Science under attack in Texas

[Againsheila]

I never tell anyone they can't have their religious views compatible with science. I try focus criticism on letting ideology (religious, political, or otherwise) trump scientific facts. I happen to not believe the bible, but it wasn't always the case, so I understand the arguments for compatibility and many of the creationist arguments that try to discredit science. That is the behavior that really frustrates me- When someone claims absolute certainty, with a conclusion based in their belief, and then tries to shoe-horn the facts into conforming with their ideas. I haven't seen you do that, but many do. A survey a couple of years ago suggested that as much as 40% of the U.S. population believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's sad, really.

One last thing, and I don't mean this negatively, but it seems you were taught a common misconception. I actually had science teachers who taught me this as well, before I discovered that actual scientists think it is silly and wrong. I'm referring to the hypothesis-theory-Law chain of progression. Hypothesis gets some confirmation it becomes a theory. A theory gets complete confirmation it becomes a law. This whole idea is incorrect. Real scientists use the word theory to mean a broad explanation that covers a wide range of related natural phenomena. If a theory is accepted by general scientific consensus, then it is regarded as accurate as any fact in science. That is why scientists nearly have a stroke when they hear people criticize evolution as "only a theory". I don't think they realized how widespread the popular misconception of scientific theories is.

Um, I know actual scientists, one of my best friends is one. It's not a misconception, it's fact. Hypothesis, theory, law.....that's the way it goes. It's that way in Math too. A theory does have facts to support it, just not enough to make it law. Evolution is a theory, Gravity is law. Get it?

The problem is that since the 70's, public schools have been so out against Christian/Judeo beliefs that they teach evolution as fact more as an attack against Judeo/Christian beliefs than as science. So anyone that calls it a theory, which is what it is, is immediately attacked, as seen in this thread previously. I would rather they teach it as a theory and encourage those future scientists to go out and prove it.

They haven't yet found all the links...I want to know where we came from, why Caucasians are the way they are, why do Negros (and just so you know, I use the word negro here because when I was in school there were 3 races, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. You could be black AND Caucasian, believe it or not. Blacks that have the flat nose and big lips are Negroid the others are Caucasoid, it's not meant as an insult to anyone) have an extra tendon, why do Asians have slanted eyes? Evolution could explain it...but it doesn't yet.

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

By the way, addressing the 3 "races" is silly. Genetically, there is only the human race. Recent studies have shown that there is greater genetic variation within groups than between groups. In other words, there is likely to be greater difference genetically between two scandanavian individuals than between a scandanavian and a north african. Race is a social classification created by humans, not a true classification created by nature.

And the fact that you would believe an urban legend like the "extra tendon" myth but still find evolution questionable despite fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and thousands of scientific papers along with statements from the most prestigious scientific organizations in America, makes your objectivity seem questionable. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your approach if you are interested in honestly considering the matter.

As far as the definition of a theory, I provided you with a statement from the most prestigious scientific organiztion in America ( NAS) and the largest scientific organiztion in America (AAAS) which both clearly state the power of a scientific theory. Without a theory, all the facts in science are like an unorganzied stamp collection.

"Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." ~Henri Poincaré

Theories tie facts together. Calling it a theory in no way implies it is questionable as true, at least no more than any other theory is true.

<<

Gee, you mean my sister the nurse, married to the black man is wrong? I'll have to tell her that.

 

[YWN666]

Um, I know actual scientists, one of my best friends is one. It's not a misconception, it's fact. Hypothesis, theory, law.....that's the way it goes. It's that way in Math too. A theory does have facts to support it, just not enough to make it law. Evolution is a theory, Gravity is law. Get it?

The problem is that since the 70's, public schools have been so out against Christian/Judeo beliefs that they teach evolution as fact more as an attack against Judeo/Christian beliefs than as science. So anyone that calls it a theory, which is what it is, is immediately attacked, as seen in this thread previously. I would rather they teach it as a theory and encourage those future scientists to go out and prove it.

They haven't yet found all the links...I want to know where we came from, why Caucasians are the way they are, why do Negros (and just so you know, I use the word negro here because when I was in school there were 3 races, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. You could be black AND Caucasian, believe it or not. Blacks that have the flat nose and big lips are Negroid the others are Caucasoid, it's not meant as an insult to anyone) have an extra tendon, why do Asians have slanted eyes? Evolution could explain it...but it doesn't yet.

OH, and call me crazy, but I don't think it's beyond possibility that we could have come from outer space, at least some of us. I wish we could make a television that could look into the past and we could tune into whenever we want and actually see history and/or science as it happens.

By the way, addressing the 3 "races" is silly. Genetically, there is only the human race. Recent studies have shown that there is greater genetic variation within groups than between groups. In other words, there is likely to be greater difference genetically between two scandanavian individuals than between a scandanavian and a north african. Race is a social classification created by humans, not a true classification created by nature.

And the fact that you would believe an urban legend like the "extra tendon" myth but still find evolution questionable despite fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and thousands of scientific papers along with statements from the most prestigious scientific organizations in America, makes your objectivity seem questionable. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your approach if you are interested in honestly considering the matter.

As far as the definition of a theory, I provided you with a statement from the most prestigious scientific organiztion in America ( NAS) and the largest scientific organiztion in America (AAAS) which both clearly state the power of a scientific theory. Without a theory, all the facts in science are like an unorganzied stamp collection.

"Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." ~Henri Poincaré

Theories tie facts together. Calling it a theory in no way implies it is questionable as true, at least no more than any other theory is true.

<<

Gee, you mean my sister the nurse, married to the black man is wrong? I'll have to tell her that.

The research I did online says it is false.

 

[N4mddissent]

Gee, you mean my sister the nurse, married to the black man is wrong? I'll have to tell her that.

If she believes in the "extra tendon" idea, then yes, she's wrong and please inform her that she is. It's a shame if our nursing education has fallen to this level.

 

[JohnStOnge]

In science, a theory is something that is extremely well-supported, not a mere conjecture as theory is used in lay terms. There is no such thing as scientific fact (dogma), so a theory is actually the highest status that can be achieved.

I'm not blaming you because I see it all the time but I think that is a misleading argument. I think it is a red herring used to divert attention from the fact that a theory is not established with the highest level of certainty. There are things that are, as a practical matter, scientific facts. The highest level of certainty is represented by things that can be established as...yes, fact... through reproducible experimentation. For example: We can predict very exactly that H2O will assume solid form at a given temperature and pressure. We can do controlled experiments to validate the prediction. We can do it over and over again and we will get the same result every time. It is known to be a fact.

The overall theory of evolution, as defined by the idea that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry, has not been validated to anything near that level of certainty. It is not known to be a fact. It is the most plausible explanation proposed for what's been observed. And it has not achieved the highest "status" in terms of certainty level. Not even close.

 

[KittenKoder]

The overall theory of evolution, as defined by the idea that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry, has not been validated to anything near that level of certainty. It is not known to be a fact. It is the most plausible explanation proposed for what's been observed. And it has not achieved the highest "status" in terms of certainty level. Not even close.

Wow ... talk about misinformed. None of evolutions theories say that all life came from the same original life form ... just that it all started from the same "basic" lifeforms. Until every track can be traced back to the beginning it will be impossible to tell what came from exactly what, that's why the theories based on evolutionary science are unprovable. Sorry, but you know less about evolution than even an infant.

 

[N4mddissent]

In science, a theory is something that is extremely well-supported, not a mere conjecture as theory is used in lay terms. There is no such thing as scientific fact (dogma), so a theory is actually the highest status that can be achieved.

I'm not blaming you because I see it all the time but I think that is a misleading argument. I think it is a red herring used to divert attention from the fact that a theory is not established with the highest level of certainty. There are things that are, as a practical matter, scientific facts. The highest level of certainty is represented by things that can be established as...yes, fact... through reproducible experimentation. For example: We can predict very exactly that H2O will assume solid form at a given temperature and pressure. We can do controlled experiments to validate the prediction. We can do it over and over again and we will get the same result every time. It is known to be a fact.

The overall theory of evolution, as defined by the idea that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry, has not been validated to anything near that level of certainty. It is not known to be a fact. It is the most plausible explanation proposed for what's been observed. And it has not achieved the highest "status" in terms of certainty level. Not even close.

Please read all my posts on this thread and if you disagree then give specifics that you disagree with. Comparing theories and facts are apples and oranges. Theories are inclusive of and supported by facts and hypotheses. A better comparison would be to look at the facts supporting evolution. Mutation occurs in DNA. Expressed mutations may be acted upon by selective forces, including natural selection. These facts are as certain as Water turning to ice at certain temperature and pressure. (Of course, that's not even guaranteed given the uncertainty inherent in quantum mechanics). If you don't mind please give me an alternate explanation (other than common ancestry) for the common ERV insertions shared between humans and chimps.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Wow ... talk about misinformed. None of evolutions theories say that all life came from the same original life form ... just that it all started from the same "basic" lifeforms. Until every track can be traced back to the beginning it will be impossible to tell what came from exactly what, that's why the theories based on evolutionary science are unprovable. Sorry, but you know less about evolution than even an infant.

Kitten, I was just using the terminology used in the article linked at the beginning of the thread. If I were to describe the overall theory of evolution myself I'd focus on the idea that everything we see started with single celled organisms. For instance: Today's Blue whales have single celled organisms as ancestors.

 

[JohnStOnge]

These facts are as certain as Water turning to ice at certain temperature and pressure. (Of course, that's not even guaranteed given the uncertainty inherent in quantum mechanics). .

Do you really believe that statement about "that's not even guaranteed?" Seriously. Do you really believe that? Let's say I predict that if I put an 8 oz. glass of distilled water in a controlled environment at -10 C for 24 hours at 14 PSI atmospheric pressure it will be ice by the end of the 24 hours. Would you care to bet as to whether I'll be right or not?

 

[JohnStOnge]

[ A better comparison would be to look at the facts supporting evolution. Mutation occurs in DNA. Expressed mutations may be acted upon by selective forces, including natural selection. .

I think there is a need to draw a distinction between the certainty associated with the idea that "evolution" occurs and that associated with the overall theory. There is no doubt that populations change and/or that mutation and natural selection are factors.

But the overall theory of evolution holds that, for example, those processes have resulted in such things as having todays population of Blue Whales develop at some level from populations of single celled organisms.

The idea that such a thing is established with a level of certainty that is the highest level achievable in science is ridiculous. And that's the idea people are trying to promote when they start this stuff about nothing being 100% certain. That's balderdash.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wow ... talk about misinformed. None of evolutions theories say that all life came from the same original life form ... just that it all started from the same "basic" lifeforms. Until every track can be traced back to the beginning it will be impossible to tell what came from exactly what, that's why the theories based on evolutionary science are unprovable. Sorry, but you know less about evolution than even an infant.

Kitten, I was just using the terminology used in the article linked at the beginning of the thread. If I were to describe the overall theory of evolution myself I'd focus on the idea that everything we see started with single celled organisms. For instance: Today's Blue whales have single celled organisms as ancestors.

Okay ... even with that correction ... what is so hard to think that all complex life forms we see now started from single cells? We start from single cells when born ... we know virus' and other smaller life forms evolve and mutate at drastic speeds, we can even observe several generations and species evolving within months in virus' ... it's not that difficult (even without the scientific proof) to see them evolving to compete with each other if no other food source is available ... they would have to grow in size to compete. The only reason it doesn't happen as often now is because ... well ... there's nothing for them to compete for anymore. Plenty of food for virus' to go around, so their mutations are now to maintain their existence against a new opponent, the immune system. Seriously ... think beyond myths and legends .. think beyond a worthless book ... and start expanding your mind before you debate something, or at least learn more about it.

 

[N4mddissent]

Do you really believe that statement about "that's not even guaranteed?" Seriously. Do you really believe that? Let's say I predict that if I put an 8 oz. glass of distilled water in a controlled environment at -10 C for 24 hours at 14 PSI atmospheric pressure it will be ice by the end of the 24 hours. Would you care to bet as to whether I'll be right or not?

I think there is a need to draw a distinction between the certainty associated with the idea that "evolution" occurs and that associated with the overall theory. There is no doubt that populations change and/or that mutation and natural selection are factors.

I agree, and that distinction is why I said it was apples and oranges. Since the effect of heat and pressure on the water's liquidity is not a comprehensive theory in and of itself, then it was inappropriate to compare it to a comprehensive theory like evolution. Facts that support evolution, like population change and natural selection are more analgous to your example.

But the overall theory of evolution holds that, for example, those processes have resulted in such things as having todays population of Blue Whales develop at some level from populations of single celled organisms.

Within the Theory of Evolution is the hypothesis of common ancestry, a hypothesis that I believe is accepted by nearly all biologists. I think it is considered more central today than in the past since evidence seems to point that direction, but it is in no means the core of evolutionary theory. Your focus on that aspect seems out of proportion to its role in evolutionary theory. Darwin posited that a single or a few ancestors were at the origins of life, if I remember correctly. The core of evolutionary theory is what you have accepted which I quoted above, "There is no doubt that populations change and/or that mutation and natural selection are factors."

Since you seem to find common ancestry incredulous (though you do not say so directly, it seems implied. Correct me if this is not accurate), I would like to ask if you accept that population change and natural selection can lead to speciation in general. Also, more specifically, do you accept that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? It is pointless to debate larger generalized points of ancestry if we cannot reach agreement on this most demonstrable point of common ancestry. Which also brings me back to my request for an alternate explanation for ERV insertions- if you do not accept human/chimpanzee common ancestry. If you do, then the point is moot.

 

[Immanuel]

Most religions were written during times when "man" understood very little, and perhaps even contributed to our continued ignorance. Religion wins at least partly because people believe ignorance is bliss. I am guessing and hoping religion will die someday, but not in my lifetime.

Ignorance will ALWAYS be part a humans make up. Or do you think we wil transcend humanity ? Science simply cannot explain everything and never will. The part that remains unknown is what religion speaks to.

Just because science doesn't yet have an answer to something doesn't mean the religious explanation is the default.

Okay, I can't resist this. Just because religion doesn't yet have an answer to something doesn't mean the scientific explanation is the default.

I believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created all life on Earth. I also believe that that same God created the natural laws that we all live by and that evolution (not abiogenesis) is one of those laws.

Human beings naturally seek answers to the unknown. Both religion and science seek to answer those questions and despite the perceived animosity between the two, they both work TOGETHER to provide answers to questions which only lead to more questions.

I don't understand why people on both sides can't accept the work that the other is doing or why they can't work together to explain the unknown.

The Theory of Evolution should be taught in schools along with its "flaws". The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions. Creationism and ID should not be taught as science because neither idea can be proven without "faith" and science is not built upon faith alone.

There is absolutely no need for the animosity between science and faith... in fact, science should be working to prove faith as "where does faith come from?" and "Does God exist?" are two questions unanswered by science.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

The very opening passage of the bible contradicts science. Genesis says that God created the earth in six days.

This will get me in trouble with my Pastor, but I disagree with you. The interpreted Word of God says that God created the Earth in six days. That is man's interpretation of what God said. There are some people who have tried to explain this passage as meaning six periods of time rather than six 24 hour periods.

I despise making the above argument because then one must ask, "what other parts of the Bible are misinterpreted". I must say that I can't answer that question... Paul's discussion of the role of a woman in a relationship or women as leaders of the church are two that I find myself questioning all the time, but then again, it is my interpretaion that is flawed not God's word.

Anyway, God wrote what he wrote and God is flawless, however, our interpretation of God's Word is not flawless. If it were, Christians would not need to hide their faces in shame whenever the Spanish Inqusition is discussed.

Immie

 

[N4mddissent]

Ignorance will ALWAYS be part a humans make up. Or do you think we wil transcend humanity ? Science simply cannot explain everything and never will. The part that remains unknown is what religion speaks to.

Just because science doesn't yet have an answer to something doesn't mean the religious explanation is the default.

Okay, I can't resist this. Just because religion doesn't yet have an answer to something doesn't mean the scientific explanation is the default.

I believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created all life on Earth. I also believe that that same God created the natural laws that we all live by and that evolution (not abiogenesis) is one of those laws.

Human beings naturally seek answers to the unknown. Both religion and science seek to answer those questions and despite the perceived animosity between the two, they both work TOGETHER to provide answers to questions which only lead to more questions.

I don't understand why people on both sides can't accept the work that the other is doing or why they can't work together to explain the unknown.

The Theory of Evolution should be taught in schools along with its "flaws". The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions. Creationism and ID should not be taught as science because neither idea can be proven without "faith" and science is not built upon faith alone.

There is absolutely no need for the animosity between science and faith... in fact, science should be working to prove faith as "where does faith come from?" and "Does God exist?" are two questions unanswered by science.

Immie

I was with you up until this, "The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions."

Science is an attempt to answer questions about the world from a naturalistic perspective. Religion is an attempt to answer questions from a supernatural perspective. You seem to understand this, but I fail to see why you would want to mention creation and ID in a science class at all? It is a silly can of worms to open.

Besides, scientific understanding of the world is productive. Let's face it. You can meditate for knowledge, you can pray for knowledge, but the fact that with few clicks right now I can do a google search which shows that science gets results. I'm not saying you should abandon your beliefs or students should be encouraged to abandon superstition in by their science teacher. But I definitely favor promoting scientific understanding of the world. And frankly, creationism and intelligent design would just make them more ignorant and confused. They are wrong scientifically. If they want to develop a hybrid view like you suggested outside the classroom, I feel is not contentious from an educational point of view and would not oppose it on those grounds. But those ideas are not ID and Creationism.

 

[Immanuel]

I was with you up until this, "The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions."

Science is an attempt to answer questions about the world from a naturalistic perspective. Religion is an attempt to answer questions from a supernatural perspective. You seem to understand this, but I fail to see why you would want to mention creation and ID in a science class at all? It is a silly can of worms to open.

My reasoning is simple. Any attempts to squash any discussion of any topic is censorship. Let the ideas be discussed openly and freely without judgment upon any of the participants. Don't hide the fact that there are differing points of views and don't make it seem as if a student who has been brought up believing that God created all life has no basis for his beliefs. Science is about the search for answers. That being the case, don't shun the questions.

Immie

 

[N4mddissent]

I was with you up until this, "The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions."

Science is an attempt to answer questions about the world from a naturalistic perspective. Religion is an attempt to answer questions from a supernatural perspective. You seem to understand this, but I fail to see why you would want to mention creation and ID in a science class at all? It is a silly can of worms to open.

My reasoning is simple. Any attempts to squash any discussion of any topic is censorship. Let the ideas be discussed openly and freely without judgment upon any of the participants. Don't hide the fact that there are differing points of views and don't make it seem as if a student who has been brought up believing that God created all life has no basis for his beliefs. Science is about the search for answers. That being the case, don't shun the questions.

Immie

I don't support censorship at all. It's a question of it being appropriate. A science class implies a certain type of material. It is a captive audience in a state supported institution. Science is neutral regarding religion. It is appropriate in a science classroom. Other beliefs founded in religious faith should not be presented to a captive audience in a state supported institution, especially under the guise of a science class. Science has an answer on ID. It's answer is that it's not science. A denial of common ancestry or evolution, is incorrect science. It may change at some point, but as it stands now, it is not correct scientifically.

I wouldn't hide the fact that there are other views. There are plenty of more appropriate avenues for that information to be expressed. I wouldn't go into a fundamentalist church and start demanding that let me tell them about evolution. Likely, they would kick me out- an option a captive audience does not have. Finally, by your logic, we should also mention astrology, geocentrism, and christian science rather than just focusing on astronomy, the heliocentric solar system, and germ theory in science. Perhaps we should also mention holocaust denial in history class. All of these are alternative ideas to the consensus position, and have their supporters. It would get ridiculous. Stick with the facts as determined by the experts in whatever field is appropriate. Teach them to think critically, but not by throwing up ridiculous ideas that are based in someone's religious belief or ideological slant as alternatives.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

My reasoning is simple. Any attempts to squash any discussion of any topic is censorship. Let the ideas be discussed openly and freely without judgment upon any of the participants. Don't hide the fact that there are differing points of views and don't make it seem as if a student who has been brought up believing that God created all life has no basis for his beliefs. Science is about the search for answers. That being the case, don't shun the questions.

Immie

There is no current law that states that students can't discuss anything to do with religion in class. There are only laws which make it so that teachers and school curriculum can't favor or teach religious principles or ideas.

Science can, without a reasonable logical doubt, show that intelligent design does not exist in current forms of life. If it did, then why do I have to wipe my ass? If I were intelligently designed, I wouldn't have to worry about wiping. The feces would just come out nice and clean. What about cancer? Hemorrhoids? Congenital birth defects? Near or far-sightedness? Sun burns? Tendonitis? And many, many other so-called design flaws? For an intelligent designer the creator sure did leave in a lot of bad designs!

And the vagueness and rationalizing that goes into saying that the Bible is true except that it isn't because human beings are flawed? What is that all about? The Bible says God created the world in six days, but that's a human mistake in the Bible? So where else are those mistakes made? If God created the world, why isn't it clearer that He did? Why is it that there is no mention of dinosaurs or other primate hominids, like the neandertals? Were neandertals the first attempt God made at homo sapiens?

If the student takes a class in religious studies it would be appropriate to discuss creationism or intelligent design as aspects of a religion. However, for the teacher to discuss creationism or intelligent design in a science class when there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting either hypotheses (which are supposedly educated guesses so calling creationism or intelligent design hypotheses is certainly a stretch) is simply unfounded, illegal with good reason, and unconstitutional. And, the only way to make it less unconstitutional (but still unconstitutional) is to teach all creation myths like those of native Americans, Australian aborigines, Hinduism, or any other religion. The state can't show favor to any one form of religion.

And let me just iterate: evolution is not a theory. Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution which is an observable, reproduceable scientific fact. If you don't think so, raise your hand so we know who doesn't believe in the fossil record, cancer, birth defects, domestication of animals, pure bred animals, seedless grapes and watermelons, modern corn instead of maize, grape, cherry, hot house, and heirloom tomatoes, and mixed-breed children, differences between individuals of the same species, among many many other directly observable examples of evolution.

Science is about discovering the truth, about increasing human understanding of the Universe. The questions have to be the best question to get the best answer. Scientists should not ask questions like: how can I prove God exists? What answer will they get? You can't prove it, that's why you need faith.

 

[Toro]

I was with you up until this, "The ideas of creationism and ID should be mentioned in science class as what they are... further attempts to answer these questions."

Science is an attempt to answer questions about the world from a naturalistic perspective. Religion is an attempt to answer questions from a supernatural perspective. You seem to understand this, but I fail to see why you would want to mention creation and ID in a science class at all? It is a silly can of worms to open.

My reasoning is simple. Any attempts to squash any discussion of any topic is censorship. Let the ideas be discussed openly and freely without judgment upon any of the participants. Don't hide the fact that there are differing points of views and don't make it seem as if a student who has been brought up believing that God created all life has no basis for his beliefs. Science is about the search for answers. That being the case, don't shun the questions.

Immie

Because creationism is not science and should not be taught in the classroom. The fact that someone was brought up believing something is irrelevant since it does not make it a scientific issue. Some people believe in fairies and ghosts. Does that mean fairies and ghosts should be taught in science class?

 

[Immanuel]

I don't support censorship at all. It's a question of it being appropriate. A science class implies a certain type of material. It is a captive audience in a state supported institution. Science is neutral regarding religion. It is appropriate in a science classroom. Other beliefs founded in religious faith should not be presented to a captive audience in a state supported institution, especially under the guise of a science class. Science has an answer on ID. It's answer is that it's not science. A denial of common ancestry or evolution, is incorrect science. It may change at some point, but as it stands now, it is not correct scientifically.

I wouldn't hide the fact that there are other views. There are plenty of more appropriate avenues for that information to be expressed. I wouldn't go into a fundamentalist church and start demanding that let me tell them about evolution. Likely, they would kick me out- an option a captive audience does not have. Finally, by your logic, we should also mention astrology, geocentrism, and christian science rather than just focusing on astronomy, the heliocentric solar system, and germ theory in science. Perhaps we should also mention holocaust denial in history class. All of these are alternative ideas to the consensus position, and have their supporters. It would get ridiculous. Stick with the facts as determined by the experts in whatever field is appropriate. Teach them to think critically, but not by throwing up ridiculous ideas that are based in someone's religious belief or ideological slant as alternatives.

I did not say you supported censorship and apologize if you thought I did.

Also, I did not say teach ID or Creationism. I said mention it and allow it to be discussed openly and freely.

Science has an answer on ID. It's answer is that it's not science.

And that my friend, is what should be taught. It is not scientific, but that does not mean that it is false either. Simply because something cannot be proven scientifically does not mean it should be shunned and hidden from the classroom. That has been tried before especially by the religious. Catholics attempted to silence Martin Luther and look where that got them. When scientist refuse to hear and discuss ideas they become close minded. They become biased themselves.

A denial of common ancestry or evolution, is incorrect science.

Really, then show me the missing link!

See, what I mean, you have become close minded. You assume that we all came from apes and damn anyone that believes otherwise. Common ancestry has not been proven. It has been theorized.

I do not deny evolution exists today. But, I find it impossible to believe the abiogenetic belief that says we all started as a single cell in a primordial muck hundreds of billions years ago. Talk about requiring faith to believe!

Science may be neutral regarding religion, but many scientists are not.

Perhaps we should also mention holocaust denial in history class.

Absolutely this should be mentioned in history class! It i,s as a matter of fact, a part of history. There are today people who deny that the holocaust happened. That is fact. It most definitely should be mentioned in a history class. As for your other examples, anytime a topic of discussion involves those topics then yes, they should be discussed.

Thank you for your time in replying to my post and the fact that in this thread you have been respectful even of those with whom you disagree.

There is no current law that states that students can't discuss anything to do with religion in class. There are only laws which make it so that teachers and school curriculum can't favor or teach religious principles or ideas.

Science can, without a reasonable logical doubt, show that intelligent design does not exist in current forms of life. If it did, then why do I have to wipe my ass? If I were intelligently designed, I wouldn't have to worry about wiping. The feces would just come out nice and clean. What about cancer? Hemorrhoids? Congenital birth defects? Near or far-sightedness? Sun burns? Tendonitis? And many, many other so-called design flaws? For an intelligent designer the creator sure did leave in a lot of bad designs!

The same could be said about abiogenesis. The thought that all life started from one single cell and matured to the myriad of different types of cells in just the human body itself is absolutely impossible. It takes much more faith to believe that this has happened than to believe that God decided to form the various forms of life as he saw fit.

As for the various ailments you discuss... well take those up with God when you meet him. Surely, had I been the creator things would have been different, but I wasn't so I won't presume to answer your questions.

And the vagueness and rationalizing that goes into saying that the Bible is true except that it isn't because human beings are flawed? What is that all about? The Bible says God created the world in six days, but that's a human mistake in the Bible? So where else are those mistakes made? If God created the world, why isn't it clearer that He did? Why is it that there is no mention of dinosaurs or other primate hominids, like the neandertals? Were neandertals the first attempt God made at homo sapiens?=

Well, I am so glad that you caught the dilemma that I mentioned. I cannot explain everything about the Bible nor do I want to. I mentioned the fact that some say that God said six days, but it could have been six periods. I don't know what he said or what he was trying to tell us. Does it matter to me if he said six periods instead of six days? No.

The Bible says God created the world in six days, but that's a human mistake in the Bible?

That was not what I said. I said that we misunderstood what he said. Big difference.

Liberal believers like to say that they believe that God inspired portions of the Bible but other parts were put in the Bible by man and they like to use Paul's statements about women as leaders of the church as examples of parts that they don't believe are God inspired. How then can one pick and chose which part of the Bible is "God Inspired" and which is not? I don't believe we can do that.

As for my statements about mankind mis-interpreting what God said, I find nothing wrong or too difficult to understand in that kind of a statement. It is obvious to me that no man can fully comprehend what God inspired the authors of the Bible to write. If is completely unimaginable to me that God created the Earth and all life on it in a matter of six 24 hour periods. Not because I think he could not do it, but because when you look at the evidence surrounding us, it is clear that there are long periods of time that are not reported in the Bible.

Could God have created the Earth with "age"? Sure, but why would he?

All that being said, I will simply state that I believe God's word to be true and with that belief there are things that I must accept on the basis of faith and realize that I will probably never know the answers to my questions.

If the student takes a class in religious studies it would be appropriate to discuss creationism or intelligent design as aspects of a religion. However, for the teacher to discuss creationism or intelligent design in a science class when there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting either hypotheses (which are supposedly educated guesses so calling creationism or intelligent design hypotheses is certainly a stretch) is simply unfounded, illegal with good reason, and unconstitutional.

Here is where you and I disagree.

You see teaching that there are other thoughts as to how life started and what those ideas are, is not teaching those ideas. For instance, if I am a teaching you how to navigate across the ocean using a chart and compass and positions of aids to navigation and I mention that there are some people who use a sextant and that they can accomplish the task in another manner, I am not teaching you how to use a sextant. I am teaching you how to navigate using another method, but I am not ignoring that a different method exists.

If I am teaching the Theory of Evolution (which in order to teach, I do not have to espouse as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) I can do a fine job of teaching what the Theory states even when pointing out that some people believe that an intelligent being created the universe out of nothing and I can do this without casting judgment for or against either idea. That is, if I am allowed to "teach" a curriculum and not required by a particular board to espouse the Theory of Evolution as the only possible answer to a question that man has been asking since the dawn of time.

Unfortunately, many so called scientists are just as dogmatic as many Christians and they refuse to open their minds to the idea that the Theory of Evolution is still malleable and someday we may look back as say, "That Charles Darwin put us on the right track, but he was missing a key piece of evidence that we now have".

And let me just iterate: evolution is not a theory. Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution which is an observable, reproduceable scientific fact. If you don't think so, raise your hand so we know who doesn't believe in the fossil record, cancer, birth defects, domestication of animals, pure bred animals, seedless grapes and watermelons, modern corn instead of maize, grape, cherry, hot house, and heirloom tomatoes, and mixed-breed children, differences between individuals of the same species, among many many other directly observable examples of evolution.

Funny, I have read all of this thread, and it seems that even the other evolutionists who seem to make some sense and seem to know what they are talking about disagree with you. Evolution IS a theory. A well founded theory, but a theory none the less. The idea that all life shares a common ancestor, as put forth above by N4mddissent, has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt as you indicated earlier. And because it has not been proven there is still a possibility that science will find evidence that either proves or disproves the theory.

It used to be believed that man could not fly... no way... no how. Then the Wright Brothers proved that to be incorrect and now even I have flown thousands upon thousands of miles.

Some day scientists might just find the "missing link". If and when they do then that will only help to better prove the theory. But, to be honest with you, even if science proved that all life began as a single cell in the primordial ooze of nothingness, I can still trust that the single cell was formed by the creator of all things.

Science is about discovering the truth, about increasing human understanding of the Universe. The questions have to be the best question to get the best answer. Scientists should not ask questions like: how can I prove God exists? What answer will they get? You can't prove it, that's why you need faith.

No, scientists should not ask questions like: "How can I prove God exists?" They should ask "Does God exists and if so what evidence do I have that he does?" Someday an open minded scientist just might find the key to unlocking that door.

CMM,

I don't know you very well. I have only read some of your posts about religion and nothing else. I respect your point of view although I do not agree with you. You ask well thought out questions and from what I have seen you are generally respectful. I appreciate that.

God Bless,

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Because creationism is not science and should not be taught in the classroom. The fact that someone was brought up believing something is irrelevant since it does not make it a scientific issue. Some people believe in fairies and ghosts. Does that mean fairies and ghosts should be taught in science class?

That of course depends on the science class.

A class on physics? Probably not.

A class on Parapsychology or one delving into the realm of the unexplained phenomenon of this world should discuss ghosts if not fairies too.

Again with the "taught"! No where did I ever say ID or Creationism should be "taught" in a science class. I stated that they should mentioned and discussed. There is a big difference between teaching a subject and mentioning that it exists.

When teaching a class on self defense, I can mention that karate is a different form of self defense, but not teach it. I can discuss its techniques while never teaching karate. I can also discuss that the best form of self defense is an AK-47 in your hands yet not teach you to kill with one. In the same way, I can acknowledge that ID and Creationism exist as ideas that counter the Theory of Evolution, yet not teach ID or Creationism.

Immie