Creationism and Evolution

[Ramirez]

Good to see you aboard, Ramirez. Agreed. Creationism and evolution are not alternative explanations of the same outcome.

I'm somewhat troubled to read in some of the posts that belief in Creationism is a matter of faith. My question: Whose faith? The Christians? The Jews? If, as a teacher, I am expected to give equal time to Creationism, then I should be teaching the Creation stories of all cultures and religions -- which would make for spectacular education.

However, that is not the expectation of those who fight the hardest to have Creationism (or its cousin, Intelligent Design) taught in a classroom alongside Darwinism.

Hey Gord, I followed you over here but just getting going on this board. The massive main forum page is a bit disconcerting , I never know where to go.

Yes oddly enough most Intelligent Designers seem to want to give time to designer except the Judeo-Christian one, I never hear them asking to give Xenu of the Scientologists his at bat.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Hey Gord, I followed you over here but just getting going on this board. The massive main forum page is a bit disconcerting , I never know where to go.

I just head straight to "The Study." The rest of it all seems to be martial arts talk for some reason...

:lfao:

 

[BanannaSmoothie]

I agree with some of your points on this. My point is why fight people or try to persuade them. Let them believe what they want to believe. If they can't agree to teach that there are alternative theories then don't teach either. I find no reason to argue about something that will never become "law". I don't even deny the theory that aliens were here. I simply say if that is what you believe, cool, I may not agree but hey it could be.

I have always had faith in a higher force or being. However I am not in the line of people who regard that force as something that is in the human image. My belief and you welcome to not agree is that whatever is out there is beyond our comprehension thus we will never know exactly what caused or exact origins or the origins of the universe. There were once things in science that were thought to be "laws" that were found to be untrue, and there are many things in religious writings that can be interpreted differently.

Once again each person has brought up valid points and i appreciate the fact that this has not come to personal attacks yet. :highfive:

we can't dismiss evoloution teaching because people don't agree. evolution has scientific research backing it with solid measurable evidence. no other hypothesys has duplicated the types of results evolution has. thus, evolution is what should students should be learning in a science classroom. if you want to teach creationism or inteligent design, then that's awesome for you. keep it in theology classrooms though.

a divinity student would be pretty ticked off if they signed up for advanced new testimant and wound up getting lectures on photosynthesys or ribonucleic replication (please forgive spelling). so, why shouldn't a science student be irked that a religious teaching is becoming prevolent in science classrooms? it isn't like this is another scientific theory, this is a story from the christian bible that pseud-scientific RELIGIOUS scholars have tried to force science into. they are doing science backwards. you can't start with and end result and try to force existing evidence to support it. you start with observations of the existing world and see what unknown that evidnce proves.

the best way to find out if someone is a pseudo-scientific religious person or a true scientist, is to ask them how they feel when their hypothesys was proved wrong.
the scientist will say the results are just as valuable as if they were proven right. they will say that now they know something that doesn't work, and after analyzing the results, they can probably find something they hadn't thought of.

a pseudo-scientist will say that their hypothesys can't be proven wrong, they are just trying to find more evidence for it. the reason is that they believe the bible to be infallable and every letter is divine. with this as a basis for logical reasoning, they will assume that the same applies to science. if one thing in the bible is wrong, the whole book is invalidated. thus, if one thing is wrong with evolutionary theory, the whole thing is invalidated.

this leads them to spend more time poking holes in evolutionary theory, or capitalizing on past mistakes that are in the process of being addressed and tearign down all of molecular biology because of it. they, however, do not turn the same scrutiny to themselves, and when others do, they can always claim divinity of the bible.

the whole arguement comes down to determining what point of view you are going to use to establish the ground rules of the debate.
if it is a religious debate, then it is automatically a draw. you cannot prove or disprove your christian theology any better than i can prove or disprove the flying speghetti monster. however, once science is the basis of the debate, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to bring your hypothesys to the level of evolutionary theory.

see my previous post for the difference between hypothesys and theory

 

[Ramirez]

the best way to find out if someone is a pseudo-scientific religious person or a true scientist, is to ask them how they feel when their hypothesys was proved wrong.
the scientist will say the results are just as valuable as if they were proven right. they will say that now they know something that doesn't work, and after analyzing the results, they can probably find something they hadn't thought of.

Excellent point...science is falsifiable, creationism or intelligent design is not.

Of course science isn't always right but who proves it wrong? Other scientists that is who Never in all of history has science been proven wrong by a religionist.

 

[elder999]

Excellent point...science is falsifiable, creationism or intelligent design is not.

Of course science isn't always right but who proves it wrong? Other scientists that is who Never in all of history has science been proven wrong by a religionist.

Galileo proved Aristotle's science wrong, and he was, stories to the contrary notwithstanding, a religionist.

Religion and science are not exclusive of each other, and never have been. Some of the giants of science from history were religious men, as are some of the giants of science of today.

Oh, and Hi, Mark!

 

[Ramirez]

Galileo proved Aristotle's science wrong, and he was, stories to the contrary notwithstanding, a religionist.

Religion and science are not exclusive of each other, and never have been. Some of the giants of science from history were religious men, as are some of the giants of science of today.

Oh, and Hi, Mark!

Hey Aaron, okay badly put, science has never been proven wrong by religion, just by science itself.