Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

[ST88]

Have you noticed that the evolutionary/uniformitarian community still ponders "how," but has never arrived at a single "this is how?" What is so amazing is that "hows" are taught as fact.

No, I don't think they are. The "how" isn't taught as fact.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree, ST88. Often the "how" is taught as fact, or discussed so quickly that it's hard to distinguish from things that really are taught as "facts," if for no other reason than lack of time to go into the details. I think that part of the problem is that K-12 texts use specific examples to illustrate specific points--sometimes hypothetical examples to make the mechanisms more clear.

I stand corrected. I was going on my experience with textbooks earlier this century, and also my own personal experience with chemistry and biology classes in high school, late last century. Has high school science really changed that much?

How can anyone be sure that it happened if they can't explain how?

Inductive reasoning. There was a point in the geologic history of the Earth at which life did not exist. Life now exists. The rest is just chemistry.

(Off topic digression)

Webster's Dictionaries of the 1800's, as today, show that the word "science" was derived from the Latin "scientia," which means, "knowledge, the comprehension or understanding of truth....Pure science is built on self-evident truths." "Observation" and "experiment" do receive an honorable mention further down in the definitions. The Greek for "science" is "gnosis," and means "to know." Science, today, does not "know" how the universe began, how lifeless matter produced life, or how species evolved different species.

Dictionary definitions are very misleading when it comes to usage, especially for etymologies.

Words have meanings and to try and circumvent them with other words or terms is taking license with them.

The way the word "science" came to be an English term might be interesting for etymologists and anthropologists, but the word is used in a moden context, and this is the context we understand it to be now.

This is classic liberalism; abandoning orthodoxy or authority to arrive at a desired result through spin.

If this were true, we should all still be speaking Indo-European. Language changes and evolves. English as we now know it is only about 800 years old, and it was not a native language to any ancient culture -- it sprang out of a number of other languages that clashed and congealed in Briton, Britain, England. We do not speak the same English as people did just 200 years ago. New words pop up all the time, and meanings shift depending on context. If you want "Orthodoxy," go check out the Academie Francaise, where they try to keep a fascist grip on the French language. Or perhaps the Japanse Justice Ministry where they regulate which Kanji characters can be used for individual person's names. English is an inherently "liberal" language, constantly evolving.

Though I must agree that presenting it as absolute fact is disingenuous, it is still the most accepted view.

I'm not so sure about that. If you poll the public, I think you will find that most people believe our origins are found in special creation and that most people favor creation to be taught along side evolution.

I wasn't talking about the public, I was talking about scientists. And I think you're wrong about the public. But I don't have any data to back that up. That's just an opinion.

I believe that when a person looks into a Mt. Palomer telescope to view the wonders of space, and into a microscope to observe the wonders of DNA, the only response should be, "My God how great thou art."

In my opinion, this is very sad. Without inquiry into the world around us, we are reduced to simpering automatons, constantly frustrated at our attempts to do anything because of our lack of understanding. Without this inquiry there would be no Mt. Palomar telescope or electron microscope.

[ENIGMA]

Ok, I must take this opportunity to request that standard quote tags be used since it is becoming increasingly muddled as to who said what.

[Day] I'm sorry but I don't know how to do it any other way than I have been doing it.

Ok, seriously. It's not that hard. Just break the text that you are responding to into blocks by using a close quote tag to end a block and then start the next section with a quote tag. This is really getting to be a pain to sort out.

If a person is positively verified as being in London and Houston in the same day, they almost certainly traveled by plane. Now, given this information, please detail that person's flight plan.

[Day] The person was observed boarding and disembarking from the plane and the flight can be verified taking off and landing. These are verifiable facts. Bad anaology.

Assumes facts not in evidence:

Which flight? What airport? What if he had a fake ID?

I mean it is not impossible that he took a chopper to a European space launch facility, geared up with oxygen tanks/rebreathers, pressure suits, and an array of parachutes and other speed limiting devices. Went up in the shuttle, waited til they were roughly over the US at a sub-orbital height, ejected and slowly counter the effects of gravity with the equipment, leading to a relatively easy descent leaving him stranded in the middle of the US and then a quick drive to Houston.

While the latter scenario is very, very, improbable, the "how" is very well specified. While the likelyhood that he traved by plane/planes via an as of yet unknown series of flights is massively greater, the "how" is less well understood. You still think that the "how" is necessary to show that the "what" is the most likely?

[Day] Words have meanings and to try and circumvent them with other words or terms is taking license with them.

So I take it that whenever someone uses the term "groovy" that it should only be used as an adjective describing an object with grooves?

[Day] Let's stay focused The definition of "science" is what the dictionaries say it is. And the word basically means "knowledge." Trying to prove that we evolved is not science because there is no factual knowledge. Colin Patterson, the late senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, was asked if he knew of one thing about evolution that was true and of which an air tight case was made. He responded that he knew nothing.

I contend that there are less than 10 things that cannot be logically gainsayed and are thus "airtight" (I'm giving myself a bit of padding here, since only 2 come to mind). The question becomes whether the alternatives are plausible enough to be considered.

So I take it then that we should teach gravity as "just" a theory as well, since we don't fully understand the mechanism.

[Day] Gravity is demonstrably true. We don't need to theorize about any part of it and it is not necessary to understand it to believe it. There is nothing true about evolution even though it seems reasonable to some.

Mutations in DNA do occur and have been shown to occur. This is a part of evolution. Thus your above claim is false.

Perhaps you should rephrase your claim.

[Day] I'm not so sure about that. If you poll the public, I think you will find that most people believe our origins are found in special creation and that most people favor creation to be taught along side evolution.

So I take it then that you would trust a random member of the public to do heart surgery on you, or manage the local nuclear reactor? How about having NASA staffed by random members of the public, qualifications be damned?

[Day] What do these have to do with the fact that there is nothing verifiable about evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, etc.

Under your standards, there's nothing verifiable about the various forensic methods employed on CSI. Doesn't seem to stop them.

If not, then I must inquire on what basis would you entrust the basis of our intellectual future that will be training all of the above to decrees made by the random public?

[Day] I think there is a particular elitism that assigns ignorance to the masses. Some things are of such common sense that no PHD can bamboozle them with their fancy theories, terms, spins, etc. "Where is the wise man? Where is the Scholar? Where is the philospher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world." (1 Cor. 1:20)

I take it God made your computer?

Common sense should drive one's attention to intelligent design once observing the wonders of the universe, the DNA molecule and that fascinating feathered helicopter we call a humming bird.

Common sense also says that a heavy lead weight falls faster than a feather in vaccum, and that one gets equal odds from staying and switching in the Monty Hall problem.

Heck, a few centuries ago it said that the Sun went around the Earth.

Perhaps it would be in everyone's best interest if curriculum were set by those who are in said fields.

[Day] And I think there should be specialists in the application of common sense in this mattter of origins. Evolution only serves man with a reason to deny the inevitable: Accountability to his Creator (Intelligent Designer) who calls him to repentance: "God commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)

They had people like that in the dark ages. They called them Inquisitors.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1:20,21)

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22)

[Day] I believe that when a person looks into a Mt. Palomer telescope to view the wonders of space, and into a microscope to observe the wonders of DNA, the only response should be, "My God how great thou art."

The fact that people think that a deity would construct the universe just to make us only demonstrates humanity's ego and profound lack of a sense of proportion at such scales.

[Day] Not sure I follow what you are saying here. Please rephrase.

Let me see how else I can phrase it...

How close is the Earth to the closest star (Proxima Centauri, 4.22 Lightyears) in terms of a conventional human scale distance unit (km for simplicity)? Working through the calculations:

( 3*10^8 )*3600*24*365.25*4.22/1000= Roughly 40 million billion kilometers.

Now, that is big. Really big. So vastly and mindbogglingly huge that making any analogus comparisons such as an amoeba trying to take a cross-country trip still short by a couple orders of magnitude. Now what would you say if I proposed the idea that a series of interstate highways leading from the US East Coast to the West Coast were designed for the explicit purpose of allowing an colony of amoeba to traverse from one side of the country to the other? Friggin' nuts, I would bet.

Now with this in mind, please re-examine your worldview about how humanity fits into the grand scheme of things.

[Daystar]

Ok, I must take this opportunity to request that standard quote tags be used since it is becoming increasingly muddled as to who said what.

[Day] I'm sorry but I don't know how to do it any other way than I have been doing it.

Ok, seriously. It's not that hard. Just break the text that you are responding to into blocks by using a close quote tag to end a block and then start the next section with a quote tag. This is really getting to be a pain to sort out.

[Day] What is a "close quote tag?" And then a "quote tag?" I sound pretty stupid, but I really have a problem figuring this thing out.

If a person is positively verified as being in London and Houston in the same day, they almost certainly traveled by plane. Now, given this information, please detail that person's flight plan.

[Day] The person was observed boarding and disembarking from the plane and the flight can be verified taking off and landing. These are verifiable facts. Bad anaology.

Assumes facts not in evidence:

Which flight? What airport? What if he had a fake ID?

[Day] There are still obsevable facts about his boarding the plane and landing. No one can disptute that. With evolution, abiogenesis, etc. they are not observable, repeatable, or testable. There is no science, only man's futile attempts to prove the unprovable and, in so doing, ignore the Creator.

I mean it is not impossible that he took a chopper to a European space launch facility, geared up with oxygen tanks/rebreathers, pressure suits, and an array of parachutes and other speed limiting devices. Went up in the shuttle, waited til they were roughly over the US at a sub-orbital height, ejected and slowly counter the effects of gravity with the equipment, leading to a relatively easy descent leaving him stranded in the middle of the US and then a quick drive to Houston.

[Day] Whatever he DID was the truth and it was observable, testable and repeatable. None of these qualities exist in evolution.

While the latter scenario is very, very, improbable, the "how" is very well specified. While the likelyhood that he traved by plane/planes via an as of yet unknown series of flights is massively greater, the "how" is less well understood. You still think that the "how" is necessary to show that the "what" is the most likely?

[Day] Concerning origins, evolution, abiogenesis, yes. I say you can't compare the two for the reasons given.

[Day] Words have meanings and to try and circumvent them with other words or terms is taking license with them.

So I take it that whenever someone uses the term "groovy" that it should only be used as an adjective describing an object with grooves?

[Day] Let's stay focused The definition of "science" is what the dictionaries say it is. And the word basically means "knowledge." Trying to prove that we evolved is not science because there is no factual knowledge. Colin Patterson, the late senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, was asked if he knew of one thing about evolution that was true and of which an air tight case was made. He responded that he knew nothing.

I contend that there are less than 10 things that cannot be logically gainsayed and are thus "airtight" (I'm giving myself a bit of padding here, since only 2 come to mind). The question becomes whether the alternatives are plausible enough to be considered.

So I take it then that we should teach gravity as "just" a theory as well, since we don't fully understand the mechanism.

[Day] Gravity is demonstrably true. We don't need to theorize about any part of it and it is not necessary to understand it to believe it. There is nothing true about evolution even though it seems reasonable to some.

Mutations in DNA do occur and have been shown to occur. This is a part of evolution. Thus your above claim is false.

[Day] What mutation ever caused one specie to change into another? Did you know that Stepehen Gould is on record as saying that, "mutations are not the cause of evolutionary change?"

Perhaps you should rephrase your claim.

[Day] I'm not so sure about that. If you poll the public, I think you will find that most people believe our origins are found in special creation and that most people favor creation to be taught along side evolution.

So I take it then that you would trust a random member of the public to do heart surgery on you, or manage the local nuclear reactor? How about having NASA staffed by random members of the public, qualifications be damned?

[Day] What do these have to do with the fact that there is nothing verifiable about evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, etc.

Under your standards, there's nothing verifiable about the various forensic methods employed on CSI. Doesn't seem to stop them.

[Day] Please limit my statements only to evolution and abiogenesis. I don't oppose or object to any method which attempts to prove either; only that they are futile.

If not, then I must inquire on what basis would you entrust the basis of our intellectual future that will be training all of the above to decrees made by the random public?

[Day] The thinking of the public is influenced by the experts. Sadly, the experts are wrong in their thinking when it comes to origins, evolution and abiogenesis. It takes life to create life, and once created, it reproduces after its own kind. Again, man wants to be his own god and have it his own way. In so doing, he ignores or rejects the One who created him for a purpose in life. Again, the wonders of space, DNA and humming birds mitigate against chance, randomness, purposelessness, etc.

[Day] I think there is a particular elitism that assigns ignorance to the masses. Some things are of such common sense that no PHD can bamboozle them with their fancy theories, terms, spins, etc. "Where is the wise man? Where is the Scholar? Where is the philospher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world." (1 Cor. 1:20)

I take it God made your computer?

[Day] God gave man the intelligence to make computers, but thankless man takes the glory thinking he achieved it on his own.

Common sense should drive one's attention to intelligent design once observing the wonders of the universe, the DNA molecule and that fascinating feathered helicopter we call a humming bird.

Common sense also says that a heavy lead weight falls faster than a feather in vaccum, and that one gets equal odds from staying and switching in the Monty Hall problem.

[Day] Now that is not common sense to me. I would say they fall at an equal pace.

Heck, a few centuries ago it said that the Sun went around the Earth.

[Day] So I guess it boils down to interpretation of the evidence. The non-God paradigm will filter reasoning in a Godless vacuum. The God paradigm sees through the lense of faith and accuracy of the Word.

Perhaps it would be in everyone's best interest if curriculum were set by those who are in said fields.

[Day] And I think there should be specialists in the application of common sense in this mattter of origins. Evolution only serves man with a reason to deny the inevitable: Accountability to his Creator (Intelligent Designer) who calls him to repentance: "God commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)

They had people like that in the dark ages. They called them Inquisitors.

[Day] Whatever they were called, they were not believers. You tell a tree by the fruit it bears. A good tree will bear only good fruit; a bad tree will bear bad fruit. The inquisitors were anything but Christians.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1:20,21)

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22)

[Day] The Apostle was not speaking our of anger or hatred when he said "their foolish hearts were darkened. I would never call anyone a fool out of hatred or anger, but I would suggest to someone that they are foolish for rejecting the One who made eternal life possible. This verse reveals the condition of a man's heart who is not right with God and is in need of repentance.

[Day] I believe that when a person looks into a Mt. Palomer telescope to view the wonders of space, and into a microscope to observe the wonders of DNA, the only response should be, "My God how great thou art."

The fact that people think that a deity would construct the universe just to make us only demonstrates humanity's ego and profound lack of a sense of proportion at such scales.

[Day] Not sure I follow what you are saying here. Please rephrase.

Let me see how else I can phrase it...

How close is the Earth to the closest star (Proxima Centauri, 4.22 Lightyears) in terms of a conventional human scale distance unit (km for simplicity)? Working through the calculations:

( 3*10^8 )*3600*24*365.25*4.22/1000= Roughly 40 million billion kilometers.

[Day] My God, how great thou art

Now, that is big. Really big. So vastly and mindbogglingly huge that making any analogus comparisons such as an amoeba trying to take a cross-country trip still short by a couple orders of magnitude. Now what would you say if I proposed the idea that a series of interstate highways leading from the US East Coast to the West Coast were designed for the explicit purpose of allowing a colony of amoeba to traverse from one side of the country to the other? Friggin' nuts, I would bet.

[Day] No comment

Now with this in mind, please re-examine your worldview about how humanity fits into the grand scheme of things.

[Day] I believe that man was created with a grand and divine purpose in mind. That purpose was abandoned when two people said to their Creator, we would rather do it our way. God created us to gorify him and experience fellowship with him. That is an impossiblilty in man's sinful nature which he inherited from the "troublesome twosome" (Adam and Eve). Since then, man has taken his life into his own hands. And what do we see the results are? We see man devising paradigms and plans that run contrary to the purposes for which he was created and designed.

The Psalmist speaks of "vain imaginations" (Ps. 2:1). Solomon talks about the "vanity of life" without God (Eccl. 1:2). Man orders his life around that which is temporal and self-oriented. That's not what man was created for. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

[otseng]

Ok, I must take this opportunity to request that standard quote tags be used since it is becoming increasingly muddled as to who said what.

[Day] I'm sorry but I don't know how to do it any other way than I have been doing it.

I have created a quick tutorial on how to use BBCode.

[Jose]

I was going on my experience with textbooks earlier this century, and also my own personal experience with chemistry and biology classes in high school, late last century. Has high school science really changed that much?

It depends on who's doing the teaching, and at what level. A great many teachers are fabulous, but others have burned out (not surprising, given how much work it is), and others really believe that "science" is facts to memorize, and teach it that way.

If this were true, we should all still be speaking Indo-European. Language changes and evolves. English as we now know it is only about 800 years old, and it was not a native language to any ancient culture -- it sprang out of a number of other languages that clashed and congealed in Briton, Britain, England. We do not speak the same English as people did just 200 years ago. New words pop up all the time, and meanings shift depending on context.

Here's a good example, if a bit large:

[Day] I believe that man was created with a grand and divine purpose in mind. That purpose was abandoned when two people said to their Creator, we would rather do it our way. God created us to gorify him and experience fellowship with him. That is an impossiblilty in man's sinful nature which he inherited from the "troublesome twosome" (Adam and Eve). Since then, man has taken his life into his own hands. And what do we see the results are? We see man devising paradigms and plans that run contrary to the purposes for which he was created and designed.

The Psalmist speaks of "vain imaginations" (Ps. 2:1). Solomon talks about the "vanity of life" without God (Eccl. 1:2). Man orders his life around that which is temporal and self-oriented. That's not what man was created for. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

[By the way, Daystar, it took me a while to figure out quote tags, too...I now do "control-Q" before and after pasting in quotes like that above. To insert your name, I turned the first quote tag (bracket quote bracket) into (bracket ="Daystar" bracket). Here, I have to write "bracket" or else the computer will think I want to put in a quote! The end is (bracket /quote bracket). I've even figured out how to type it by myself, which I thought was a real advance!)

Back to your quote... It's very clear that you are basing a lot of your world view on the Bible. Many of us do, and many others don't. This results in a fundamental problem: things that are taken as certain by the Biblical folks are often considered to be non-existent by the non-Biblical folks. You had quoted, for example, " but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22) " This is a scary message if you believe in hell fire. Otherwise, it's not scary at all.

So, suppose you say that God created humans for a purpose, and I say that it's just a story that God did so. You may fear for my soul, and want to hit me about the head with a stick to help me see the light, but I would contend that you don't need to. I think my soul can only be damned to an unpleasant eternity if I believe in such a possibility. Perhaps, the Navajo have it right, and my "soul" will simply be a ill-tempered chindi that we can do nothing about. Who knows? We'll only know after someone goes there and comes back--and the only one I know of who claims to have visited heaven on occasion is L. Ron Hubbard.

My point, if I'm making one at all, is that relgious conviction is important at the level of our own, individual relationship with life. It doesn't tell us about the natural world. For that, we need to look at the world, and see what's there. That's where science comes in.

Blind devotion to faith alone leads to, as Enigma said, Inquisitors. While you may think they were not "Christians," according to a current definition, they believed they were. None of us want to go down that road again--even Christians, because the ones defining the religion we must obey may not be of our particular faith.

So, to return to the topic of the thread: you think evolution is wrong. You would like something else taught in the schools. What would you teach, and how would you do it scientifically?

[Daystar]

Daystar wrote:
[Day] I believe that man was created with a grand and divine purpose in mind. That purpose was abandoned when two people said to their Creator, we would rather do it our way. God created us to gorify him and experience fellowship with him. That is an impossiblilty in man's sinful nature which he inherited from the "troublesome twosome" (Adam and Eve). Since then, man has taken his life into his own hands. And what do we see the results are? We see man devising paradigms and plans that run contrary to the purposes for which he was created and designed.

The Psalmist speaks of "vain imaginations" (Ps. 2:1). Solomon talks about the "vanity of life" without God (Eccl. 1:2). Man orders his life around that which is temporal and self-oriented. That's not what man was created for. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

[By the way, Daystar, it took me a while to figure out quote tags, too...I now do "control-Q" before and after pasting in quotes like that above. To insert your name, I turned the first quote tag (bracket quote bracket) into (bracket ="Daystar" bracket). Here, I have to write "bracket" or else the computer will think I want to put in a quote! The end is (bracket /quote bracket). I've even figured out how to type it by myself, which I thought was a real advance!)

Back to your quote... It's very clear that you are basing a lot of your world view on the Bible.

[Daystar] Guilty as charged

Many of us do, and many others don't. This results in a fundamental problem: things that are taken as certain by the Biblical folks are often considered to be non-existent by the non-Biblical folks. You had quoted, for example, " but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22) " This is a scary message if you believe in hell fire. Otherwise, it's not scary at all.

[Daystar] Actually, I didn't quote that but, yes, it is a wake-up call for those who have not come to the place in their life where they have found eternal life.

So, suppose you say that God created humans for a purpose, and I say that it's just a story that God did so. You may fear for my soul, and want to hit me about the head with a stick to help me see the light, but I would contend that you don't need to. I think my soul can only be damned to an unpleasant eternity if I believe in such a possibility.

[Day] If you believe the sun won't rise tomorrow, will that prevent it?

Perhaps, the Navajo have it right, and my "soul" will simply be a ill-tempered chindi that we can do nothing about. Who knows? We'll only know after someone goes there and comes back--and the only one I know of who claims to have visited heaven on occasion is L. Ron Hubbard.

[Day] One of the most understood things people have about heaven is that they think you can't know until you die to see if they made it. But the Bible says, "These things I write so that you MAY KNOW that you have eternal life, believing in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13) MAY KNOW is present tense. There is no "perhaps" about it.

My point, if I'm making one at all, is that relgious conviction is important at the level of our own, individual relationship with life. It doesn't tell us about the natural world. For that, we need to look at the world, and see what's there. That's where science comes in.

[Day] A scientific study of the cosmos, DNA and humming birds should point a person to intelligent design. There is nothing unscientific about the Bible where it applies.

Blind devotion to faith alone leads to, as Enigma said, Inquisitors.

[Daystar] No, it was sin that led these imposters to the Inquisition.

While you may think they were not "Christians," according to a current definition, they believed they were.

[Day] Christian is no so much a "definition" as it is a lifestyle, one that is patterened after Jesus. Anyone who thinks he is a Christian and takes pleasure in torturous inquisitions is most deceived. Anyone can go around claiming to be Christian is easy. Living it is another matter.

None of us want to go down that road again--even Christians, because the ones defining the religion we must obey may not be of our particular faith.

[Daystar] One Spirit, one faith, one baptism, one Lord, one God and Father of all..." (Eph. 4:4-6)

So, to return to the topic of the thread: you think evolution is wrong. You would like something else taught in the schools. What would you teach, and how would you do it scientifically?

[Day] I'm not saying don't teach evolution, rather allow creation science to be taught along side of it. Creation science is taught without the Bible. Basically, it presents a different view of the fossil record which says there are no transitional fossils. It teaches that the Grand Canyon was formed by a catastrophic deluge. It teaches that the conventional method of decay rates is inaccurate because of certain unknowns. It teaches that all life systems are not random products of nature, but of intelligent design.
It teaches about polystrate tree fossils which permeate millions of years of rock layers. It teaches many geochronometers that reveal a young earth, not one that is billions of years old. It teaches about the wondrous complexities of DNA, RNA, but with intelligent design behind them. There is much more, but all these are taught without any reference to the Bible (unless a student asks for such support) or God. One would argue that when you talk about intelligent design, that is religion. I would argue it isn't because someone could say that a superior force or being is the designer. If someone wants to think its God, well where does the Constitution say that he can't, or express that he is?

The secularists have done an outstanding job in removing the influence of the Bible from the schools, but I also would argue that the founders would have done no such thing.

Peace,
Daystar

[Jose]

So, suppose you say that God created humans for a purpose, and I say that it's just a story that God did so. You may fear for my soul, and want to hit me about the head with a stick to help me see the light, but I would contend that you don't need to. I think my soul can only be damned to an unpleasant eternity if I believe in such a possibility.

If you believe the sun won't rise tomorrow, will that prevent it?

Belief doesn't cause or prevent the world from following the laws of physics. It does, however, cause or prevent individual humans from doing things in various ways. But that's another issue... If the Bible is actually the compiled wisdom of the tribal elders, and it's only they who say it is God's word, then not believing it as Truth will have no consequences.

One of the most understood things people have about heaven is that they think you can't know until you die to see if they made it. But the Bible says, "These things I write so that you MAY KNOW that you have eternal life, believing in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13) MAY KNOW is present tense. There is no "perhaps" about it.

You make my point for me. Only by reference to this particular book can one come to that conclusion. Those who consider the book to be literature, not Fact, do not come to that conclusion. Saying it is so doesn't make it so--just as you note that believing the sun won't rise will not cause it not to rise (well, cause the earth to stop spinning).

I'm not saying don't teach evolution, rather allow creation science to be taught along side of it. Creation science is taught without the Bible. Basically, it presents a different view of the fossil record which says there are no transitional fossils. It teaches that the Grand Canyon was formed by a catastrophic deluge. It teaches that the conventional method of decay rates is inaccurate because of certain unknowns. It teaches that all life systems are not random products of nature, but of intelligent design.
It teaches about polystrate tree fossils which permeate millions of years of rock layers. It teaches many geochronometers that reveal a young earth, not one that is billions of years old. It teaches about the wondrous complexities of DNA, RNA, but with intelligent design behind them. There is much more, but all these are taught without any reference to the Bible (unless a student asks for such support) or God.

Ah...but here you've listed only the conclusions that "Creation Science" teaches. You have listed a variety of ideas. To teach these ideas in science classes requires that they be supported by data. It is not enough to say "yes, there may be lots of data to support your idea, but here's mine, which is different." It is necessary to provide the data that demonsrate that the alternate idea is a better explanation, and makes more accurate predictions, and explains more observations. Most importantly, it is necessary to show that the sum of the available data--not preconceived notions--force us to reach this conclusion.

We should, perhaps, investigate a couple of your "teachings" that you mention above. We could start with the "teaching" that there are no transitional fossils. How would you support this idea with evidence? I maintain that you would have to change the definition of "transitional fossil" in order to make this claim. We could also work on your "teaching" that the Grand Canyon was formed by the receding waters of the Noachian Deluge. We have a good start in the global flood thread. Look at the predictions made by the Flood Model, and then find the data that address those predictions. To teach the Flood, it must be supported by data. Otherwise, it's religion--even if you don't mention the particular book from which the story comes.

[Daystar]

So, suppose you say that God created humans for a purpose, and I say that it's just a story that God did so. You may fear for my soul, and want to hit me about the head with a stick to help me see the light, but I would contend that you don't need to. I think my soul can only be damned to an unpleasant eternity if I believe in such a possibility.

If you believe the sun won't rise tomorrow, will that prevent it?

Belief doesn't cause or prevent the world from following the laws of physics.

[Day] Yes, that is my point.

It does, however, cause or prevent individual humans from doing things in various ways.

[Day] Not sure what you mean.

But that's another issue... If the Bible is actually the compiled wisdom of the tribal elders, and it's only they who say it is God's word, then not believing it as Truth will have no consequences.

[Day] Not just the "tribal elders," but Jesus:

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18).

One of the most understood things people have about heaven is that they think you can't know until you die to see if they made it. But the Bible says, "These things I write so that you MAY KNOW that you have eternal life, believing in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13) MAY KNOW is present tense. There is no "perhaps" about it.

You make my point for me. Only by reference to this particular book can one come to that conclusion. Those who consider the book to be literature, not Fact, do not come to that conclusion. Saying it is doesn't make it so--

[Day] It does if Jesus Christ is who he said.

just as you note that believing the sun won't rise will not cause it not to rise (well, cause the earth to stop spinning).

[Day] That's my point. Not believing in Jesus will not prevent the consequences for the failure to do so.

I'm not saying don't teach evolution, rather allow creation science to be taught along side of it. Creation science is taught without the Bible. Basically, it presents a different view of the fossil record which says there are no transitional fossils. It teaches that the Grand Canyon was formed by a catastrophic deluge. It teaches that the conventional method of decay rates is inaccurate because of certain unknowns. It teaches that all life systems are not random products of nature, but of intelligent design. It teaches about polystrate tree fossils which permeate millions of years of rock layers. It teaches many geochronometers that reveal a young earth, not one that is billions of years old. It teaches about the wondrous complexities of DNA, RNA, but with intelligent design behind them. There is much more, but all these are taught without any reference to the Bible (unless a student asks for such support) or God.

Ah...but here you've listed only the conclusions that "Creation Science" teaches.

[Day] No different than the method employed by eovlutionists.

voYou have listed a variety of ideas. To teach these ideas in science classes requires that they be supported by data.

[Day] The fossil record fails to produce transitionals between species. That is the conclusion of the creation scientists. Whether they are right or not, is not the issue. They should be heard based on the evidence they produce. The same applies to abiogenesis. There is no evidence that shows lifeless matter created life. To the contrary, all the evidence to date suggests it is not possible. Students should know this.

It is not enough to say "yes, there may be lots of data to support your idea, but here's mine, which is different." It is necessary to provide the data that demonsrate that the alternate idea is a better explanation,

[Day] What better explanations are there for a transitionless fossil record than the case presented by creationists? Creationists believe The Grand Canyon is a show case for catastrophism based on the evidence as they see it. It would seem that local flooding over millions of years could have caused the layering you see in the canyon.

and makes more accurate predictions, and explains more observations. Most importantly, it is necessary to show that the sum of the available data--not preconceived notions--force us to reach this conclusion.

[Day] The big one is the fossil record. Many evolutionists are saying that it does not support the gradual evolving of species over millions of years. Creationists have been saying this all along. Why aren't they given credit for this in the classrooms? Gould, Eldredge and others have seen the poverty of gradualism and have jumped on the punctuated equilibrium band wagon.

We should, perhaps, investigate a couple of your "teachings" that you mention above. We could start with the "teaching" that there are no transitional fossils. How would you support this idea with evidence? I maintain that you would have to change the definition of "transitional fossil" in order to make this claim.

[Day] Transition meaning where one specie evolves into a different specie ( invertebrates to vertebrates, dinosaurs into birds, monkeys into men, fish into reptile, etc. )

We could also work on your "teaching" that the Grand Canyon was formed by the receding waters of the Noachian Deluge. We have a good start in the global flood thread. Look at the predictions made by the Flood Model, and then find the data that address those predictions. To teach the Flood, it must be supported by data. Otherwise, it's religion--even if you don't mention the particular book from which the story comes.

[Day] So belief is foundational to religion. I agree. Evolutionists believe that lifeless matter formed life. Is that not a religious belief in the absence of any proof? BTW, ICR has published a book on the Grand Canyon and why they believe it was formed by a catastrophic flood. The research is scholarly and scientific. One may disagree, but they are entitled to be heard. I wish you could see this book. You have to be a PHD to understand it.

[ENIGMA]

[Day] I'm sorry but I don't know how to do it any other way than I have been doing it.

Read the tutorial provided, please.

If a person is positively verified as being in London and Houston in the same day, they almost certainly traveled by plane. Now, given this information, please detail that person's flight plan.

Assumes facts not in evidence:

Which flight? What airport? What if he had a fake ID?

[Day] There are still obsevable facts about his boarding the plane and landing. No one can disptute that.

I, ENIGMA, hereby dispute that there are observable facts about his boarding the plane and landing...

In all seriousness though, no basis has been provided that the person did, in fact, get on a plane for the duration. The only means by which one can posit this conclusion as likely is the unlikelyhood of all the other possibilities.

What say you? Should we work under the assumption that said man traveled by plane or should we start going through explanations including, but not limited to, spacecraft deployment, aliens, the illuminati, magic, demons, teleportation, and/or very large quirks in quantum theory?

Let's stick with the plane for now.

With evolution, abiogenesis, etc. they are not observable, repeatable, or testable.

Neither is a crime scene, but it doesn't stop CSI from ruling out "Unexplainable Divine/Demonic Interference" as a cause of death. Current techniques for understanding the various pieces of evidence, such as the fossil record, are based on similar ideas except with a much larger time-scale and only more general conclusions can be drawn.

I mean it is not impossible that he took a chopper to a European space launch facility, geared up with oxygen tanks/rebreathers, pressure suits, and an array of parachutes and other speed limiting devices. Went up in the shuttle, waited til they were roughly over the US at a sub-orbital height, ejected and slowly counter the effects of gravity with the equipment, leading to a relatively easy descent leaving him stranded in the middle of the US and then a quick drive to Houston.

[Day] Whatever he DID was the truth and it was observable, testable and repeatable. None of these qualities exist in evolution.

But what did he do? That's the question.

While the latter scenario is very, very, improbable, the "how" is very well specified. While the likelyhood that he traved by plane/planes via an as of yet unknown series of flights is massively greater, the "how" is less well understood. You still think that the "how" is necessary to show that the "what" is the most likely?

[Day] Concerning origins, evolution, abiogenesis, yes. I say you can't compare the two for the reasons given.

My, my, how we compartmentalize easily...

Mutations in DNA do occur and have been shown to occur. This is a part of evolution. Thus your above claim is false.

[Day] What mutation ever caused one specie to change into another? Did you know that Stepehen Gould is on record as saying that, "mutations are not the cause of evolutionary change?"

Yes, that is correct, in the same sense that your left leg is not the cause of your ability to walk. Though it really does help.

If not, then I must inquire on what basis would you entrust the basis of our intellectual future that will be training all of the above to decrees made by the random public?

[Day] The thinking of the public is influenced by the experts. Sadly, the experts are wrong in their thinking when it comes to origins, evolution and abiogenesis. It takes life to create life, and once created, it reproduces after its own kind.

So, I've asked the following question to a number of creationists on a number of different boards and have yet to recieve a non-trivial and non-contradictory answer to the following question. Perhaps you can break the trend:

What the heck is a kind, anyway?

I mean, roughly what level of organism classification is it? Is it species level? Genus Level? Family Level? Order Level? Or is it some arbitrarily made up classification that will be changed perpetually in order to keep the creationists from worrying about their place in the universe too much?

Honestly, I'm rather wondering about this one...

Again, man wants to be his own god and have it his own way. In so doing, he ignores or rejects the One

Neo? Sorry couldn't resist.. Anywho:

who created him for a purpose in life. Again, the wonders of space, DNA and humming birds mitigate against chance, randomness, purposelessness, etc.

Chance and randomness is only part of the equation. Non-random forces (Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc) do act to give the universe a sense of order, but gravity cares not for whether a hammer drops on the floor, or a piano drops on someone's head. It just is.

Likewise, purposelessness does not imply disorder. Nobody enters the Olympics 400 meter with the express purpose of getting 5th place, yet someone always does.

Likewise, nobody assigned a purpose to life to survive and thrive in whatever niche it could find. It's just that any life that didn't do those things is no longer life. Which, coincidentally, happens to serve as an underlying idea for the "right leg" of evolution, as it were.

I take it God made your computer?

[Day] God gave man the intelligence to make computers, but thankless man takes the glory thinking he achieved it on his own.

That's nice dear.

Common sense should drive one's attention to intelligent design once observing the wonders of the universe, the DNA molecule and that fascinating feathered helicopter we call a humming bird.

Common sense also says that a heavy lead weight falls faster than a feather in vaccum, and that one gets equal odds from staying and switching in the Monty Hall problem.

[Day] Now that is not common sense to me. I would say they fall at an equal pace.

Good, then you paid attention that day in physics/science class. Aristotlean notions of inertia which would imply otherwise were the dominant understanding for a millenia and a half. Good for you.

No matter, I have a better example of where common sense fails:
Logic Test

It is a test of fairly simple logic, and the vast majority of people, regardless of whether they are proficient at logic, or even teach logic, do abysmally on the test. Heck, I screwed up the first time I took it. Fascinating how we all seem to have such a blind spot, but when the questions deal with finding out if someone's been cheating people have better odds...

Heck, a few centuries ago it said that the Sun went around the Earth.

[Day] So I guess it boils down to interpretation of the evidence. The non-God paradigm will filter reasoning in a Godless vacuum. The God paradigm sees through the lense of faith and accuracy of the Word.

You sure you wish to take your biology from a book that says bats are birds?

Perhaps it would be in everyone's best interest if curriculum were set by those who are in said fields.

[Day] And I think there should be specialists in the application of common sense in this mattter of origins. Evolution only serves man with a reason to deny the inevitable: Accountability to his Creator (Intelligent Designer) who calls him to repentance: "God commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)

They had people like that in the dark ages. They called them Inquisitors.

[Day] Whatever they were called, they were not believers. You tell a tree by the fruit it bears. A good tree will bear only good fruit; a bad tree will bear bad fruit. The inquisitors were anything but Christians.

Fascinating how you inherently use a humanistic basis for determining the wrongness of the Inquisitors. I mean, by almost any measure, they went above and beyond the call of duty to "save people" from the "everlasting torment". God quite illustatively, in your holy book, commanded his people to do far more despicable acts in order to convert/kill the unbelievers. On what basis do you judge the Inquisitors in the wrong?

How close is the Earth to the closest star (Proxima Centauri, 4.22 Lightyears) in terms of a conventional human scale distance unit (km for simplicity)? Working through the calculations:

( 3*10^8 )*3600*24*365.25*4.22/1000= Roughly 40 million billion kilometers.

[Day] My God, how great thou art

Now, that is big. Really big. So vastly and mindbogglingly huge that making any analogus comparisons such as an amoeba trying to take a cross-country trip still short by a couple orders of magnitude. Now what would you say if I proposed the idea that a series of interstate highways leading from the US East Coast to the West Coast were designed for the explicit purpose of allowing a colony of amoeba to traverse from one side of the country to the other? Friggin' nuts, I would bet.

[Day] No comment

I take it that, yes, you would likely call someone making that proposition nuts. Good, so would I.

Now with this in mind, please re-examine your worldview about how humanity fits into the grand scheme of things.

[Day] I believe that man was created with a grand and divine purpose in mind.

Says the amoeba, getting packed for the cross-country trip.

That purpose was abandoned when two people said to their Creator, we would rather do it our way. God created us to gorify him and experience fellowship with him. That is an impossiblilty in man's sinful nature which he inherited from the "troublesome twosome" (Adam and Eve). Since then, man has taken his life into his own hands. And what do we see the results are? We see man devising paradigms and plans that run contrary to the purposes for which he was created and designed.

Which were, exactly?

The Psalmist speaks of "vain imaginations" (Ps. 2:1). Solomon talks about the "vanity of life" without God (Eccl. 1:2). Man orders his life around that which is temporal and self-oriented. That's not what man was created for. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

All paths lead to death, however some are longer and/or better than others. Allowing people the ability to pick an optimal path is the key.

[otseng]

I would like to reiterate what Abulafia pointed out and request that the discussion be focused in this thread on his second point:

I think what the real debate here surrounds two questions:

1) Are there any CM theories which meet all of these criteria (or a similar set of criteria suitably modified to be acceptable to most folks within this forum)

2) If yes, should they be taught in schools as scientific theories?

[Day] I'm sorry but I don't know how to do it any other way than I have been doing it.

Read the tutorial provided, please.

I would agree with Enigma, your posts are hard to read. Please read the tutorial and use BBCode appropriately. I would also suggest using the test subforum to play around with BBCode.