similar in their general "design" with one conspicuous exception. In the cephalopod eye, the retina is structured exactly as one would expect: the light-sensitive receptors face forward, toward the lens, and the nerve fibers that join to form the optic nerve exit in the back.

In the human eye, however, the retina is structured in a very surprising way that is exactly the reverse. The receptors face ''backwards,'' and not only the nerve fibers that collect to form the optic nerve but also all of the blood vessels that nourish it are in ''front,'' where they block the view and cast shadows on the retina. The result is that the human eye has a large and seemingly unnecessary blind spot, and that very intricate processing by the brain is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels.

It all works, of course, but it is puzzling as to why an intelligent creator would design it this way, particularly given that the much older cephalopod eye does it the "right" way. No doubt it is ''possible'' to explain this (just as it is ''possible'' to explain fossils by saying that God created the fossils along with everything else in 4004 BC).

It seems much easier to explain this as a series of incremental adaptations rather than as being "designed" the way a human engineer would design a camera. Of course that does not mean that the incremental adaptations were necessarily guided by pure natural selection as envisioned by Darwin, either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:01, 18 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Reply''': I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

:: The fossil and geological record is entirely inconsistent with this belief. Even if everything was, against all other evidence to the contrary, laid down in a single flood event, how come not even a single Cambrian fossil floated up into what mainstream geologists think of as modern strata, or a dinosaur sunk down into the Cambrian strata? Why are fossils laid out in the column in a very particular nested pattern of change over time rather than sorted according to which bodies float best or worst? [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: '''Reply''': I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence '''for''' creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar?

::In fact, there ARE many different "evolutions" of eyes in the animal kingdom: many different sorts, in fact. However, the expectation that there would be many completely different types of eyes in one particular sub-branch that already started out having one particular SORT of eye is not what evolution would suggest, and isn't what we see. Common descent proposes descent via modification, not complete past-disregarding innovation. As such, we would expect that all mammal eyes would be nested variations of the same basic origin, and in fact that is exactly what we find. 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain <nowiki>[that]</nowiki> is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately '''designed'''. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST)

::It's certainly a point of view... but didn't you feel that you needed to work just a bit to arrive at it?

::Although it's certainly ''possible,'' I don't believe that God involves himself in the design details of vertebrate anatomy, and I certainly don't believe he goes to the effort of putting in deliberate design errors as a trick to test peoples' faith. I think a lot more likely that God created the general conditions under which evolution by natural selection takes place, and the "wrong" anatomy of the vertebrate retina is the result of the constraints of having evolved in gradual steps. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)

: '''Reply:''' There is nothing to indicate that the human eye is an "error"; it works wonderfully. Also under the belief that God is omnipotent, I have no trouble as you do in believing that God would design the details of vertebrate anatomy, especially in light of the arguments against evolution below (with the possible exception of argument #7). Why would he let life progress at random when he could create every thing "fearfully and wonderfully" to reflect his awesome greatness?

[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]

'''3''' There is a double nested hierarchy. That is, all life forms two nested hierarchies, one morphological and one genetic and these hierarchies correspond to how they evolved. While it is true that when designers as we know them design things they design them with similarities, they do not design them in nested hierarchies. Human designers will use an idea in one place and then copy that section over somewhere else. (For example, one would not expect an engineer to design the panda's thumb but rather expect the engineer use the pre-existing thumb design from primates). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:01, 13 February 2007 (EST)

[[User:stubbstarbuck]]

As with every evolution debate, most of the anti-evolution stance is misinformed about the theory of evolution to the point where many of their points aren't even counter to the theory of evolution, but to some unnamed proxy theory that no one, especially someone who knows anything about evolution, would accept.

I would suggest reading http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php to learn the basics.

But here are the major misconceptions.

1) Evolution is not a progressive process. No one has ever said that it is. It's a misinterpretation of a t-shirt that has a bunch of apes turning into humans on it. So many people get this wrong it's become a cliche. A bacteria species and a human are every bit as evolved as each other, each in their own niche. Even complexity is a relative term. An eyeball is as complex, in many ways, as a flagella, or even the digestive process of an amoeba.
2) Natural selection is not the only way genetic mutations can move through populations. Another process is genetic drift. Mutations that are not fatal or beneficial can become part of a genotype and stay there. Traits only need to beneficial or not too harmful to allow an individual to pass on its genes. Evolution does not have to work well; it just has to work. For example, the human back sucks for upright walking. No engineer would design it that way - but it works well enough that we don't die before having offspring.
3) Scientific theories are constantly revised, and they're used to explain natural phenomena, not "prove them right". Stop quoting Darwin, and try to understand science better. No physicist quotes Newton when discussing relativity and quantum mechanics, because his classical theories are actually wrong. They work well at slow speeds far away from massive black holes, but they don't appear to be correct in the sense that they explain everything physical. Literally they require fixed time and space which doesn't fit with observation, but we don't throw them out - they are revised, or used with exceptions.
4) Evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics. You don't understand thermodynamics if you think that. Energy is constantly added to our closed system (for all intents and purposes) by that big bright ball in the sky. However, you are right - when our sun burns out, we're all gone. But - the theory of evolution will still be valid.
5) Macroevolution is microevolution over a longer time scale. It is not a separate theory. I don't even know why they have different names. This is just a misconception of deep time. Let me help you. If you use a millimeter to represent one year, then life began on this planet the equivalent distance of a flight from Las Vegas to New York (2,000 miles). The last 10,000 years are equivalent to 10 meters (roughly a half a football field). The last hundred years take up 10 centimeters (about 5 inches). That's an incredibly long time for life to evolve into new species. Even Homo sapiens takes up almost 1/4 mile.
6) Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We both evolved from a similar species whose population split at some point, possibly more than once. See point 1 above.
7) Evolution and the biological species concept are more complex than the generalizations we use, which is probably where a lot of the confusion comes from. No respecting biologist would tell you there is a strict species definition; we only have guidelines. We have trouble defining individuals! For instance, is a Portuguese Man O' War an individual or a colony? What about a honey bee? The queen lays all the eggs by fertilizing with a drone that might even be her own progeny. They could all be the same genetically. Are twins individuals?
8) Accepting evolution does not preclude a belief in God. Sure, many people who accept evolution reject religion, or are even atheists, but this is separate from evolution. It doesn't even mention it.

==No==

If you have questions about Evolution/Creationism see the articles on this website [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/]

'''No'''

As a scientist, I can categorically state that the ''Theory of Macroevolution'' is not true. This is because '''there is no such theory'''. The Creationist division of evolutionary processes into ''micro'' and ''macro'' is false and disingenuous. What Creationists refer to as ''microevolution'' is merely the short-term expression of the exact process that results in speciation (which is the correct name for what Creationists term ''macroevolution'').

The fact that evolution has occured, has been happening for several billion years, and is still going on as you read this is irrefutable, except by fraud, forgery and lies. The honest scientific literature is full of examples. The driving forces behind evolution have also been clearly identified (external environment, internal environment, competition for resources, sexual preferences etc). The majority of the mechanisms involved have been identified. All that remains under debate are the precise details. Not whether evolution happened, not how long it takes to happen, and not why it happens - just the exact details of ''how'' it happened.

----

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution ''does not even qualify as a theory!!'' According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if '''''ANY''''' data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

:You need to actually cite some of this information, not just claim that there is some. The evidence is remarkably consistent with evolution, in fact, in a way known as evidential convergence. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

'''No'''
: 1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
::'''Counter:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Some transitional forms]
:::'''Counter:'''

:::All of these examples given in the above about the evolution of the whale are nonsense:

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus Pakicetus] -- What makes this a "link"? It was nothing but a land mammal gone extinct.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus Ambulocetus] -- The reason given that this is a link is complete nonsense. It resembles a whale??? Most trees resemble eachother, they all have a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. Does this mean that all trees are somehow missing links between each other?

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon Dorudon] -- I guess Wikipedia supposes this is a missing link because it uses sonar??? Same as example above.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus Basilosaurus] -- Another extinct species called a link because it "resembles" a whale.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurhinodelphis Eurhinodelphis] -- No reason given that is may be a missing link.

:::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalodon Mammalodon colliveri] -- The article just makes an unsupported statement. I would consider this article for deletion (no notability).

:::[[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)

:::: '''Counter''' This may be an example of where going to specialized sources rather than relying on Wikipedia would be in order. However, some of these do in fact make clear why they are considered transitionals. For example, Pakicetus (as discussed in the Wikipedia article) had an inner ear structure that was very cetacean.(Not mentioned in the article but also relevant, Pakicetus had teeth that were very similar to some of the later transitionals in this list although not quite of the standard cetacean form) Proceeding, ambulectus had a bone structure consistent with something which spent time both walking and swimming and bears some similarities to Pakicetus. Basilosaurus looks almost like a modern whale except for the vestigial limbs. I'm not going to go into the others in detail but that should make it clear that there is good reason to see these as transitionals. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:49, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::'''Additional Counter''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/Why_there_are_no_transitional_fossils Why the are no transitional fossils].

: 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!
:: Darwin was just speculating, and said so, and it hardly matters whether he was right or not anyway. As it happens though, he wasn't all that far off regardless: whales and dolphins are indeed descendants of land mammals (their closest living genetic relative is the hippo). All dolphins and whales form embryonically, just like other mammals, in such a way that "leg buds" appear on the embryo. However, in their case, these legs are later reabsorbed again. However, this process is not always perfect: some whales have even been discovered with atavisms of hind legs, legs attached, amazingly, to the remnants of their vestigial pelvis. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: 3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.
::And what evidence would that be?

: 4. All mutations are harmful.
::'''Counter''' This is a false argument. Firstly, it is estimated 1/3 of point mutations (mutations affecting one link in the DNA and no others) are not harmful. Secondly, though the number is small, there are documented cases of mutations being beneficial - an example is sickle cell anemia. This mutation is a flaw in the hemoglobin gene of humans, causing these molecules to covalently bond into long, bristly fibers inside the red blood cell that distort them into a sickle cell shape. This mutation makes sickle cell individuals immune to malaria, and many of the people residing in countries where this disease is prevalent have this mutation. The people affected by this mutation have lived and multiplied, thereby disproving this myth. Also see Counter argument to #5. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' Phyllis, I don't know where you got your information on sickle cell anemia but it was certainly a biased source. You have not given the full story; 25% of those with sickle cell anemia die prematurely! '''''This is not a good mutation.''''' As the closest thing to a good mutation that evolutionists can come up with this is not supportive of evolution at all.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Benjamin please use statistics meaningfully. For your 25% to have significance you would need to compare it to the premature death rate of people without this mutation. You would also have to carefully define premature and look at the populations that have the mutation (if they are a population succeptible to malaria then they probably have poor living conditions). Also can you site a source for the 25%? -- [[User:Chris F|Chris F]]

'''Further Reply:''' Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations. Simple probability predicts this: a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form. The odds are overwhelming. It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places. If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place? That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes? Of course not. It never happens.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

::I don't see how you can claim that it is overall harmful. It confers immunity to a highly destructive disease to the majority of the population that has the trait. The price of the acute disorder is not a bar to it being an overall benefit for a population, especially since even those sufferers often live long enough to reproduce. Beneficial and detrimental are generally contextual and environmental, not absolute. The recent mutation (we was tracked back to a single man in Italy) that causes immunity to LDH cholesterol (and thus to many forms of heart disease caused by fatty modern diets) is certainly beneficial in modern society. Tetrachromatism in women (four color vision) is likewise a very neat mutational development, but it's not clear that it confers any selective advantage. In a different environment it might be beneficial or even detrimental for some reason.07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:''' Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Comment:''' You should try to bear with Mr. Schlafly's abstract analogies (I know that they rarely make sense) and respond to his points that are doing you any harm; e.g. "Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations."

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

*This is not '''exactly''' a counter to [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. But... Darwin was writing in the days when breeders were starting to do amazing things with selective breeding, which was one of the things that impressed him. Selective breeding is still going on and it is still amazing. In 1910 the average domesticated chickens laid 80 eggs a year; by 1999 292 eggs a year. There are similar stories for milk production per cow, meat per chicken, etc. Some of the improvement is due to changes in feed, antibiotics, hormones, whatever, but most of it is from selective breeding. So the question I would ask is: if all mutations are harmful, then where do breeders find the slightly improved animals to select as the progenitors of the next generation? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 22 January 2007 (EST)

: The vast majority of mutations are neutral or have no observable phenotypic change. Furthermore, of those mutations which are not in those categories, for most mutations whether or not the mutation is beneficial is highly connected to the environment which the relevant organism is found (sickle-cell anemia provides a vivid demonstration of this). However, other examples which are more directly beneficial. For example, many bacteria have gained mutations for immunity to various antibiotics, while other bacteria have gained mutations that allow them to eat nylon (a purely synthetic material). A more prosaic example is lactose tolerance. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:43, 6 February 2007 (EST)

: 5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
::'''Counter''' This is not true. For example, through a specific type of sympatric speciation, new species of plants are able to form and have formed in abundance. It occurs from meiosis not occuring properly in the production of gametes. These "mutant" offspring are a new species and cannot produce offspring with the species they came from, yet can produce fertile offspring with other plants that were mutated the same way. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism '''''gaining''''' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)
:Nonsense. There is only one precise measure of information, and that is Shannon information. By that metric, virtually any change at all to an organism is an increase in genetic information. If that's not what you meant by information, however, then there are other ways to frame the question, and countless observed cases for every one. In fact, if say you accept microevolution then I'm sorry to say that you by definition accept that genetic information can increase. Anytime a gene pool is skewed via natural selection to alter the frequency of alleles in some adaptive way, the gene pool is clearly _gaining_ information about the particular environment it is in!

'''Further reply:''' Right. The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)
:'''Further reply:''' The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]
::'''Comment:''' I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only ''lose'' genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the ''gain'' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)
::'''Comment:''' Evolution does not imply that the species or population gets "better" or improves. Evolution only means that change occurs. Furthermore, if a mutation occurs in a non-coding region, and the cell thereby gets the ability to do something new, would that not be a mutation that causes the "gain" of genetic information? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: 6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
::'''Counter''' Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrassing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A '''closed''' system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.
::::'''Comment on "closed system":''' So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun. Where does the Sun get its energy? What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away? Molecules are ''still'' breaking down within the Sun. No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics. [[User:David R|David R]]

:::::'''Further comment:''' That's right, David. By the way, the injection of energy into a system ''increases'' entropy. The only way to decrease entropy is intelligent ordering or intervention. Without that, entropy and disorder always increase. Whatever species existed 5000 years ago, in the absence of divine intervention there must be less ordered, less advanced, fewer species today. We see many examples of this: species go extinct each year, breeds of dogs degrade (e.g., Golden Retriever), even humans have increased incidence of asthma and other health problems from generation to generation. Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today. Entropy predicts degradation of everything over time in the absence of intelligent intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)
::::::The injection of energy into a system increases enthalpy, not entropy, Aschlafly. DNA, proteins, and other highly-ordered macromolecules stay together not because of intelligent intervention, but because of enthalpic contributions that offset the entropic cost. Also, you state that "Entropy predicts degradation... in the absence of intelligent intervention", just after you comment that everything is degrading. Wouldn't that imply, then, the absence of intelligent intervention?
::'''Counter:'''"All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time." This is just false. We know living things become more complex and organized over time, because we can see it happening, e.g. a seed growing into a tree.

: 7. There is vast beauty in the world which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1)
::'''Counter''' This is an irrelevant argument. What evidence exists to say that evolution cannot produce beauty? Besides that, what is the definition of beauty? Beauty can be a life form adapted to its environment, beauty can be a beneficial mutation, beauty can be monomers spontaneously forming polymers when dripped on hot clay...all examples of evolution. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

:::This argument "against" evolution is terrible! Though evolution is false this isn't why. Unfortunately for evolutionists everywhere your counter argument does no better supporting evolution than the first one did disproving it.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Brilliant autumn foliage is beautiful. You won't find anyone who sincerely denies it, exact perhaps the most hardened evolutionist. But it is impossible for the beauty in brilliant autumn foliage to have evolved before humans even existed.

:::: Evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature. Over 99% of Americans think there is beauty in nature. Take your pick. Count me as part of the over 99% majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)

:::::I don't think "evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature." Where did you get that? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm curious to know. Do creationists go around saying such a thing?) Stephen Jay Gould wrote "Shall we appreciate any less the beauty of nature because its harmony is unplanned?" Darwin wrote
::::::"The view seen when crossing the hills behind Praia Grande was most beautiful; the colours were intense, and the prevailing tint a dark blue; the sky and the calm waters of the bay vied with each other in splendour;" "The number of beautiful fishing birds, such as egrets and cranes, and the succulent plants assuming most fantastical forms, gave to the scene an interest which it would not otherwise have possessed." "The beautiful view of the distant wooded hills, reflected in the perfectly calm water of an extensive lagoon, quite refreshed us." etc. etc. etc.
:::::Maybe you think that evolutionists must seal their minds into logic-tight compartments in order to appreciate the beauty of nature while at the same time trying to explain it from natural causes, but they do it nonetheless. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

: 8. Abiogenesis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
::'''Counter''' Regardless if it's possible or not, it's not an argument against macroevolution.
::'''Counter''' You don't know that it's impossible. No one knows what the simplest life form is, but pretending that abiogenesis concerns the simplest MODERN life (i.e. a modern cell) is nonsense: that's not what's being suggested at all. Besides, talking about stacking chemical reactions that observably naturally occur is not "springing from nothing."[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 23:49, 20 February 2007 (EST)

'''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>
:So wait, you are citing as your most recent survey of the fossil evidence something written in the '''1800s'''??? It's also more than a little dishonest to quote someone introducing a problem and then pretend that they didn't, as Darwin did, go on to answer the objection at great length. Finally, there are also no such things as "missing links" in a biological sense: this is a misconception. We will never have a fossil of every single species, let alone individual, that ever lived. And we don't need to. The fossils we do have are already more than enough to map out the overall picture and general relations of species, and all these fossils are consistent with the very specific pattern of geologic and geographic distribution that common descent demands of them. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

:: ''''Counter''' The above claims are simply false. We have hundreds of major transitional fossils(which is what I presume you mean by "missing link") between a variety of different groups. Examples include Australopithecus as transitional between humans ape like ancestors and humans, hasiophis terrasanctus (sp?) a transitional snake with hind limbs and many others. Name almost any major grouping and we will have transitional fossils between the various groups. For some groups we have very detailed transitional sequences. For example, between fish and tetrapods is a particularly good example, and the transitions between land mammals and whales have become well developed over the last 20 years. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: 9. The "Anthro-Simianic Paradox" -- If great apes evolved into humans, why are there still great apes? The inherent inconsistency in the pro-Darwinistical position can be verified scientifically, using the foam dinosaurs that grow larger in water. Place a package of tiny foam dinosaurs (representing apes) into a sink (representing evolution). All the dinosaurs will grow to giant proportions (representing humans) and no tiny foam dinosaurs will be left. Clearly, scientists must examine alternate hypotheses for the evolution of giant foam dinosaurs (human beings).

:: I'm presuming this is a parody. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Evolution is a Racist Philosophy ==

*"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178)."

*"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): 129.)" -evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn

::Is a comment from a book written at a time when racism was commonplace at all relevant? If this site wants to become at all credible, quotes taken both out of context and out of the social situation in which they are written should be removed. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

*The full title of Darwin's book is ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''
**It's worth noting though that "races" in the title refers to kinds of animals: it's never used to refer to people and in fact the book never mentions human beings at all until the very end, and then only briefly. It's rather dishonest to try and imply that this particular book says anything about human races.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:44, 20 February 2007 (EST)

*Hitler's atrocities were based on evolutionary philosophy.

::Evolution has certainly been used by racists in support of their views. Racists have used many things, including Christianity, in support of their views. Think of the burning crosses of the Ku Klux Klan.

::And, yes, Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day... which was the time when the British Empire was busily colonizing places inhabited by dark-skinned people. You would have been hard-pressed to find many people in Darwin's England who were ''not'' racists, by today's standards.

::I think the point being raised here is an appropriate one to raise. But I think "evolution is a racist philosophy" is an exaggeration. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:36, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::Christianity is not racist at its core, yet it is made to seem racist by some. Jesus came to save all, not just more "advanced races." Evolution '''is''' racist at its core, yet it is made to seem like it's not. Dpbsmith, you say that "Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day," this is true, but what does that have to do with he argument? Are you saying that racism influenced him when he came up with evolution, in the way that he uses evolution to support racism? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::1) I'm acknowledging that the quotation from Darwin ''can'' fairly be described as racist. 2) I'm saying that many evil things are done in the name of many causes, and that people who do evil things will usually find a way to justify them. 3) I'm saying that I think more people have been killed by people claiming to be acting in the name of Jesus than by people claiming to be acting in the name of Darwin.

:::It is sometimes difficult to believe just how prevasive racism was from, perhaps, the mid-1800s through the mid-1900s. When The New York Times reviewed Longfellow's ''Song of Hiawatha'' in 1855, the reviewer said that Longfellow had "embalm[ed] pleasantly enough the monstrous traditions of an uninteresting, and, one may almost say, a justly exterminated race." That doesn't excuse Darwin. But it does put it into context. I think I agree with you to the extent that Darwin said things that can be fairly called "racist" and that Jesus did not. I don't agree that that makes evolution "racist at the core." OK, I think I've made my point clearly enough... I'll leave you to get in the last word if you like. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:26, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Also note that racism on Darwin's part in no way matters for whether the modern theory of evolution is either racist or correct. First, in general, the truth or falsity of any idea is independent of who it came from (if Darwin were a serial killer who liked to steal candy from babies it would not change the validity of his ideas in the slightest (if you don't believe me, perform the same thought experiment with [[Newton]] or [[Josiah Willard Gibbs]])). Second, the modern neo-synthesis is far removed from Darwin's original notions. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:34, 6 February 2007 (EST)

:::: As a matter of fact, Darwin's attitudes on race were far more enlightened than most of his religious critics. Darwin was a dedicated and outspoken abolitionist, and advocate of rights for African Americans, and he argues in his works that African Americans and Europeans are actually far MORE ALIKE than most people thought at the time. Don't forget that the religious beliefs of his day were that either black people had been specially created separately from white people, or that they were a severely decayed form of white people. Darwin argued instead that all races were of very recent common origin. It's no co-incidence that millenia of racism collapsed almost overnight after the biological revolution that Darwin sparked showed that race is a relatively minor and confused factor.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==The Scientific Method==
As I am being taught in biology at Middle Tennessee State University, the '''Scientific Method''' is that which is applied by scientists in the following order:
*'''Observation'''. The scientist observes the phenomena.
*'''Hypothesis'''. The scientist makes an educated guess as to the reason(s) for the phenomena.
*'''Experimentation'''. The scientist does a series of experiments to test whether the hypothesis is correct.
*'''Conclusion'''. The scientist's results from the experiment. If the hypothesis is proven to be wrong as a result, it is rejected. If proven right, the hypothesis is upgraded to a '''theory'''.

Now, with regard to evolution, there is a massive failure of the scientific method as used to support evolution. The scientist cannot use observation when he assumes animal A evolved into animal B; the scientist needs to see that happen, otherwise everything else collapses.

I think the Scientific Method can be successfully exploited in the [[evolution]] article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:Counter - Direct observation is not required for something to be scientifically valid. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::So, what you just said was that a scientist need not observe the fish turning into the frog, that we are to take his word for it that it happened. Is that your statement? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, we don't need to observe a phenomenon directly to draw conclusions about it. If you come home to find your window broken, with shards of glass all over your living room carpet, and a brick sitting right in the middle of it all, you can infer what happened by observing the aftermath. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Galileo did not "see" the Earth moving around the Sun; he only saw evidence that it did. Then he hypothesized that the Earth circled the Sun, and not vice versa. Does the fact that Galileo did not personally observe the rotation of the earth mean that his hypothesis is invalid? [[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 15:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Galileo observed the motion of the planets, and hypothesised that all the planets revolved around the sun. This fact was proven later by direct observation. And we can all draw conclusions about the window by demonstrating via an experiment the same thing. But you're still assuming animal-A evolved into animal-B without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up. Again, you're relying on the scientist's word that this happened. If animal-A evolved into animal-B, I want to see proof of such demonstrated; I don't want to rely on someone else's word because they said so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do you believe in germs? Do you need to understand the optical system of a microscope in order to believe in the existence of germs? The claim that is made is not that we evolved from chimpanzees, but rather that chimpanzees and humans had a common ancestor (that was neither human nor chimpanzee). There is a significant amount of evidence of this (that I am sure some here will dispute) from commonality of DNA structures to prehistoric hominids that exhibited characteristics of each modern species. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Nucular weapons

2007-03-06T20:50:48Z

Stubbstarbuck:

I sure hope this is a joke. Really? Nucular?

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

2007-03-06T20:03:14Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* '''no...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

==='''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.

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.

"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.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice.

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

2007-03-06T20:02:45Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* '''no...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

==='''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.

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.

"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.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice.

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

2007-03-06T20:02:07Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* '''no...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

==='''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.

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.

"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.

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.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice.

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

2007-02-27T05:29:24Z

Stubbstarbuck: /* '''no...''' */

Talk:Cactus

2007-02-27T05:08:02Z

Stubbstarbuck:

The article about cacti is woefully inadequate, not to mention pathetically biased. A cursoy web search found the following about the etymology of Opuntia, which has an uncertain origin. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=OPUNT

"The genus name Opuntia is Botanical Latin, in scientific use since 1754, from Opos, the name of an ancient Greek village in Locria on the coast of Euboea. It was Opos, Opountis in Greek, noted for some spiny plant, but not our prickly pear cactus."

"Opuntia: a Greek name used by Pliny for a different plant which grew around the town of Opus in Greece (ref. genus Opuntia)"

"In 1700, Tournefort named opuntias Opuntia, because of their similarity to a thorny plant that grew in the town of Opus, Greece (Velázquez, 1998)."

" The succulent, ever-fresh cladodes were certainly a novelty to late fifteenth century and later Europeans and were widely included in ships’ stores as insurance against scurvy. This practice is thought to have contributed greatly to the present naturalized range of Opuntia ficus-indica throughout arid and semi-arid habitats of the world. This widespread propagation (intended and unintended) throughout the Mediterranean obscured the geographic origins of this species; many early European botanists regarded this cactus to be native, as reflected in Cactus opuntia (i.e., spiny plant from near Opus, Greece). "

There's plenty more. It's called "research". Try it. S'fun.

"there is very little biological or genetic research on cacti because such research..."

You didn't look for any research, did you? That's okay. I understand. It's hard. I know. Takes effort.

"Because of this, the early Catholic missionaries in the west thought the plants to be the work of Satan, and this is perhaps a preferable view to that of materialistic evolution since it is difficult to imagine how something like mescaline could have evolved by natural selection. Besides that, the psychoactive content of many cacti have inspired the writings of such ungodly men as Aldous Huxley and Albert Hoffman."

What does the second sentence have to do with the first? And you honestly, in the 21st century, think Satan, a made up demi-god, has some hand in "deceiving people"? If evidence doesn't fit your preconceived notions, it's because of Satan? And you wonder why no one takes (some) conservatives seriously. You're not helping your stereotype.

And this, well...really, if you want to be sarcastic, do it somewhere else. Encyclopedia. Start a blog if you want to look like a fool.

"But, since Genesis suggests that man has been given dominion over all of the earth, the environmentalist concerns on this note are entirely inappropriate. It may also be that environmentalists, in addition to flauting the Word of God, are merely concerned about the effects that declining cactus populations will have on their supply of mescaline."

Right. So if I want to protect the environment so our species continues to exist, I'm doing so to support my drug habit? And, dominion or no, if we destroy the environment, which we need to survive, then we won't be around to have dominion over anything. So, it's in our interest to protect the environment. Who the hell else are we trying the protect the environment for?

"A cursory glance suggests that it is very nearly impossible that these two distinct species of cactus share a common ancestor, as so many materialists maintain. What's more, the transition from one of these species to the other by evolutionary forces would require the purchasing of complex specified information without the intervention of intelligence and this, by William Dembski's No Free Lunch Theorem is impossible."

What? Actually, if I showed these to pictures to someone who had never seen a cactus, the first thing they would notice is that they are morphologically similar, and if they did an rRNA analysis, would find them statistically similar. Not to mention, they're in the same GENUS. Take a $%*#@4 botany class, you git!

"It could also be mentioned that Intelligent Design is possibly demonstrated in the great Saguaro cactus of the Sonoran Desert. These cactus are very slowly maturing and require a great deal of energy, have little cold tolerance, and are prone to destruction by pests. This is hardly the optimal configuration predicted by Darwinism, and presents quite a problem to the materialist point of view. On the other hand, the natives believe that the Saguaro are the incarnations of their ancestors. Because Intelligent Design endows the required designer with no attributes other than intelligence (it need only be an intelligent agent), the view that the giant Saguaro are reincarnated ancestors of the native population is a preferable scientific explanation to that of Darwinian evolution."

Okay, how about some evidence to back up your claim? A source? Anything other than your own conjecture? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia afterall. You obviously don't actually understand evolution, since you somehow believe that evolution is progressive, should create perfection, and works rigidly according to the environment a living thing happens to find itself in. Newsflash. That's no one's Theory of Evolution. Here's a tip - evolution doesn't have to work well; it just has to work. But I won't go into it. There are PLENTY of resources (an entire scientific field) devoted to it. Anyway, your whole article on cacti is a thinly veiled (and poorly executed) critique on evolution and, somehow, though I don't know what it has to do with cacti, anti-religious people. Fine. You've succeeded in looking uneducated. Not stupid - since I imagine you COULD understand these things if you wanted to, but you probably won't bother to look for any information that is counter to your beliefs. Geez our American education system sucks.