1/8 US High School Biology Teachers Present Creationism as Scientific Alternative

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


They don't tax schools. I hardly think you would want to put pastors as public employees, and entitled to funds from your own pocket.

Secondly, good luck picking out which money I gave. You can't tax it unless you know who's giving it.

That's ok. If they don't declare their income on their tax returns then we just toss them in jail for tax evasion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now I'm confused. I would use the two terms interchangeably. You're obviously drawing a distinction. Explain, plead, how are the two different?

Evolution is like gravity. It is a physical phenomenon, and there are a variety of theories out there that try to explain how and why it works. It also applies to two very different phenomenons, one of speciation or macroevolution, and the second which is of differentiation, or microevolution.

Darwinism, is the theory that is put out by Charles Darwin in his descent of Man, and in the Origin of Species, which says that evolution is the natural process by which species change into one another over long periods of time. The change happens slowly and consistantly. What is believed to happen, is that as the environment changes, that the species will adapt to these changes, and over time, they will diversify. Eventually, as they diversify enough, it is believed that they will become entirely different species, incapable of interbreeding.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not that I accept Popper's definition of science, all that would need to be done to show that Darwin was wrong was to show another theory that accounts for diverse speciation and fits with all the facts and is more elegant.

It's not Popper's definition, but Francis Bacon's. It is up to the theory itself to make predictions that can be challenged. It would be like darwinian evolution predicting that humans will become less hairy after a specific period of time. That is a prediction that can be tested, and would qualify as falsifiable.

The problem is that Darwinian evolution merely says that the organisms will 'adapt'. It doesn't say how. Nor does it state a rate of speciation, or exinction. Nor does it make predictions as to how these adaptations will occur. This is why it shouldn't be taught in science classes, because that's not science. Where's the evidence of speciation?

[Ben Kenobi]

That's ok. If they don't declare their income on their tax returns then we just toss them in jail for tax evasion.

What income? Say he claims 30k and makes twice that, the remainder of which is given back to the community.

[Heraclitus]

Ben you do know the RCC has no problem with evolution right?

[MattBowron]

I have a different opinion

Maybe Creation & Science (Astrophysical and Biological Evolution), instead of versus

If interested see:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177331

[Dinner]

He's reverting to his militant protestant roots.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Oerdin
He's reverting to his militant protestant roots.

[Pekka]

Science at best is still just odds. It is about predicting the probable outcome. If need clarification, the problem of induction is a good start.

That is, how can we really be sure Newton was right, let's drop an object here, repeat millions of times, how do we know it happens exactly the same way with the next drop? In reality, we don't. We can never be sure. Science is about theory, and that theory is about explaining a phenomena and more to the point it's relation to other phenomenons. How does it effect to something else, is effected by something and so forth.

Most often you will find it that there are always boundaries and context, you will either have to do the trade off with accuracy or generalizability. Universal theories are more rare. Most "theories" aren't actually theories at all. I would agree, that it has to be falsifiable, it simply means it has to be testable.

Creationism will never be testable, even in theoretically it will never be testable. It will never be a scientific theory. Yet, some other things CAN be theories, it's simply probable outcomes at best, now and always. There's many things that cannot be tested with current tools or technologies, yet we can accept them as theories. It is not a valid statement to make that everything that can't be measured right now and rigorously tested is a religion. There's no such dichotomy in the world as religion/science. They're completely different things and shouldn't be mixed. Ever.

You can always gather evidence to support your theories but in the case of religions, there is no data what so ever. Holy books, maybe you could count that as data but it's not exactly reliable or good data. There's a difference being able to gather data than not being able to gather it. There aren't many universal theories to begin with, it's probable outcomes. But you do need evidence or the ability to gather it, it shouldn't be even called theorizing if you can't possibly ever gather data that is acceptable.

For example, if I claim that the world was created by two black men that died 499 years go, it's not a theory nor is it really a religion yet either. Furthermore, I can claim everything is a religion if it would be accepted that if it is not testable, then it is basically based on faith and thus is a religion. It is totally absurd to present a theory, where one construct is God. We can't even define it! Or the relations between God and everything else. We can't even predict if it exists. It is so flawed to begin with, that there simply is no debate about it either. This is why some ID people claim that others are being arrogant because they don't get any friction from the science community. This is why scientific community doesn't even bother to show up. THey've got absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Doesn't work like that.

[MattBowron]

what i actually mean is that when I compared modern astronomical evolution (big bang, stellar formation, supernovae) and biological evolution (RNA, DNA, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, radiates, molluscs, arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc) to the sentences in the first chapter of Genesis, I noticed there were similarities. The thread I mentioned earlier

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177331

was an example of my comparisons. Now this could mean that either the people of Genesis had the same knowledge of how the world was created according to science in a mythical form 3000 years ago or so.

Or, scientific theory of evolution is not so different from Genesis and thus can support Genesis as an allegory of modern scientific creation.

Or, scientific evolution and creationism could be perhaps two different perspectives on the same story, with science taking a look at the process of how creation came about, while religion/Genesis takes a look at the purpose of why creation came about

Or it could just be anthropocentrism, take your pick

anyhow, just thought I should throw in my two cents

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben you do know the RCC has no problem with evolution right?

Where did I say I had a problem with evolution? My beef is with Darwinism. The RCC church does have quite a problem with Darwin's theories.

[DaShi]

Yup, he was a heathen protestant.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by MattBowron


Or, scientific evolution and creationism could be perhaps two different perspectives on the same story, with science taking a look at the process of how creation came about, while religion/Genesis takes a look at the purpose of why creation came about

I think that's a good point.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DaShi
Yup, he was a heathen protestant.

Like you Papists are any better.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The problem is that Darwinian evolution merely says that the organisms will 'adapt'. It doesn't say how. Nor does it state a rate of speciation, or exinction. Nor does it make predictions as to how these adaptations will occur. This is why it shouldn't be taught in science classes, because that's not science. Where's the evidence of speciation?

The theory of evolution has moved far beyond Darwin's groundbreaking and incredible work because we now KNOW what many of the mehcanism of adaptation are, given our knowledge of genetics, as well as knowing what can cause extinctions.

As for the evidence of speciation, that is more than amply provided by the fossil record and genetic testing.

Maybe you forget that one of things that Darwin studied most intently was pigeon breeding, because human breeding of livestock and domesticated animals have provided us with some of the best evidence for the mechanics of evolution that we could ever have.