Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I thought I would rejoin this long winded debate.

Yeah. It goes on and on. Creationist after creationist joins the fray to be embarrassed by lack of knowledge and scoot away.

Gallo and I debated this same topic a long time ago. I even provided links to those pottery items that showed dinos and humans living together ... under a ufo that was in the sky. The hoax was quickly disproven as being real artifects by other qualified investigators.

You misstate. They were shown to be modern artifacts carved by modern men because they could sell them to the ignorant.

But yet, the hoax lives on as if it is protected by some sort of unseen shield. Which is the strong need to believe it.

That's true. Even though Ica Stones have been shown conclusively to be a hoax, creationists will still believe what they read on such sites as navyrkh accepts without thinking.

I also mentioned the foot prints next to dino prints. I do not recall the right words but it is possible to imprint such slabs at different ages in history, or they might be another hoax.

Once formed, limestone does not become soft again and accept other impressions. Therefore, if there were actually real human footprints in the Paluxy river bed, they would have been contemporaneous. It is not possible that they were separated by 65 million years. The claims of human footprints in the Paluxy are a hoax. For example, anyone with a brain can see that the Burdick print isn't human, giant or otherwise. It doesn't look human. Add to that the fact the it was carved on the bottom of the slab.
[quote]A lot of knowledgable people join in our debate and frankly, I lost. Gallo won. And those debates are still located somewhere here at Volconvo, it is a shame he must continue to re-hash the same-o same-o rebuttles.[quote]Well, thanks for that. You didn't admit it at the time. But it isn't a matter of win or lose but rather a matter of the ascendancy of science over religious clap-trap.

I think that thread had to do with the Creationist Musem.

I can't say.

Quote by: Technosoul I am rejoining this debate.

Again?

One point of reasoning used by Creationists is the observation that life forms are sometimes dependant on each other for survival.

Really? I've never seen that claim made by creationists. If they are not making that claim, then it seems that they may be learning something. Except that life forms are not sometimes dependant on each other, they are always dependant on each other. Do you not eat other life forms?

One example is the bee and the flower. I doubt if one could survive without the other. Although butterflies and hummingbirds might replace bees, they are few in number as compared to the bee population. anyway, I will not go into depth about why they are so co-dependant on each other, you should know that already.

I do. But I fail to understand your point. How is that relevant to this discussion?

That fact would suggest that they both had to come into existance at the same time.

Actually, it does not. And I thought you had made some progress.

Is that evidence of instant creation, or could such co-dependancy evolve into exsistance in a random manner?

So, are you claiming that all flowers depend on pollination by bees? Empirically false. Bats, birds, other insects, and the wind also are responsible for pollination of various plants.

In addition to that example of co-dependancy as a survial system we have no fosil evidence of flowers or bees exsisting prior to the close of the dinosaur era,

In fact, we do. Please check your facts. The first angiosperms appear in the fossil record about 125 million years ago. The oldest bee fossil is an amber preserved specimen from about 100 million years ago.

I'm not sure of what point you were trying to make, but you are wrong. Check your facts.
[quote]no evidence of a slow and progressive transformation as recorded in fosil evidence. (correct me if I am wrong).[quote]OK. You are wrong, as I have already pointed out. In fact, fossil evidence indicates that wasps, bees, and ants are closely related. Guess what genetic evidence shows.

Suddenly we had flowers and bees as the warm blooded mammals came into domination.

Well, if you think of several million years as sudden, then you are correct.

[Technosoul]

[quote=gallo;487386]Yeah. It goes on and on. Creationist after creationist joins the fray to be embarrassed by lack of knowledge and scoot away.
You misstate. They were shown to be modern artifacts carved by modern men because they could sell them to the ignorant.
That's true. Even though Ica Stones have been shown conclusively to be a hoax, creationists will still believe what they read on such sites as navyrkh accepts without thinking.
Once formed, limestone does not become soft again and accept other impressions. Therefore, if there were actually real human footprints in the Paluxy river bed, they would have been contemporaneous. It is not possible that they were separated by 65 million years. The claims of human footprints in the Paluxy are a hoax. For example, anyone with a brain can see that the Burdick print isn't human, giant or otherwise. It doesn't look human. Add to that the fact the it was carved on the bottom of the slab.
[quote]A lot of knowledgable people join in our debate and frankly, I lost. Gallo won. And those debates are still located somewhere here at Volconvo, it is a shame he must continue to re-hash the same-o same-o rebuttles.[quote]Well, thanks for that. You didn't admit it at the time. But it isn't a matter of win or lose but rather a matter of the ascendancy of science over religious clap-trap.
I can't say.
Again?
Really? I've never seen that claim made by creationists. If they are not making that claim, then it seems that they may be learning something. Except that life forms are not sometimes dependant on each other, they are always dependant on each other. Do you not eat other life forms?
I do. But I fail to understand your point. How is that relevant to this discussion?
Actually, it does not. And I thought you had made some progress.
So, are you claiming that all flowers depend on pollination by bees? Empirically false. Bats, birds, other insects, and the wind also are responsible for pollination of various plants.
In fact, we do. Please check your facts. The first angiosperms appear in the fossil record about 125 million years ago. The oldest bee fossil is an amber preserved specimen from about 100 million years ago.

I'm not sure of what point you were trying to make, but you are wrong. Check your facts.
[quote]no evidence of a slow and progressive transformation as recorded in fosil evidence. (correct me if I am wrong).

OK. You are wrong, as I have already pointed out. In fact, fossil evidence indicates that wasps, bees, and ants are closely related. Guess what genetic evidence shows. Well, if you think of several million years as sudden, then you are correct.

Okay, you won that round, they will have to take that chapter out of the Creationist handbook. But there is more.

I am not sure a Creationist would accept "that it must be a hoax because science knows that humans did not exsist then" concerning their footprint evidence. Just like science might not like it if their evidence was called a hoax. We live in an age of technology, would it not be possible to carve a fosil that supports the theory of evolution also? Can you tell the difference between an orginal and a fake?

Is it possible to detect if a caved rock, or pottery for that matter, was made today or was made 100 years ago?

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I am not sure a Creationist would accept "that it must be a hoax because science knows that humans did not exsist then" concerning their footprint evidence.

You miss the point. There is no footprint evidence. There are no human footprints in the bed of the Paluxy river. There are tracks for dinosaurs probably made by an Acrocanthosaurus, a theropod predator that has been found in strata of similar age in the area, and a Pleurocoelus, a sauropod also found in the area. Other tracks were probably made by an Iguanodon, and a Tenontosaurus, two species of ornithopod dinosaur. Of course, the tracks might have been made by some species that has not been found, but the above species would have made tracks very like those in the river, and they are known to have lived at the time, more than 100 million years ago.

Perhaps you didn't understand that every single track that was origionally claimed by creationists to have been made by a man has since been shown to be that of a dinosaur. Even John Morris of the ICR conceded that to be true. Not even Carl Baugh claims any of his original tracks. He now claims that there are human tracks inside the dinosaur tracks.

Just like science might not like it if their evidence was called a hoax.

Wouldn't matter. It would be necessary to demonstrate conclusively that it is a hoax before any creationist claims would matter.

The creationist evidence that is a hoax is the carved giant track carved on the bottom of a slab from the Paluxy.

We live in an age of technology, would it not be possible to carve a fosil that supports the theory of evolution also?

No. But why would anyone want to do that in the first place?

Can you tell the difference between an orginal and a fake?

Can I? Probably in many cases. Can experts in the field? Most certainly. There have been examples of just some events.

Is it possible to detect if a caved rock, or pottery for that matter, was made today or was made 100 years ago?

It would depend. Some artifacts found in the desert and claimed to be old were shown to be quite recent because they lacked desert varnish that would have been present if they were old. But fossils are usually dated by the strata in which they are found.

[svstevenr]

The truth is, no one knows for sure how the universe started. That really is something that, as smart or as educated you think you are, can not be denied. Everything you believe about any theory about our beginning is just that - a theory. The person who believes in the big bang theory will tell you tons and tons of crap about how it is the only possible solution. But when it comes down to it, it is not a scientifically provable solution because it does not include key pieces of the puzzle. How did the original energy or the original matter come into existence? What explains where the first chunk of rock or space dust came from? I mean yes someone is going to throw some "scientific explanation" at me in a minute - but I can tell you without a doubt that it is not an explanation, it is a theory, for, in reality, there is no absolute explanation.

If there is no absolute, provable explanation, how can we come to a reasonable conclusion? I am the type of person kind of stuck in the middle when it comes to religion and how I believe we came into existence. We really must take a step back and realize that in every time period even the most educated scholars have been found to be completely wrong about the concepts that were accepted as fact.

This is the point where most people after ragging on the big bang theory would start doing a sphill on religion - but I don't believe in religion either. I can not imagine a one-man entity capable of doing such supernatural things. If you do, then just remember that just like everything else - you are using unprovable ideas and concepts (a man creating earth, matter, water, humane life, forces, etc.).

So, as a more general question that kind of falls into a philosophical argument and not one of science, how do you explain the unexplainable?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo You miss the point. There is no footprint evidence. There are no human footprints in the bed of the Paluxy river. There are tracks for dinosaurs probably made by an Acrocanthosaurus, a theropod predator that has been found in strata of similar age in the area, and a Pleurocoelus, a sauropod also found in the area. Other tracks were probably made by an Iguanodon, and a Tenontosaurus, two species of ornithopod dinosaur. Of course, the tracks might have been made by some species that has not been found, but the above species would have made tracks very like those in the river, and they are known to have lived at the time, more than 100 million years ago. Perhaps you didn't understand that every single track that was origionally claimed by creationists to have been made by a man has since been shown to be that of a dinosaur. Even John Morris of the ICR conceded that to be true. Not even Carl Baugh claims any of his original tracks. He now claims that there are human tracks inside the dinosaur tracks. Wouldn't matter. It would be necessary to demonstrate conclusively that it is a hoax before any creationist claims would matter. The creationist evidence that is a hoax is the carved giant track carved on the bottom of a slab from the Paluxy. No. But why would anyone want to do that in the first place? Can I? Probably in many cases. Can experts in the field? Most certainly. There have been examples of just some events. It would depend. Some artifacts found in the desert and claimed to be old were shown to be quite recent because they lacked desert varnish that would have been present if they were old. But fossils are usually dated by the strata in which they are found.

I think I would agree with you. I really like all the things at the Natural History Musem. Where-as a Creationist musem would be a joke ( like that dinosaur in Noah's Ark).

I really no longer want to defend their ideas. I just love Nature and enjoy my little "spiritual relationship" with all those living things, and with the majestic sky (at night). I am bias, I enjoy the great mystery more then I enjoy a bunch of somewhat cold and boring facts.

Have fun debating the others.

[Kite]

Quote by: svstevenr The truth is, no one knows for sure how the universe started. That really is something that, as smart or as educated you think you are, can not be denied. Everything you believe about any theory about our beginning is just that - a theory. The person who believes in the big bang theory will tell you tons and tons of crap about how it is the only possible solution. But when it comes down to it, it is not a scientifically provable solution because it does not include key pieces of the puzzle. How did the original energy or the original matter come into existence? What explains where the first chunk of rock or space dust came from? I mean yes someone is going to throw some "scientific explanation" at me in a minute - but I can tell you without a doubt that it is not an explanation, it is a theory, for, in reality, there is no absolute explanation. If there is no absolute, provable explanation, how can we come to a reasonable conclusion? I am the type of person kind of stuck in the middle when it comes to religion and how I believe we came into existence. We really must take a step back and realize that in every time period even the most educated scholars have been found to be completely wrong about the concepts that were accepted as fact.

The whole point of science is to learn. To update and stay current with findings and facts. If science knew everything, why would it need to exist? Answers are still being sought. However, since the big bang does have some very convincing evidence going for it, it is accepted as the most scientifically sound theory. The mere fact that it is a theory doesn't make the science behind it worthless.

Also, if we as humans were to constantly second-guess ourselves, to constantly say, 'what if I'm wrong?', our existence would consist of us standing in one spot, afraid to move because we might be wrong in doing so. To have progress of any kind you must assume the basics are true.

This is the point where most people after ragging on the big bang theory would start doing a sphill on religion - but I don't believe in religion either. I can not imagine a one-man entity capable of doing such supernatural things. If you do, then just remember that just like everything else - you are using unprovable ideas and concepts (a man creating earth, matter, water, humane life, forces, etc.). So, as a more general question that kind of falls into a philosophical argument and not one of science, how do you explain the unexplainable?

You cant.
Unexplainable: the inability to be explained. However, many things once thought unexplainable are now explained rationally. Lightning was once thought to be angry gods, now we know that its really just an electrical discharge caused by ionization. However, even now the exact process in which lightning forms is still unknown. Science is searching for answers, while religion claims to already have them.

[gallo]

Quote by: svstevenr The truth is, no one knows for sure how the universe started.

Hopefully you are aware that your post only addresses half of the topic here. It has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. That being said, I don't know of anyone but creationists who actually claim to know how the universe started.

That really is something that, as smart or as educated you think you are, can not be denied.

I happen to agree with you but creationists don't. Creationists think that they have a book that tells them how it happened. But they usually aren't very smart or educated.

Everything you believe about any theory about our beginning is just that - a theory.

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Isn't it a bit redundant to say that "a theory is a theory"? I think I know your problem. You aren't using the definition of the word "theory" that scientists do. When scientists use the word they mean a set of statements of principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. In science, theories are tested repeatedly and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Theories are usually tested by use of the scientific method.

A theory is not a guess, educated or otherwise. Some examples of scientific theories are the heliocentric theory, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of gravitation, theories of nuclear physics, atomic theory, natural selection, and on and on.

The person who believes in the big bang theory will tell you tons and tons of crap about how it is the only possible solution.

That's just not true. Who have you been listening to? First of all, no one actually "believes in" the big bang theory. Anyone who knows anything is quite aware that there are several other theories of the origin of the universe. Some scientists, based on the evidence, accept the big bang theory as the best. Perhaps you might like to read The Big Bang by Joseph Silk. It's pretty readable. Other good books are The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene or The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris. It might help to get a better idea of what science is and how it works, as well as a better understanding of what the scientists in the field think. As I mentioned, any knowledgeable person will tell you that there is more than one theory and none is claimed to be Truth. Only creationists claim to know the absolute unchanging Truth. One problem with that is they keep changing the unchanging Truth.

But when it comes down to it, it is not a scientifically provable solution because it does not include key pieces of the puzzle.

Science does not prove anything. Anytime you hear someone talking about what science does or doesn't prove, they probably don't know what they are talking about. Science is in the business of explaining. That's what I said above. The theories of science offer explanations based on the known facts. They offer a basis for further predictions and testing. That's how theories become more complete.

How did the original energy or the original matter come into existence?

Actually, the question of the source of the energy isn't part of the big bang theory. And the matter didn't exist until after the big bang. Read the books I mentioned.

What explains where the first chunk of rock or space dust came from?

The big bang theory does, for one.

I mean yes someone is going to throw some "scientific explanation" at me in a minute - but I can tell you without a doubt that it is not an explanation, it is a theory, for, in reality, there is no absolute explanation.

But a theory is an explanation. Go and learn what science is and how it works. In science, a theory is the best that it gets.

If there is no absolute, provable explanation, how can we come to a reasonable conclusion?

You have a weird idea of what reasonable means. Do you mean that it isn't reasonable to recognize that the evidence indicates that the earth orbits the sun?

I am the type of person kind of stuck in the middle when it comes to religion and how I believe we came into existence.

But that doesn't have anything to do with what you have been discussing.

We really must take a step back and realize that in every time period even the most educated scholars have been found to be completely wrong about the concepts that were accepted as fact.

You mean things like lightning coming from an angry god? In fact, educated scholars havn't been shown to be completely wrong. If so, when was Newton shown to be completely wrong?

This is the point where most people after ragging on the big bang theory would start doing a sphill on religion - but I don't believe in religion either.

So you don't know much about either side of the question is what you are saying.

I can not imagine a one-man entity capable of doing such supernatural things. If you do, then just remember that just like everything else - you are using unprovable ideas and concepts (a man creating earth, matter, water, humane life, forces, etc.).

Are you misrepresenting on purpose?

So, as a more general question that kind of falls into a philosophical argument and not one of science, how do you explain the unexplainable?

Is this another statement like you made above? A theory is a theory. Here you ask how to explain the unexplainable.

[leegao]

ad hominem may help you prove points but be careful when you're using them since they're generally offensive.

let me just summarize what this debate is about, and how every single one like this were and will turn out to be.

Creationists believe in a divine intervention in the natural orders that creates life. Those against this idea believes that life was created from organic materials under the right condition.

Now, here's where the main focus is going to be.

The creationists will base their ideology off of their religious belief or some kinda divine book, say the Bible. The evolutionists will like wise base their ideology off of some scientific book.

Now, the main argument against the creationists is that their belief have no scientific support. As gallo pointed out, there are tons of books out there about the big bang which have all these scientific support, therefore the big bang theory should automatically win right?

Wrong. The main problem with this debate is that no one here have prioritized which basis we should use to evaluate this topic. Science or Religion. Since the 2 ideologies rests on vastly different grounds, we can never make a clearcut argument if we haven't even pointed out that Science is the better ground to uphold or that religion is the better ground to uphold. So since the pro-creationists here are mostly upholding a religious ground for their arguments, and prioritize religion over science. The evolutionists on the other hand mainly upholds a scientific ground, taking almost no notice of impacts made by arguments that upheld religious grounds. Therefore, each side think that they're the right side because, by god's grace, the evolutionists believe that the creationists "usually aren't very smart or educated" and wouldn't take in their belief because it has no scientific value. Meanwhile the creationists believe that they are right because the big bang theory just doesn't appeal to their religious belief.

So, in order to clean up this mess we must first debate out whether Science takes precedence over Religion or vice versa, there-after we can re-evaluate the topic.

Also, please, if you're going to make a counter-argument, only make arguments that have direct impact, don't just redefine a word without changing the contextual purpose of the argument.

[gallo]

Quote by: leegao ad hominem may help you prove points but be careful when you're using them since they're generally offensive.

What ad hominem are you talking about? Moreover, how to they help to "prove" points. Pointing out ignorance is not an ad hominem attack.

let me just summarize what this debate is about, and how every single one like this were and will turn out to be.

Oh! Goody!

Creationists believe in a divine intervention in the natural orders that creates life.

Not true. Creationists believe that the "natural orders", as well as all life in the current form, were created by an invisible, unknowable, all powerful, all knowing, and eternal magical being.

Those against this idea believes that life was created from organic materials under the right condition.

But I'm not against that idea. I just don't see any evidence that supports it. I just don't seem why we should postulate magical beings to explain natural phenomena. That is especially true when there are perfectly logical explanations based on empirical evidence that explain it better.

Now, here's where the main focus is going to be. The creationists will base their ideology off of their religious belief or some kinda divine book, say the Bible. The evolutionists will like wise base their ideology off of some scientific book.

How interesting. Rather than base their ideology on their beliefs, they will base it off of their beliefs. On the other hand, scientists (those you label as evolutionists) don't base their ideology off of a book. Science is a matter of offering tested explanations for observed phenomena. I'm not sure what book you are talking about.

Now, the main argument against the creationists is that their belief have no scientific support. As gallo pointed out, there are tons of books out there about the big bang which have all these scientific support, therefore the big bang theory should automatically win right?

It isn't a contest. Unless you educate yourself as to what the science you oppose actually says, you are speaking from ignorance.

Wrong. The main problem with this debate is that no one here have prioritized which basis we should use to evaluate this topic.

I have done so many times. Natural phenomena should be explained by natural explanations. There is actually no need to offer magic where perfectly logical natural explanations are sufficient.

Science or Religion.

Science or superstition.

Since the 2 ideologies rests on vastly different grounds, we can never make a clearcut argument if we haven't even pointed out that Science is the better ground to uphold or that religion is the better ground to uphold.

You have no idea what science is or how it works, do you. Science isn't an ideology. Does gravity rest on ideology? How about atomic theory? Are nuclear power plants operated by ideology rather than nuclear theory? What is the ideology behind Sodium Chloride?

So since the pro-creationists here are mostly upholding a religious ground for their arguments, and prioritize religion over science.

But why would you or anyone expect religion, based on belief without evidence, to explain natural phenomena?

The evolutionists on the other hand mainly upholds a scientific ground, taking almost no notice of impacts made by arguments that upheld religious grounds.

But such arguments have no scientific merit. Why should they be given consideration in the study of science?

Therefore, each side think that they're the right side because, by god's grace, the evolutionists believe that the creationists "usually aren't very smart or educated" and wouldn't take in their belief because it has no scientific value.

Actually, several polls have shown that creationists are generally less educated than non-creationists. They tend to be more rural, southern, and work at menial jobs. Even Gallup polls reveal that - Gallup himself is a young earth creationist and was very upset by the results of his own poll. On the other hand, scientists don't claim to be right. They claim to offer the best natural explanations of natural phenomena that they have been able to devise. The have arrived at these explanations by observation, hypothesis, prediction and testing.

Meanwhile the creationists believe that they are right because the big bang theory just doesn't appeal to their religious belief.

That's just misrepresentation. Creationists don't "believe" it because they believe that they know the truth before looking at the evidence. They rely on a book of the mythology bronze age, nomadic herdsmen.

So, in order to clean up this mess we must first debate out whether Science takes precedence over Religion or vice versa, there-after we can re-evaluate the topic.

That's nonsense. You aren't going to give up your book of mythology without evidence and I'm going to look at the evidence and the science every time.

Also, please, if you're going to make a counter-argument, only make arguments that have direct impact, don't just redefine a word without changing the contextual purpose of the argument.

It would be nice if you were going to talk about science, you would use the definitions that scientists use. Just because you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the topic to know that the word "theory" does not mean what it does in your church. I did not redefine the word. I gave the definition that has been used by scientists for more than 100 years. If you don't understand that after it has been explained to you, then your ignorance is your own fault.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: leegao ad hominem may help you prove points but be careful when you're using them since they're generally offensive. let me just summarize what this debate is about, and how every single one like this were and will turn out to be. Creationists believe in a divine intervention in the natural orders that creates life. Those against this idea believes that life was created from organic materials under the right condition. Now, here's where the main focus is going to be. The creationists will base their ideology off of their religious belief or some kinda divine book, say the Bible. The evolutionists will like wise base their ideology off of some scientific book. Now, the main argument against the creationists is that their belief have no scientific support. As gallo pointed out, there are tons of books out there about the big bang which have all these scientific support, therefore the big bang theory should automatically win right? Wrong. The main problem with this debate is that no one here have prioritized which basis we should use to evaluate this topic. Science or Religion. Since the 2 ideologies rests on vastly different grounds, we can never make a clearcut argument if we haven't even pointed out that Science is the better ground to uphold or that religion is the better ground to uphold. So since the pro-creationists here are mostly upholding a religious ground for their arguments, and prioritize religion over science. The evolutionists on the other hand mainly upholds a scientific ground, taking almost no notice of impacts made by arguments that upheld religious grounds. Therefore, each side think that they're the right side because, by god's grace, the evolutionists believe that the creationists "usually aren't very smart or educated" and wouldn't take in their belief because it has no scientific value. Meanwhile the creationists believe that they are right because the big bang theory just doesn't appeal to their religious belief. So, in order to clean up this mess we must first debate out whether Science takes precedence over Religion or vice versa, there-after we can re-evaluate the topic. Also, please, if you're going to make a counter-argument, only make arguments that have direct impact, don't just redefine a word without changing the contextual purpose of the argument.

Here is how it should be determined, I suppose. If you want to teach creationism in a science class, as science. Then Science is in charge.

If you want to teach evolution or the Big Bang at some church as a religious topic, then the Church is in charge.

Same could be the case at Volconvo because we have different forums of people who like one or the other kinds of debates.

So you could have the same debate in two different forums, here Gallo is in charge, and at the religion forum, you get to be in charge. And we can watch to see how each method works out.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul Here is how it should be determined, I suppose. If you want to teach creationism in a science class, as science. Then Science is in charge.

Right. And since creationism and ID are not science, they don't get taught. The "teach the controversy" cries from creationists are bogus since there actually isn't any controversy about evolution among scientists, at least not in the sense that creationists mean.

If you want to teach evolution or the Big Bang at some church as a religious topic, then the Church is in charge.

But I don't want to.

Same could be the case at Volconvo because we have different forums of people who like one or the other kinds of debates.

I'm not quite sure what that means. On a science forum I argue science. On a religion and philosophy I argue religion and philosophy.

So you could have the same debate in two different forums, here Gallo is in charge,

I am? When did that happen? No body told me. Does that mean that I can just declare anyone with whom I disagree wrong? Does that mean that I can ban them? How exactly am I in charge?

and at the religion forum, you get to be in charge.

Well, he's safe then because I rarely post there.

And we can watch to see how each method works out.

What methods are we talking about?

[Tycoon]

Right. And since creationism and ID are not science, they don't get taught. The "teach the controversy" cries from creationists are bogus since there actually isn't any controversy about evolution among scientists, at least not in the sense that creationists mean.

Creationism and intelligent design are not taught because the fact that there is no proof whatsoever to support them would create controversy. What should the teacher say when the student asks for proof?

But I don't want to.

Well don't go around forcing people to learn creationism and intelligent design. The school is in charge of what it teaches. If people want to learn creationism and intelligent design they will go to a church or other religious place.

[gallo]

Quote by: Tycoon Creationism and intelligent design are not taught because the fact that there is no proof whatsoever to support them would create controversy.

Proof is something that exists in math, logic, and alcohol content. Proof is not a matter of science. But I'm sure you really meant to say that there is no evidence to support creationism or ID. If there is no evidence then there can be no hypothesis, if no hypothesis then no predictions, if no predictions then there are no tests to support the original claim. That's only one problem with creationism/ID - it cannot be falsified.

What should the teacher say when the student asks for proof?

The teacher should review the lessons from the 1st week of school when they were taught that proof is not a matter of science. Science doesn't prove anything. Science offers tested, naturalistic explanations for natural events and phenomena. Science is always tentative because there may be some observation that will be made in the future that will change the explanation. For example, were you aware that Newton's theory of gravitation was wrong?

Well don't go around forcing people to learn creationism and intelligent design.

The question was whether I wanted to present classes on evolution or the big bang in a church somewhere. My answer was no, I don't want to. I don't go around forcing people to learn anything, least of all creationism and ID. Even when I was teaching evolutionary biology my students weren't forced to learn anything. Learning the material was just a requirement for a passing grade.

The school is in charge of what it teaches.

Technically, it is the school board and the state education agencies. Also, certain rules are established by the state legislature.

If people want to learn creationism and intelligent design they will go to a church or other religious place.

But that's the problem. Creationists have been trying to get their religion taught as science in public schools for years. At first they tried to forbid that evolutionary theory or geology be taught at all. When the courts threw that out, they tried to get "equal time" for "creation science." That didn't work either. In several cases "creation science" has been found by the courts to be religion. Next came "teach the controversy" whines from the creationists. What they aren't aware of is that controversies in biology have zero to do with creationism. Further, there isn't any scientific controversy between evolutionary biology and creationism. Again, creationism isn't science.

Latest efforts have been to try to get programs of ID creationism introduced in schools. In the case in Dover, PA ID was found to be religiously, and not scientifically based. I found it quite humorous when the Judge, a politically conservative Christian, caught some of the ID witnesses lying.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo Right. And since creationism and ID are not science, they don't get taught. The "teach the controversy" cries from creationists are bogus since there actually isn't any controversy about evolution among scientists, at least not in the sense that creationists mean. But I don't want to. I'm not quite sure what that means. On a science forum I argue science. On a religion and philosophy I argue religion and philosophy. I am? When did that happen? No body told me. Does that mean that I can just declare anyone with whom I disagree wrong? Does that mean that I can ban them? How exactly am I in charge? Well, he's safe then because I rarely post there. What methods are we talking about?

Sorry to confuse you.

I was talking about who should be in charge of the peer reviews, because the other poster brought up that question.

So who is in charge of doing a peer review about Creationism, and who is in charge of a peer review about a scientific theory. I was suggesting a solution. And in which forum should each side have the right to set the rules about which method will be used. They have their method for determining or interpreting evidence, and you have your methods for determining if evolution is most likely.

[Jack]

And in which forum should each side have the right to set the rules about which method will be used.

I think many of us are fine with allowing religion to be religion and science to be science. The problems arise when religion tries to position its beliefs as scientifically supportable. They aren't, and some of us feel those attempts should be thwarted whenever they appear.

[leegao]