Scientists: Creationist President Would Doom U.S.

[Whaleboy]

Some people here seem to think that it is a student's right to learn evolution so he/she can make a decision about which idea is true. What about the children of atheists who were raised to believe in evolution? Don't they have the right to learn creationism?

You mistakenly assume that creationism and evolution are equally valid.

Secondly you use the phrase "believe in evolution" whereas "convinced by evolution" would be more appropriate. The second phrase allows for further evidence.

Thirdly, everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. What is taught in schools is not a matter of having a right to know, it's giving the kids the best learning available. If they choose to reject that in favour of an inferior view, well that's their business. Failing to teach evolution in place of creationism is rather like teaching Klingon instead of English.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Perfection


Evolution isn't a religious belief! It's a scientific theory that is recognized by people of all and no faiths. The Vatican even recognizes evolution.

I'm specifically refering to the belief that big bang and evolution are he reasons for the universe's existence and the reason for species we have on earth. I'm perfectly fine with evolution being taught as long it isn't taught that life started with bacteria and slowly evolved to the species we have today. I've said that I don't think we should teach anything in school that specifically supports a certian religion(s) or specically opposes a certian religion(s).

Creationism isn't a scientific theory and clearly a religious viewpoint. I suppose it could be taught in a comparitive religion or philosophy class, but certainly not in biology.

I definatly agree that creationism shouldn't be taught biology class mainly because that would mean it would be taught by a biology teacher.

[Whaleboy]

I'm specifically refering to the belief that big bang and evolution are he reasons for the universe's existence and the reason for species we have on earth. I'm perfectly fine with evolution being taught as long it isn't taught that life started with bacteria and slowly evolved to the species we have today. I've said that I don't think we should teach anything in school that specifically supports a certian religion(s) or specically opposes a certian religion(s).

Why the problem with bacteria?

Why not teach something which is contrary to a certain religion? It might offend someone? What about teaching that homosexuals are humans entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as others, and that stoning to death is not an acceptable way of dealing with them?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Will


I'm specifically refering to the belief that big bang and evolution are he reasons for the universe's existence and the reason for species we have on earth. I'm perfectly fine with evolution being taught as long it isn't taught that life started with bacteria and slowly evolved to the species we have today. I've said that I don't think we should teach anything in school that specifically supports a certian religion(s) or specically opposes a certian religion(s).

Define "certain religion". I suppose that means the one true religion.

You know that argument is why Pastafarianism exists today.


edit: Btw, don't confuse "Reason" for "Explanation". The big bang is an explanation for the existence of the universe as it is today, it's an explanation backed by observation and not contradicted by observation. It's not necessarily the reason the universe exists, reasons to me seem like a philosophical thing, but it's certainly an explanation.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Will
I'm specifically refering to the belief that big bang and evolution are he reasons for the universe's existence and the reason for species we have on earth. I'm perfectly fine with evolution being taught as long it isn't taught that life started with bacteria and slowly evolved to the species we have today. I've said that I don't think we should teach anything in school that specifically supports a certian religion(s) or specically opposes a certian religion(s).

The idea that evolution shouldn't be tought in the full scope that biological science shows it to be is rather silly. It is the consensus of the scientific community that evolution encompasses in scope all living creatures. This is accepted by all biologists (minus a handful of nuts), the vast majority of scientists and many ordinary people of all faiths.

Of course, no teacher should say that evolution by natural selection cannot be a system orchastrated or put into place by God, but they certainly should teach that evolution by natural selection is the mechanism by which all biodiversity came into being.

Originally posted by Will
I definatly agree that creationism shouldn't be taught biology class mainly because that would mean it would be taught by a biology teacher.

You don't care for biology teachers? I should note that creationism should never be taought as a viable scientific alternative to evolution.

[Whaleboy]

no teacher should say that evolution by natural selection cannot be a system orchastrated or put into place by God

Why? Why not say that there is no evidence and no need for God to be in any way involved in evolution?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why? Why not say that there is no evidence and no need for God to be in any way involved in evolution?

It's true that there's no need for God, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that God set it up or meant for it to happen and in that sense used it as a tool to create all the biodiversity we see today.

[Whaleboy]

True but you might as well posit anything in place of God. Not ruling out the possibility does not constitute, imo, worthiness of mention as a possible cause since even conjecture can have reasoning behind it (i.e., the replicating clay argument).

I think unless there's positive evidence in support of God, it would be disingenuous to introduce him as a cause for evolution even if just to appease the religious.

[Blake]

The point is of course, is that if a proposition cannot be disproved, there is no point in debating it.

Otherwise, their proposition is unscientific. The scientific method, is to make a very rigorous effort to disprove any proposition, it is through the exhaustive effort to disprove the proposition, that it becomes an accepted theory.

The basic problem with Creationism, is it cannot be disproved. You can say "God created the world. He made the dinosaur fossils at the same time, because like, God has to act in mysterious ways and stuff, else people wouldn't need faith". What would be acceptable disproof of an Omnipotent God who plants fake evidence to make scientific theories look accurate?

Where any such explanation breaks down badly, is that there are any number of other equally rationalizable explanations, like "The world was created by the flying spaghetti monster who planted fake evidence to make it look like he didn't create the world".

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
True but you might as well posit anything in place of God. Not ruling out the possibility does not constitute, imo, worthiness of mention as a possible cause since even conjecture can have reasoning behind it (i.e., the replicating clay argument).

Well, I'm not saying that they have to directly mention God as a possible cause of the universe or anything only that they shouldn't state that God is incompatible with evolution.

[Blake]

But God has no place in the natural world.

Nature = natural.
God = supernatural.

So unless a class is for the "study" of the supernatural, there is no place for God.

[Whaleboy]

they shouldn't state that God is incompatible with evolution.

But, from the point of view of scientific method, he is!

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Blake
But God has no place in the natural world.

Nature = natural.
God = supernatural.

So unless a class is for the "study" of the supernatural, there is no place for God.

I'm not saying they should mention God or that he takes some role in evolutionary theory, I'm just saying they shouldn't say evolution is incompatible with God.

[Whaleboy]

...and vice versa to your x-post

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


But, from the point of view of scientific method, he is!

How exactly does the scientifc method say that the existance of God is incompatible with evolution?