Creationism vs. Evolution

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Pooeypants No, there shouldn't be any compromises. Science is science, I couldn't care less what religious fanatics think, what is established should be taught as such unless show otherwise. All modern science is falsifiable, if people would like to stand up to the challenge with Evolution, let them.

Is macro evolution falsifiable? It is quite well supported by the evidence, of course. But I am not sure it is actually falsifiable, because it is not really something that can be prospectively tested.

Also, absolutely anything can be explained by evolution. Thus, if we found something weird in biology, we would not be able to show that it occured by non-evolutionary terms. Thus, it would seem to me to be non-falsifyable.

[underbear1]

I've read in an Anthropology course an interesting challenge to Darwins ideas from a feminists position, Descent of Woman I don't recall off hand the authors name. So I'm open to people challenging, and expanding Darwin's theory, but they need to base it on science, which can be independently tested true or false.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Is macro evolution falsifiable? It is quite well supported by the evidence, of course. But I am not sure it is actually falsifiable, because it is not really something that can be prospectively tested. Also, absolutely anything can be explained by evolution. Thus, if we found something weird in biology, we would not be able to show that it occured by non-evolutionary terms. Thus, it would seem to me to be non-falsifyable.

All modern science MUST be falsifiable, if it's not then we risk going into the realm of religious dogma. This doesn't mean that all science is baloney, just that it is always open to change and can be challenged. This keeps science moving forwards.

[scrappy]

Quote by: Pooeypants All modern science MUST be falsifiable, if it's not then we risk going into the realm of religious dogma. This doesn't mean that all science is baloney, just that it is always open to change and can be challenged. This keeps science move forwards.

here here!

I'm a catholic, who has been brought up believing in god all my life. but my parents gave me a choice to pick either religion or science (i.e being an athiest and taking more interest in the tangible evidence rather then 'faith in god'). science over religion anyday as far as i'm concerned!

[Fonceai]

@Pooey
@Zink

The compromise is in the presence of one or other particular ideology in public schools.

You seem to be missing that part.

Public school.

You may not like compromise, but it gives enough foundation so that if a student chooses AP courses in high school or a path in college, they are equipped to begin.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Evolution is an absolutely essential part of biological science. It must be taught in science classes. Too many other scientific practices depend on it to just ignore it.

Evolution as a theory(before humans existed) or evolution as fact(while humans exist)?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: kubedawg Evolution as a theory(before humans existed) or evolution as fact(while humans exist)?

There is no distinction in the eyes of science. Why is there a line between when humans exist and prior to their complete speciation? And given the circumstances, we probably couldn't give an exact time anyway.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Fonceai @Pooey @Zink The compromise is in the presence of one or other particular ideology in public schools. You seem to be missing that part. Public school. You may not like compromise, but it gives enough foundation so that if a student chooses AP courses in high school or a path in college, they are equipped to begin.

It's established science, there is no logical reason for it not to be taught.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Pooey It's established science, there is no logical reason for it not to be taught.

Did I say it wasn't?

I'm talking about a solution implemented in a section of New York that was found to still maintain educational integrity while avoiding unnecessary squabbling.

So you disagree with their solution. Big deal.

It's a way to avoid problems while still providing children with a quality education. What's wrong with that?

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: gallo The old foot in the door ploy, huh? Let's just try to poke some god into science just a little bit and then maybe later we can use that as a wedge to cram the whole theology down children's throats by pretending it is science. The concept of god is not based on science and therefore does not belong in science classes. Your moral duty is also irrelevant as are your concepts of some unspecified error. By the way, the closest that anyone has ever come to testing the efficacy of prayer found that prayer mattered only if the person being prayed for knew he was being prayed for and believed it would help. (Seems like a reasonable reason to pray for someone, doesn't it?) We should not teach religion in science classes. We should not teach pro or con. There is no place in science class for theology. And since there is no evidence that any god exists or doesn't exist, there would be no point in pretending to teach something meaningful in a science class. Maybe where you live, but not in my country. I'm in the U.S. and what you suggest would be Constitutionally prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Since schools and school boards are divisions of state government, they are bound by the 1st Amendment as incorporated under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, to neither endorse nor support religion. Our government cannot show preference for one religion over another, for religion over non-religion, or for non-religion over religion. Our government must, as much as is possible, remain neutral on the question of religion. Thus, the existance of god that is without scientific evidence one way or the other may not be presented.

I'm not a wedge strategist but an atheist.I can see your point though - no religion in science class. Howzabout we teach evolution, cosmology and geological time as opinions against young earth creationism in comparative religion class? I don't know if that is already done. As for teaching about prayer, well for instance scientists do publicise both positive and negative outcomes in drug trials.
Parapsychology is a science IMHO, and I believe that youths are easily lead by tales of levitation, magic, psychic spoon bending powers etc all of which have been shown not to exist, or based on hoax, as far as we can tell (I believe - (I say "believe" because I'm not a parapsychology scollar but as far as I've read thats what the experiments show)).
Prayer, in double blind studies, doesn't work. As far as I know. (http://www.cosmeta.com/_Forums/view_...25&forum_id=51)
I did have a link to another article but can't find it. It was mentioned therein that the studies showing positive outcomes had been seriously flawed. As for your case example where prayer worked, couldn't the benifits be explained better by the placebo effect of people knowing they were being prayed for and believing in it's efficacy?
I hiope I'm not being too antagonistic here as you are a reasonable and well educated individual.
Neutrality with regards to religion? Well when people think that trees are going to tell muslims to kill jews, and the voice of reason is "censored", how can we hope to advance and live in peace? Although again I can see the advantage in neutrality. Where I live there are faith schools, but I believe in a secular system. I just don't see why one ought to leave the faiths alone in science class - scientology is a good example in the present context - criticism and evidence based reasoning could be applied to issues that effect young and developing minds like "should we rely on prayer alone or talk to the doctor as well?". There are of course also some tentatively proven effects and aspects of religion like insight meditation affecting brain structure over time and working for others making you happy.(source new scientist articles on buddhism). And it's all 'science'. So why not teach it in a secular classroom?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Fonceai Did I say it wasn't? I'm talking about a solution implemented in a section of New York that was found to still maintain educational integrity while avoiding unnecessary squabbling. So you disagree with their solution. Big deal. It's a way to avoid problems while still providing children with a quality education. What's wrong with that?

To avoid what problem? I'm not familiar with what you're talking about.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: Fonceai Did I say it wasn't? I'm talking about a solution implemented in a section of New York that was found to still maintain educational integrity while avoiding unnecessary squabbling. So you disagree with their solution. Big deal. It's a way to avoid problems while still providing children with a quality education. What's wrong with that?

Who says "squabbling" isn't sometimes a necessary evil?

Who says the education is still a "quality" one?

[Fonceai]

A certain standard of solidarity needs to be established among educators.

If there is a constant conflict regarding curriculum, extreme measures are often the "final word" result.

As such, more of a mystery and or controversy is created over the issue.

By saying that they will still teach evolution and it's relation to genetic mutation, and that humans have evolved from earlier times (taller, older, etc) you aren't eliminating the core of what evolution is about.

By never specifically stating the human beings are directly evolved from some derivative animal life form, the Creationist types aren't dissatisfied.

It all comes down to the missing link. Current classes in New York acknowledge the missing link. Answering it is left for the AP courses in Biology by using evolution for the link-gap. The Theology course uses Creationism in the link-gap.

[Pooeypants]

That still doesn't mean we shouldn't teach it early classes. It's unlikely that we will ever get a complete picture of human evolution starting from when we shared the common ancestor with modern apes.
The evolution of humans may only be partially charted but people need to know about this or we will continue to have generations of public who grow up not knowing of their true origins but get fed dogma from religions.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Fonceai Not necessarily. You can show how humans have evolved through the course of recorded history. You can do quite a bit without saying that mankind evolved from apes.

Evolution never said that "mankind evolved FROM apes".

It says that Man and apes have a COMMON ANCESTOR, and that much is all but proven. However, there is no evidence whatsoever, and thus no 'proof" that a supernatural supreme being of any kind exists.

[Fonceai]

@Pooey

I agree that restricting the subject of where humans came from to higher education will create a gap in the knowledge people have when they leave high school.

But by leaving that gap, doesn't that encourage the person to ask the question for themselves?

Quote by: Mozart Evolution never said that "mankind evolved FROM apes".

Yes, I know. I miswrote my point, and it was already clarified once in this thread. Thank you for feeling the need to include it again, one page later.

Quote by: Mozart It says that Man and apes have a COMMON ANCESTOR, and that much is all but proven

"All but proven" makes enough difference when you watch a school board and parents try to hash out a curriculum issue.

You're arguing over a school board's decision to only leave out the part we don't know for sure, 100%. There are some people who believe that anything less than 100% sure might as well be 0%.

[Gabe2007]

Why don't people want Creationism or ID to be taught in schools?
If evolution is scientifically proven, why not let it disprove ID in the class?

Because evolutionists are scared!!

Not wanting ID to be taught in school is like asking Islamic law to not be in politics!!!
It is impossible!!
Just because ID has a religious superior being creating the earth, that should not make a difference!!

The only "evolution" that can be proven is micro-evolution (small variations and changes in species, but it is still the same species)

One question: Where did the COMMON ANCESTOR come from?

[Jack]

Because evolutionists are scared!!

Only of having children graduate from school more ignorant than they already were going in.

Not wanting ID to be taught in school is...impossible!!

Not accurate or logical.

Just because ID has a religious superior being creating the earth, that should not make a difference!!

The idea of mythical, imaginary creators is not different than what? It's certainly different than the foundation of science.

Where did the COMMON ANCESTOR come from?

It evolved from an earlier form.

[gallo]

Quote by: luke virtual kh I'm not a wedge strategist but an atheist.I can see your point though - no religion in science class.

Exactly. Teaching religious views in science does two things; first, it wastes time that should be devoted to science; second, it give an air of legitimacy to what is essentially mythology.

Quote by: luke virtual kh Howzabout we teach evolution, cosmology and geological time as opinions against young earth creationism in comparative religion class? I don't know if that is already done.

Why not teach science in science classes and religion in religion classes? Science isn't religion and doesn't belong in a comparative religion class. Even if the mythology of Genesis were included in a course on mythology it would be inappropriate to include science. Science isn't mythology. And as I said, arguing science in inappropriate situations just to try to debunk mythology gives the mythology some sort of legitimacy as science. People will think that religious mythology is somehow a problem for science. It isn't.

Quote by: luke virtual kh As for teaching about prayer, well for instance scientists do publicise both positive and negative outcomes in drug trials. Parapsychology is a science IMHO, and I believe that youths are easily lead by tales of levitation, magic, psychic spoon bending powers etc all of which have been shown not to exist, or based on hoax, as far as we can tell (I believe - (I say "believe" because I'm not a parapsychology scollar but as far as I've read thats what the experiments show)). Prayer, in double blind studies, doesn't work. As far as I know. (http://www.cosmeta.com/_Forums/view_...25&forum_id=51) I did have a link to another article but can't find it. It was mentioned therein that the studies showing positive outcomes had been seriously flawed. As for your case example where prayer worked, couldn't the benifits be explained better by the placebo effect of people knowing they were being prayed for and believing in it's efficacy?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying (couldn't be because what I was saying wasn't crystal clear, could it? :) ). I think I was talking about the same study that you were. One of the findings was that people who believed that prayer could help and believed that they were being prayed for (whether they were or not) seemed to do better than others. It is probably exactly as you say, the placebo effect. What I meant by my remark was that if you know someone who is ill (friend or family) and that person believes in the efficacy of prayer, it will help them get better if you tell them that you are praying for them, whether you do or not. So if the sick person is someone that you value, it's a pretty good reason to at least tell them that you are praying.

Quote by: luke virtual kh I hiope I'm not being too antagonistic here as you are a reasonable and well educated individual.

I don't know how well, but a lot anyway.

Quote by: luke virtual kh Neutrality with regards to religion? Well when people think that trees are going to tell muslims to kill jews, and the voice of reason is "censored", how can we hope to advance and live in peace?

But the principle involves actions of the government which must be neutral. However, that doesn't apply to the illegal actions of zealots of off-the-wall cults. The principle does not mean that illegal acts that are religiously motivated must be allowed.

Quote by: luke virtual kh Although again I can see the advantage in neutrality. Where I live there are faith schools, but I believe in a secular system.

Me too. But as long as the educational standards of the state and school district are met by religious schools or home schooling, then it should be allowed. To interfere with either on religious grounds would violate the 1st Amendment.

Quote by: luke virtual kh I just don't see why one ought to leave the faiths alone in science class - scientology is a good example in the present context - criticism and evidence based reasoning could be applied to issues that effect young and developing minds like "should we rely on prayer alone or talk to the doctor as well?".

I think that you mean Christian Science and not Scientology. At any rate, if either had religious schools for their children, as long as those schools meet educational standards, they should be left alone. Medical treatment is another question that should be left to medical personnel and the courts.

Quote by: luke virtual kh There are of course also some tentatively proven effects and aspects of religion like insight meditation affecting brain structure over time and working for others making you happy.(source new scientist articles on buddhism). And it's all 'science'. So why not teach it in a secular classroom?

Any legitimate scientific theory is fair game for science classes. The problem is, are the most important things being taught since time is limited, and what is the motivation to teach the religious aspect? Does it give the impression that Buddhism is somehow "true faith?"

[gallo]

Quote by: Gabe2007 Why don't people want Creationism or ID to be taught in schools?

Teaching them in school is not the issue. Teaching them in science classes rather than in classes on mythology or comparative religion is.

Quote by: Gabe2007 If evolution is scientifically proven, why not let it disprove ID in the class?

Hopefully, when you get to high school and take a science class you will learn what science is and how it works. Science is not in the business of proving anything. Science attempts to explain what we observe in the the universe around us. Creationism and ID haven't presented anything based on empirical evidence. They are assertions that are based on no evidence whatsoever. What would be the point in presenting that in a science class?

Quote by: Gabe2007 Because evolutionists are scared!!

Of what?

Quote by: Gabe2007 Not wanting ID to be taught in school is like asking Islamic law to not be in politics!!! It is impossible!!

Did that make sense to you?

Quote by: Gabe2007 Just because ID has a religious superior being creating the earth, that should not make a difference!!

Only if you are of the opinion that science should be taught in science classes rather than superstition.

Quote by: Gabe2007 The only "evolution" that can be proven is micro-evolution (small variations and changes in species, but it is still the same species)

Evolution is an observation. It is neither proven nor disproven. However, the theories of evolution explain the mechanisms that cause the observed evolution.

Quote by: Gabe2007 One question: Where did the COMMON ANCESTOR come from?

From a previous ancestor.