2 registered members (AndrewAMD, 7th_zorro),
1,285
guests, and 4
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES!
[Re: LarryLaffer]
#231628
10/15/08 19:00
10/15/08 19:00
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658 germany
Tiles
User
|
User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 658
germany
|
Given the fact that it is part of the science education to try to disprove the concepts you can ask every biology student. Given the fact that it is part of developing a theory to permanently try to disprove it you can also ask every biologist that actively deals with the evolution theory. Quick google search, just to show a name: Franz Wuketits, austrian biologist. That is the difference between faith and science. It is surely not part of the christian education to try to disprove the concept
Last edited by Tiles; 10/15/08 19:13.
|
|
|
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES!
[Re: NITRO777]
#231654
10/15/08 21:15
10/15/08 21:15
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Evolution is being tested everyday and as I've said, Please name one atheist or agnostic scientist who is actively questioning evolutionary theory and in the process of testing alternatives. Just about every scientist that deals with the subject in whatever way, does. There are also skeptics among the scientific community, so really there's plenty of people trying to test the theories. It's true for most if not all scientific theories. If you want specific names, how about Stanley Miller and Harold Urey? They did experiments on how the very first of life might have come into existence. They succeeded in making amino-acids, the building blocks of life. And while I fully admit they haven't been able to recreate life itself just yet, their experiments have been a major step forward. I was using history as an example as why biblical things should be taught as history, they don't have to say if it's true or not, I just think that the bible is a history book that should have the same right as "old questionable history" ( laugh lol ) in school. I'm sorry, but again you're missing the main point. If actual evidence suggest a story is wrong, then a story obviously becomes questionable at best, entirely wrong at 'worst'. There are plenty of cases where archaeological or geological evidence simply disproves a certain event all together (for example the biblical flood, there's no geological evidence whatsoever that it occurred even though such events would definitely leave their marks and traces within a geological context). I wouldn't mind if people learn about these stories as there's a lot more value in them in terms of moral issues, social problems and so on. It's great literature. But... it's extremely questionable if it's historical accurate at all. It would simply be wrong to teach these stories as if they truly happened and are 100% accurate. I agree that old history can be quite inaccurate also and in my opinion teachers should pay more attention to this. Especially when it's a known fact that a certain historic event might have happened differently. I personally think that history should be taught with an open mind, it should make student think about the events. Contrary to what people tend to think, the recording of our history in whatever form is never objective and it should not be treated as if it is. Just my 2ct. By the way, for those who talk of 'chance' being the cause or motor behind life and it's evolution in general. There are a lot of very tangible causes that kick-started the development. For example the mere existence of cosmic radiation or more accurately UV-radiation definitely caused early microbes to be bombarded with change causing mutations. For those who doubt the time frame of evolution, it's a good idea to look at the circumstances of early life. One puddle of microbes constantly bombarded with UV-radiation, I don't think that has much to do with 'chance', Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES!
[Re: PHeMoX]
#239154
12/02/08 22:46
12/02/08 22:46
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,256 Oz
Locoweed
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,256
Oz
|
I have no problem with any theory being taught in school, as long as it is taught as a theory, not fact. I have no more of a problem with Creationism being taught in school as a theory than the Big Bang or Darwinism, but until they are law, they all need to be taught as theories, not facts.
And as long as they are just theories, they should be treated the same, because any theory is just that, a theory. Even though some theories seem to be more plausible, it doesn't make them any more of a fact than any other theory.
Professional A8.30 Spoils of War - East Coast Games
|
|
|
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES!
[Re: heinekenbottle]
#239323
12/03/08 23:19
12/03/08 23:19
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,256 Oz
Locoweed
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,256
Oz
|
Here is a entertaining little read: Theory of Creationism?Not like any of these threads or post within them ever changes what someone already considers to be the facts (about what a scientific theory really is or anything else for that matter), but I will play along for a bit.
Professional A8.30 Spoils of War - East Coast Games
|
|
|
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES!
[Re: Locoweed]
#239328
12/03/08 23:38
12/03/08 23:38
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 218 Nashua NH
heinekenbottle
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 218
Nashua NH
|
I found this part interesting: This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:
Of course scientists redefine the term "scientific theory" to their own purposes! They did this so that every theory would go through so much scrutiny that any unfounded idea can't become theory. A scientific theory has several demands for this purpose, testability is one of them. Can you test parts of Creationism? No. Can you test parts of evolution? Stick some bacteria in a petri dish, make their environment hostile. Examine them for several generations and make any note to any genetic change from generation to generation. And then there is the issue of evidence. Evolution has evidence. You can see the progression in the fossils. The problem with Creationism, is we can't prove a negative, so we can't say that God didn't create the world 6000 years ago. But there is not enough hard evidence to conclude that he did. Evolution may be incomplete, but there is more evidence pointing to that conclusion, than there is for Creationism. And one last point, unrelated to this article, if we do teach creationism in a school, why do we teach Judeo-Christian creationism? I believe that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Are they going to teach that view point in a science class?
|
|
|
Re: Q: Should creationism be taught in shools? -- A: YES!
[Re: heinekenbottle]
#239332
12/04/08 00:19
12/04/08 00:19
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,256 Oz
Locoweed
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,256
Oz
|
First, you are stipulating that creationism says organisms can not genetically change over time. This is not entirely true.
The creationist position is basically that genetic changes can occur, even to the point of speciation or possibly even higher order changes, but changes never occur such that one kind of animal becomes another kind.
Now, if you can put some bacteria in a petri and it changes into a frog on it's own, you might be on to something.
Now, just because many fossils look similar is nice and all, but does it really prove anything? Has any human ever actually seen any animal change into another animal at birth or even thousands of generations of births? I want to meet the scientist that saw that happen naturally. Fruit flies multiply like crazy, let them fornicate like mad in laboratory as long as you like, let me know when one turns into a rodent please. You can even nuked them with radiation, change their environment, whatever you like. Oh wait, we are talking about "theory" not "law", I almost forgot that.
Using your logic for "scientific theory" above.
Since humans haven't created life from any non-living materials like carbon material and water and there hasn't been any other proof found that it actually happened that way, then obviously it could not have happen, and thus the any "theory" that includes that life started from some "primordial ooze" is not a theory at all. Since I don't believe it happened that way, and has no proof to support it.
Since humans didn't see some creator create the universe and life, then obviously it could not have happen, and thus the any "theory" that includes a "creator" is not a theory at all. Since I don't believe it happened that way, and has no proof to support it.
Since no humans saw the big bang, then obviously it could not have happened. But the universe is expanding so the big bang must be fact, or maybe the creator just created a expanding universe, wow this theory stuff is confusing, anyway since no one witnessed what really happened it is not really a theory at all.
Does that kind of logic sound familiar to you?
It should, it is exactly the logic you are using.
I am not here to discuss what theories are more plausible.
The discussion of the thread is whether Creationism should be taught as a theory. And yes, I still think it is just as much of a "scientific theory" as any of the other theories listed here.
I think this line from the link I posted before sums up best why some are so against Creationism as a "theory", "Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science."
What is funny, I would really expect the Creationist to be the ones trying to dismiss Evolution as a theory and not have it taught in schools, but it seems the opposite seems to be true. Although, I am sure there was a time when Creationist did just that. Humans are quite silly really, if you think about it. Humans have always thought they know more than they really know, and I am guessing that will never change.
Until next time, when we meet in a parallel universe, Later, Loco
Professional A8.30 Spoils of War - East Coast Games
|
|
|
|