creation science vs. evolution

[aspeck]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Skinny is right, Joe is right ...<br /><br />Actually, I am in favor of teaching creationism along side of evolution as another possible theory. Remember, the theory of evolution can never be proven by pure science. To prove a theory you must have a control group and a test group. The control group is left alone while the test group is just that, it tests the theory. After the testing is over, you compare the two groups and see the differences. These needs to be done several times to validate the results. How are you going to prove the theory of evolution using scientific proceedures?<br /><br />There are scientists that line up on both sides of the fence, and some that are somewhere in the middle. If this is really so, how can public science teachers, in good conscience, teach the theory of evolution, and only the theory of evolution, as the way the world came into being? I do think that more than one theory needs to be taught.

 

[JoeW]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

MY,<br />It's 10:31 AM PST <br />"POPCORN" calls me for the time!<br />

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

If we look at the moon, can we not conclude that meteors struck it? Is that a theory that must be proven by pure science? How about the pythagorean theorm? Do we have to be suspect of trigonometry? Problem is this debate will always rage, because you practically have to dedicate your career to it to gain enough knowledge to put the pieces together. The world cannot function if everyone learns the same things. We are all ignorant about what the other guys field of expertise is, whether it is fishing lures or nuclear physics. Trick is to recognize when you are too ignorant on a subject to have a valid opinion. I'm not going to be telling Clanton that the cross flow is better than a looper.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

u guys are killing me here... evolution science<br />can not be proven 100%, but comes pretty close.<br />intellegent design has no scientific basis at<br />all! yet we should teach this in our classrooms<br />as equally possible? based on what scientific<br />facts? is this science class or religion?

 

[LubeDude]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Ive always felt that the only reason for the theory of evolution is because if you dont beleive in creation, then you do not have to be held accountable for anything and you can just do whatever feels good! After all, you are the deciding factor for everything and there is no right or wrong! Thus Gay marrage and all the garbage in the world!<br /><br />Just my thought!<br /><br />I agree with soulwinner: God said it, I beleive it, That settles it!

 

[JoeW]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

MY,<br />I agree that It would seem simpler to leave the religious teaching to the Church. In fact, I'm in favor of that because it's simpler. The real problem with teaching creationism in school is who's version do you teach? Genesis is only one form of creationism.<br /><br />Of course you are still left with the problem of teaching only one flawed discipline to explain the universe. To say that we have scientific evidence to support science is not much different than saying that the evidence to support the Bible is the scripture. Based on what scripture should we teach science in school? A scientific zealot is no different in my book than a religeous zealot.<br /><br />The fundemental problem we face is the belief that what we teach in school in 100% or even 95% accurate. Sorry, but I've seen too much evidence to the contrary. This is especially true for subjects liek science and history.

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Lube,<br />I would agree with you then I look at the Catholic Priest problem.

 

[oddjob]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Off topic a tad: <br /><br />I was wondering the other day,..what animal did the cow (beef) evolve from?<br />

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

SCO what problem do you speak of..........If its what I think it is , it has nothing to do with Gods word.

 

[JoeW]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

oddjob,<br />My guess it would be something akin to a bison. But that is just a guess. <br />-Joe

 

[ED21]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Take a look at the book "Tornado In a Junkyard" by Pearloff(I think) for rebuttal of much of darwinian evolution.

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Lube implies that evolution belief allows people to reject principles of Christianity leading to gay marraige etc. I could almost agree, but know I am as appalled as Lube is at that. The Catholic Priests believe in God and teachings, but some 5% have abused boys...you know the rest. Point is that belief in God and teachings does not correct the problem. I do see also what you are saying, that because there is no rulebook, sanction of gay marriage is possible. Apparently the Cardinal rulebook has it that these Priests are worthy of protection. Not so in my rule book, so don't paint me with that brush, but in general, I think Lube may be right. The argument that you cant accept an idea because it is contradictory to established religious understanding is exactly what happened when Galileo said that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. He was condemmed by the church for that. They probably had I(talian)Boats group meeting discussions about it. At that time, we were the masters of earth, and earth was th center of the universe. Everything literally revolved around us. Now most will agree that the earth revolves around a normal star in an arm of a typical spiral galaxy of which there are millions or billions of.

 

[snapperbait]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

Creation in school! Then, want to call it a "science".. When Hell freezes over...... <br /><br /> Wrong... Quite wrong... Un-true.... No place in a public school...<br /><br />Gonna go puke now...

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

I thank god that I am evolved enough that I can<br />still understand the bible's meaning, yet I can<br />also use the common sense god gave me and formulte<br />my own opinion. <br />while the faith behind these posts may be strong,<br />the scientific facts speak for themsleves.<br /><br />example:<br />"the great flood"<br />do I believe it happened? yes<br />as a matter of fact, every single culture has the<br />same story of a great flood...<br />do I belive that Noah gathered a pair of every<br />living land animal on the planet? no!<br />common sense...<br />does this dimminish the purpose of this bible story<br />for me? not in the least!<br />yet creation science trys to teach us that the<br />grand canyon was cut in a very short time by the<br />great flood even though science proves otherwise!<br />why is it a sin to think for yourself and make<br />your own decisions? is your faith so fragile????

 

[18rabbit]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

evolution science can not be proven 100%, but comes pretty close.

No its not. And you cannot (nor can anyone in academia) proffer support of where evolution is “pretty close” to being proven. I will latch onto anything that is even as vague as ‘evidence’ that evolution can/did/or will happen. I don’t need proof, just evidence…and it ain’t thar, Sparky! <br /><br />Please note: I am staying a hundred-billion-agizzilion-miles away from any discussion suggesting divine creation preempts evolution in anyway. In my mind (that would be both of my brain cells) they need not necessarily be exclusive of each other.<br /><br />

The real problem with teaching creationism in school is who's version do you teach?

Any version that teach that women are here as servants of men sound good to me.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

u r gonna argue the merits of this science based<br />on what? a feeling? a belief? thank god darwin's<br />theory has had much physical proof.<br />what do you have to counter-balance wabbit?<br />not a flippin thing!<br />looks like sco is only one who has actually read<br />the initial Darwin finch study or has any clue<br />about the science behind it...

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

in closing...<br />for those of faith, I pray your faith isn't really<br />as weak as you have shown here...<br />all I can say is that MY worst fears have been<br />confirmed. <br />live free or die!<br />M.Y.

 

[SCO]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

 

[aspeck]

Re: creation science vs. evolution

MY, why do they have to be mutually exclusive. Even now, you don't know what my personal beliefs are of how the world began, but because I feel that creationism and evolution theories should be taught side by side, you think I am weak? Wait a minute there buster, now you are ruffling MY feathers!<br /><br />Scientifically, neither theory can be proven. If you are talking science, then observation of past events is not enough (it is science class, so scientific principles should be followed). So, you cannot teach as fact, what has not been proven. That is what bothers me about the teaching of the theory of evolution. If it were taught as a theory, that would be one thing. But it so often is taught as fact and there is no other course a student can take. They are not allowed to use their own minds to examine what might or might not be. So it ends up being a struggle between some churches and the schools.<br /><br />Actually, most of the scientists that I have been familiar with have subscribed to a theory somewhere in the middle - Creationist Evolution. They feel that Evolution, by itself, could never happen - remember the second law of thermodynamics?<br /><br />What do I believe, that really does not matter in this discussion, but I do believe that Evolution should be taught, not as fact, but as THEORY . Then other theories should be introduced. Give the students a chance to expand their horizons, maybe they will be the ones that will find the missing pieces to Evolution, or Creationism, or aliens, in the science world.<br /><br />BTW, you still don't have a clue as to my feelings on how it all began. Before I graduated with a degree in Business Administration, I was a Biology major. I am certainly no expert in the field of sciences, but I have had a few courses, and a few professors. I also have a family history of scientists. My brother has published numerous scientific articles and text books for post-secondary ed.