Evolution vs Creationism

[Unregistered]

I have a theory that birds evolved from the marriage of palm trees and reptiles. You see palm fronds look a lot like feathers, and birds are reptiles, that's why they taste the same.
or may-be
a custom DNA designer, from say about 5,000 years ago said, let's put palm fronds on reptiles, make them a little lighter and poof! Now you have birds.
or may-be
Idle speculation, creationist or evolutionist is a waste of time, go get a real job.

[student]

Umm....wasn't Mythology once a religion? And are we not teaching it now? Oh, there already IS religion in schools....hahahaha! What's a seminary building or a ELECTIVE class going to do....currupt the school? Don't make me laugh!

[Unregistered Student]

As a sophomore in a public high school who just completed Honors Biology last year, I wish to offer a first hand perspective in the debate.
Evolution alone should be taught in the science classroom. Science class ought to teach what a majority of scientists think, and a vast majority of today's scientists are convinced that evolution is accurate. Evolution is the basis for biology, and if it is not taught, than there is little point in having a biology class at all. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not real science because they invoke the supernatural and the subjective into science, which is at its core natural and objective. By doing so, they violate the core principals of science, and needlessly confuse students.
Creationism and Intelligent Design violate the speration between church and state that is established in the Constiution. Anyway, if the Christian account of Creationism were taught, then in the interest of fairness, which Fundamentalists seem to be very concerned with, insisting that children hear both sides, all accounts of Creation must be taught. Once we are finished discussing the thousands of different Creation stories that exist, we might have a couple of minutes left to learn about biology, which I presume, was the point of that year's "Science" course.
While Intelligent Deseign is a less blatant violation of the seperation between church and state than Creationism is, it is still a violation, because, although it delibrately neglects to mention the name of the diety it invokes, it still violates the atheist's right to remain godless.
Contrary to what the Fundamentalists would have you believe, evoluton, or science for that matter, is not a religion, so it does not violate the speration between church and state. If anything, it is areligious, or secular. That being said, I doubt many people base their entire world view on evolution as explained by the Theory of Natural Selection, as that would be like basing one's entire belief system around gravity or a heliocentirc model of the solar system.
However, even if a person chose to do so, I fail to see how that would make them inherently immoral or selfish. The idea of surivial of the fittest promoted by the Theory of Natural Selection ultimately deals with the survival of the species as a whole. Humans live in a group in order to enhance their chances of surivial. In order to better live as a group, humans evolved into social animals. Therefore, if someone wanted to ensure their survival, and, by extension, the survival of the species as a whole, he would abide by the social conventions of those he lived among, since living as a group, which enables humans to survive, requires that beings be socialized.
Much of the negative vibe associated with evolution originates in Social Darwinism, which was promted by sociologists in the 1800's. These sociologists misconstrued the Theory of Natural Selection. Anything, including the Bible, can be misrepresented. After all, the Bible has been used in the defense of slavery, rascism, sexism, "witch" hunts, and the wholesale slaughters of those with different religious beliefs.
As a Catholic, I can say that I do not feel that teaching evolution would be offensive to my fellow Christians. Just because evolution makes no direct reference to a supernatural power, it does not eliminate the existence of one. Therefore, a student may go one believing in a Christian God, or any god, for that matter. After all, I would contend that the true meaning of Christainity lies not in our Creation, nor even in the suffering and resurrection of the Christ, but rather in our capacity to love one another, to be tolerant of others, and to be all around moral people. In fact, I am of the opinion that all religions bascially are guides to morality more than anything, and more often than not, these morals are very similiar. It is not necessary to fear that people's religion will be hurt by science, since, science, after all, makes no claims about morality, which is subjective, not objective.
Speaking of morality, many people try to paint evolution as the cause of what they preceive as today's decine in morality. However, the sociologist in me is inclined to question whether said decrease in morality is occuring. Although the media details hundreds of crimes daily, including rape and murder, it fails to mention all the good deeds that gon on everyday. Also, although it may seem like more rapes and murders are occuring, that is not necessarily the case, as with today's rapid forms of communication, news can be spread more easily. Similarly, it is more likely that someone would report a rape today than it was in the past. From my conversations with the senior citizens that I visit, I gather that they do not believe that people today are less moral than they were in the past; we are just different than them, but different is not necessarily wrong.
Anyway, the "good" old days were not always good. My Grandma and other female citizens were born when women did not have the right to vote, and before the Feminist Movement, women were denied many of the rights that women today take for granted. Prior to the 1960's, it was perfectly moral to segreagte people, and to turn African Americans away from the ballot box on account of their race. Not so long ago, it was perfectly legal for a man to beat his wife and rape her.
For those who feel that evolution is just a theory, and should not be taught as fact, I have to tell you that evoltution is the scientific fact, and the Theory of Natural Selection, which explains the fact of evolution, is the theory becasue it explains something(changes in species over time) that is observed in nature. Students are taught at the beginnning of every year the difference between a scientific fact and a sceintific theory, and, frankly, if a student did not understand these basic terms, hewould be unable to comprehend evolution as explained by the Theory of Natural Selection, and would most likely not accept it, as rarely do people accept what they fail to undersatnd.
On the same token, scientists do not claim that we come from apes, and that is not what is taught in schools. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, and, if you are determined to look at it from a family tree viwepoint, apes are more like our brothers and sisters than our parents.
Lastly, I have to tell you that teaching Creationism and Intelligent Deseign in a biology classroom may have a negative impact on your children's chances of getting into college. A growing number of colleges are refusing to accept students who were taught Creationism and Intelligent Deseign in the biology room. Talk about nipping your child's chances in the bud.

[Unregistered]

I am a biology teacher and have dealt with the whole creationism vs. evolution in the classroom. First of all, the whole Intelligent Design crap is just a way to try to get religion into the classroom. They (religious zealots) love to claim that evolution is a "theory" and therefore cannot be proven. Well, what about the germ "theory", or the cell "theory", or the "theory" of gravitation. Give me a break! NO RELIGION in the science classroom period!
I feel we are moving backwords and not forward in the field of science because of the the wacko right-winged agenda.

[Unregistered]

im trying to pick a side not that i want to. im a little bit of a beliver and I"m IN LOVE WITH science.i also need feed bac when i finish high school then the University of my choosing i hope to become a scientist also. so please help i reallly need help!

, high school kid with a need for science

[Unregistered]

Creationism is a big farce. No creationism expert can explain who created god. Creationism is a form of brainwashing unless someone can logically explain who created god. According to creationism, we are so complex that a god must have created us, but this god who created us does not need a god to create him. Makes no sense to me.

[Mr. H]

May I remind you all that Darwin, himself, was a Christian and debated the same thing within himself... I bet they don't teach that in science class (even though they should).

[Unregistered]

First, as many have said: creationism isn't science. Period. Years and years of research and study have gone into evolution and as a scientific theory it is pretty sound.

Many people believe that "theory" in science means that "it's an idea we're throwing around." That couldn't be much farther from the truth. In science, "theory" means that this particular idea has been supported with mountains of evidence. Does that mean that there is evidence that refutes evolution? Probably. But until or unless a better explanation comes along, the theory of evolution is what best fits the data and the evidence we have.

Further, I have a lot of frustration with people that say, "I didn't come from a monkey." NO ONE IS SAYING YOU DID. Nor is anyone saying that a single celled microorganism is going to become a cucumber, as another poster did. Evolution supports the idea that once, a long, long, LONG time ago, humans and their nearest primate relatives had an ancestor in common. Was this ancestor a monkey? No, probably not. But over time, generations of its offspring changed enough that there was a separation into new species. Evolution states that species change over time; there is evidence of this as recently as the new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are becoming more and more of a problem. Evolution does not happen in individual organisms, nor is it typically evident in a few generations. It takes thousands upon thousands of years to show speciation (new species developing from old ones).

[Unregistered]

Hello all,

As I was reading this forum the whole idea of a debate struck me as funny. Most people fail to realize that everyone else writing a reply is trying to convince you to their point of view. Chances are they are listening to your side of the story as much as you are theirs. That being said, neither side of the story is really "original", it is simply the side that you were convinced to believe based on the information you recieved. So, i suppose that's all i really wanted to say, although it's my guess that noone but me will actually read this, being that it is on the very last page...

[student]

Well, even though Creationism can't be proven, it is the same with evolution. You can't prove that we came from energy. THE ENERGY HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE!!!! Duh...

With that being said I also would like to state that mythology was once a religion and that's being taught in school....

No one is proposing we take away the evolutionism theory, but instead just add a WELL ROUNDED attempt at educating those who choose to be educated in religion.

[Unregistered]

I think Evolution is crazy and should be talked about in school.

God created heaven and earth and he created man in his image so if we evolved from an animal how can god of created us in his image unless he looked like a monkey himself?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancester, therefore, God, by your logic does not look like a monkey. Geez, learn what evolution says before you start renouncing it, or else you just make a fool of yourself.

[Unregistered]

i finally was able to figure how to post my reply... or at least i hope so...
several quick thoughts
1) some people are already going against their conscience by not being able to bring up creation as a theory
Then they ought to attend a private school.
2) science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive sets
Yes, that's why it is possible to still believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time, however, envoking God to explain something is not science. Envoking God is supernatural, and science only deals with the natural. And only science should be spoken of in science class.
3) science, at least in my estimation, as well as any discipline, is to better help our understanding of the Earth and Universe and to communicate it to others, then with whatever knowledge one has he/she makes new discoveries or passes on what he/she knows
Sure...but you can't scientifically prove God. How do we measure degrees of supernaturality?
4) one only has to look around at the wonder of it all to recognize that from wherever or whenever or whatever or Whomever started this process, albeit evolution or creation it is/was clearly WITH design so hence not happenstance
Ah, the age-old arguement, if I can't explain it, it must be unexplainable...that's definately a very scientific approach. Children ought to be exposed to that sort of logic.
5) if all things go to disorder (as the 2nd law of thermodynamics states) then how would it be possible for a one cell organism to evolve into millions upon millions of varying species of vegetables or animals... it would seem that that is not disorder at all
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only in a closed place, not in an enviornment like scientists believe our early Earth was.

whatever one decides to believe it still takes a stand of FAITH regardless whether it is creation or evolution
Maybe at the moment, but science tends to fill in the gaps. Religion never does that. It just asks you to ignore them. Not the same thing.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2588]Actually, evolution is also based on faith. When you climb back into your chair from fainting I'll explain.

No, evolution is based on fact. There are gaps, but they are fairly small, and will be filled in, and little specifics in the theory may change, but evolution is fact, and the Theory of Natural Selection explains it quite well.

Darwin (and like minded individuals) has made his theory on where he thinks life has started. All of his research is based on his own beliefs and biased opinions.
Actaully, Darwin did not set out to challenge Christainity, and he made no claims on the origins of life. He just said life changes over time. The study of the origins of life is a different branch of science.

Scientists (who share the same faith as good old Darwin) have faith that his initial findings are correct and quote his research as gospel
No, most sceintists do not blindly accept Darwin's theories. The Theory of Natuaral Selection has undergone many changes, and to imply that sceintists understading of evolution has not been improved since Darwin first published his book is amazingly ignorant.
(others see the flaws but go along with the overall argument).
So, if there are little flaws in a theory, the whole thing is wrong. Okay, let's look at the Bible for a while. Different accounts of Creation say it took different times for God to create the universe. The gospels have different accounts of such important things as Jesus's birth, death, and last words, as well as who was actaully present at the resurrection. (more than little holes, if you ask me.) Guess the Bible and Christianity is wrong.

Archaeologists who have examined his research closely know that there are many flaws in his theories and as such, have had to only call them theories, not laws (such as that Sir Isacc Newton character).
Theory- explains a law. Law-a stement of a directly observed fact of nature. Therefore, evolution=law. Theory of Natural Selection, explaining evolution (law)= theory.

The more closely you examine his research (and the research of scientists attempting to prove his theories) you notice that in a lot of cases they disprove his theory.
Why don't you explain your understanding of the current Theory of Natural Selection and evolution before you make blanket statements like that, because from what I've seen you have no clue what you're talking about.

As time goes on new species are created and the older version dies off. In fact it has been proven that all of the more "advanced" forms have actually been around just as long as their older version (you find them in the same hunk of rock that you pulled the new version from).
Yes, but you find them in different layers, indicating that they've come from different time periods.


The bottom line is, if you are going to include the faith of Evolution (shouldn't Evolution be more rightly put into a philosophy class?)
No, because science class teaches what a majority of scientists think is true, and a majority of scientists except evolution. Also, the Theory of Natural Selection is a sceintific one, not a philosiphical one. There is a difference.
Then you must also include Creationism as an option.
No, you musn't because you would be violating the seperation between church and state. Besides, that would be unfair, unless you taught every religious account of Creation out there, which would waste a year of science class, and American students already are behind students in almost all other modernized countries.

If the teaching "scientist" mocks one or the other (which means the student no longer regards the teachers view as unbiased)
Science teachers dod not mock creationism. They just don't mention it. It is the creationists who stoop to mockery.

then they are using their own bias and not using true non-biased scientific techniques.
No, that is what creationists and creation scientists do.

It takes more effort to allow people to come to their own conclusions rather than to offer only one side of an arguement.
Students can read the Bible and go to church, so they are exposed to both sides.

Science belongs in the science classroom. Religion does not. Science relies on fact, religion does not.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2687]First of all im a Freshman in high school so most of you adults can blow this off but you maybe sorry. Isnt not teaching Creationism offensive to Christans?
Only if they are convinced of their own superiority and wish to remain ignorant, otherwise no, why should it be?

Our society brings in so much to keep church and state seperate it actually becomes offensive to Christans and other religons.
Then they should live in another country...one that is goverened by religion. Until then, they can shut up and be grateful that they don't.
I also hate when , no matter the subject, science teachers will only teach one side of a story its not fair that we are forced to learn the greatest exceptance of every subject or maybe the most easiest to teach,
They teach the version that is accepted by a majority of sceinetists. If you major in science, you will learn more about the multiple sides, but unfortuantely, there is not enough time to teach all different versions.
However, normally, when there are conflicting sceintific theories, both are mentioned. But Creationism isn't science. Whoever told you it was did you a terrible diservice.

[Unregistered]

Hmmmm...interesting...

Anyways,
Out of curiosity does anyone know that Charles Darwin did indeed recant his theories on his death bed and converted to Christianity? *Now awaits the heat wave bashing by fellow "educators" and students alike*

Yes, and George Washington cut down the cherry tree. That's a cute story. But guess what? It wouldn't even matter if he had, because science has progressed very far from what Darwin thought.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2894]If you really want to help your students.... tell the REAL truth. That nobody knows the REAL and TOTAL truth.
Offer up all the information that we DO have.
Sure, "Kids, nobody knows the real truth, so learning is just a waste of time, because it might all be wrong anyway."

1) Tell them what creationism IS.. not just the christian version... but all of them. You can even get a disk with lots of nifty little flash versions at www.bigmyth.com .
And that relates to science class how exactly? Don't get me wrong, I love mythology, but it is not science, and never will be. Mythology can be taught in another class, but not science, and in private schools, there can be a class devoted to religion.
2) Tell them what evolution IS and show them how it works.
Yes, in a science classroom.
3) Tell them there is an alternative... Intelligent Design... that the universe/earth/BigBang was CREATED not by accident as evolution proposes... but for a purpose.
But there is no evidence for Intelligent Design. All Intelligent Design does is say, "We can't teach our specific religion in schools anymore, boo-hoo. But maybe we can force religion on children by saying that because this world is complicated and at the moment science cannot explain every little detail, God must have done it." Not very scientific...not very logical. Not good for students, especially in science class.

Our jobs as teachers is to teach and offer ALL the possiblities... not necessarily to force one train of thought.
Children are exposed to other trains of thought, i.e religious ones, in churches, etc.
If you have done your job correctly... children will search for more answers on their own and develop their own beliefs and opionions.
Yes, but teachers must stick to the facts of the subject they are teaching. We talk about history in history in history, biology in biology, and sociology in sociology...


I think that only scientific theories should be presented in science class, because otherwise children are exposed to faulty logic and inaccurate information.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;3122]Sadly this is the point of view almost all evolutionists have. Everyone else should keep quite and not present any reluctance to their theory.
You may voice your disbelief, however, it is unfair to expect people to take you seriously when you have not been thoroughly educated in the matter and make ignorant arguments children in 9th grade biology could tell you is inaccurate. For instance, "Evolution is just a theory." (No, it's a fact. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is a theory.) Or, "Creationism is a theory, just as scientifically valid as evolution." (No, in the realm of science Creationism is a hypothesis, and an untestable one at that.) And, "We did not come from monkeys!" (Scientists aren't saying you did. You have the same common ancestor as a monkey, though.)
Isn't there a Constitutional right to freedom of speech?
Sure, but others may laugh at your ignorance if you are so determined to make it public. Geez, if I did not understand high school biology, I would keep it quiet. And there is no constitutinal right to allow your religious account in schools.
Or should we just forgo that and assume your point of view is correct with no debate.
You can debate it, as you are doing right now, but you look pretty dumb, because you have no scientific evidence by sceintists with decent reputations in the science community to back up your claims that Creationism is scientific and should be taught in the science classroom.

When teaching a THEORY, as an unbiased scientist and teacher, you must present all of the theories. And that means not in a sarcastic tone and do your research on each THEORY equally.
Again, we encounter the deadly assumption that evolution is merely a theory, and that Creationism is on par with a scientific theroy, when in fact, in the world of science, it is, as I said before, a hypothesis. Religioious and scientific theories are different, sweetie.

Just think of all those teachers who fell out of their chairs when a couple of boats didn't actually fall off the end of our flat earth just a few short years ago. . . .
Err, actaully, scientists believed the Earth was round, but the Church did not...and the Church also was convinced that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and scientists were not. Given the track record, who do you trust?

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;3425]With regard to your query on creation and evolution. Both of them are equally important because they go hand in hand.
Since when? I thought they were at each other's throats. ..but, sure, they can be reconciled, but not in the science classroom, unless the church is willing to provide unbiased accounts of evolution.
Creationism is science per se because it has something to do with evolution.
No, it is not science. Creationism has as much to do with science as the ancient Norse explanation for thunder: When we hear thunder, Thor is throwing his hammer about again.
If we are going to scrutinize it both of them should be taught to children especially in public schools because it is in creationism that they will learn to give importance to all things created by God.
Um, religion never belongs in a public, tax-funded setting, because it violates the seperation between church and state. And children do not need to learn about God. Atheists can be as good (or better) people than Christians. Besides, why must it be only a singular god, why not gods? Speaking of which, why not a goddess? Why not godesses? Are your religious beliefs better than everyone else's just because you believe them? Is that reason enough to force them upon everyone and violate the Constitution?

In the same way that evolution be taught to them integrating values as in creationism.
Science does not deal with values. Science is objective, and values are subjective, varying from person to person and culture to culture. We should be open-minded of other people's values as much as possible.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Lisa's Hotscakes;3429]The problem arises when scientists throw the term "fact" around knowing full well that laymen use the term completely differently.
Only if the layman you speak of slept through more than 18 years of science lessons, in which case he would not understand evolution anyway.
The Average Joe thinks of fact as a synomym for "indisputably true." Newton's laws at one time were a fact, but were they indisputably true?
The average Joe knows words have different contexts, and can figure out what it means when applied in a scientific context. If not, Joe can buy a pocket dictionary...

Evolution is a fact (according to the much looser definition of the term used in science), but is it TRUTH? I am not sure many scientists will go that far.
I think most scientists are willing to say evolution is true. But since the truth can never be known, we have to teach the closest thing we have: scientific fact, which in this case is evolution as explained by Natural Selection.

IMO, Creationism doesn't belong in SCIENCE classrooms, because it isn't scientific. But not being scientific is hardly a death sentence for an idea.
It is if it wants to be taught in a science classroom.
Creationism may very well be the truth but not be a scientific fact.
You can tell me all about it in the hereafter, then. But until then, shut up.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;3694]And it will not be because it is nothing. Many scientist have wasted their lifes to seek some thing that is not there.
Oh, those poor scientists...they actaully have proof to go with their beliefs...
In creationism, there is hamony to creation and the real world we live and it is not build on faith.
And in evolution there is a connection to all forms of life and logaicl reasoning behind your belief system.
For the evolutionist, have faith in a waiting for the next evolution progress.
Thanks, actaully evolution is occuring right now...

[ComSci101]

Evolution is a fact (according to the much looser definition of the term used in science), but is it TRUTH? I am not sure many scientists will go that far.

Truth is a philosophical concept and has almost no relation to science...

That being said, I don't know if this has been suggested here before (Too long of a thread) but. What if you let the students debate over it? Like an in class discussion where they take a side, prepare a case, and argue that case? Let them decide for themselves. I think it works pretty well...

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

sounds like a good Social Studies class project as state standards can include that, whereas, does Science state standards include verbal debate?

Another problem is, what if you are in a very conservative school where noone wants to take the pro-evolution side, or vice-versa, they don't want to take anti-evolution?

My school, would have a tough time buying into evolution. I could play devil's advocate but have no interest in spreading the ideals of evolution

[ComSci101]

sounds like a good Social Studies class project as state standards can include that, whereas, does Science state standards include verbal debate?

Another problem is, what if you are in a very conservative school where noone wants to take the pro-evolution side, or vice-versa, they don't want to take anti-evolution?

Debate is a good catalyst to understanding. I'm not interested in whether debate is included in the curriculum or not. What I am interested in, however, is letting students find it for themselves, there really is no other way.

On the subject of what happens when nobody wants to take a certain side, the solution is simple. Force them. When a student is forced to question a long held belief, they gain a greater understanding of it...

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

While I never have problems getting kids to do what is needed, despite their desire to do them, I think I'll pass when it comes to undercutting Christianity so you feel I am letting kids decide for themselves to make non-believers happy. I'm not concerned with their 'happyness' and noone is going to make me undercut my religion.

[ComSci101]

While I never have problems getting kids to do what is needed, despite their desire to do them, I think I'll pass when it comes to undercutting Christianity so you feel I am letting kids decide for themselves to make non-believers happy. I'm not concerned with their 'happyness' and noone is going to make me undercut my religion.

How was I asking you to undercut your religion? By letting students make up their own minds about which one is right? If presenting both sides of the coin undercuts your religion then I think you need to reevaluate it a little. Are you really so insecure in your religion that anything that opposes it is automatically undercutting it?

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

my religion needs no reevaluation.

[ComSci101]

my religion needs no reevaluation.

Then why are you so worried about people undercutting it?

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

because you are asking ME to undercut it.

[ComSci101]

because you are asking ME to undercut it.

How is telling both sides of the story undercutting anything? If you let them have a debate and research it well, then it can't possibly be undercutting it...

[student]

my religion needs no reevaluation.

Then what's the purpose of a pope if you don't get revelation these days?

[Mr. H]

Well, for EVERYONE who is not a Catholic, the pope means nothing at all..

I am cool with people believing what they wish. But at the same time if people aren't at least exposed to different schools of thought, how can they make an informed decision? Looking back through history we have had religious tyrants who preached to the people before they could read. Everything was up to the church leaders take on things... Sounds like the same thing.. People should be given a choice as to what to believe and not being given all of the information to make such a choice isn't FAITH... FAITH is believing without proof, it is not borne of ignorance.

[Unregistered]

Someone posted "Creationism does not belong in the science curriculum. Theories in science are based on evidence and inferences. Creationism is based on faith, so it should probably be taught only in a philosophy class."

Interesting. Let's talk about evidence and inferences. Where have you seen evolution lately? One theory says "evolution happens so slow you can't see it happening." Really? So, how did mice (or whatever) get past the inconvenient evolutionary step of losing their practical front limbs in favor of wings? ...or birds get from whatever they were to having feathers and getting off the ground...especially if the change was sllloooowww...

"Well, it happens fast, then!" Hmmm....Anything new pop out of a can you've opened? Seen anything on the news lately? ...in the last 150 years?

Even Darwin conceded that there's a lack of evidence for his proposition in the fossil record. But, he figured it would show up now that people were looking, however. How about it? Even though we've been looking for evidence to support evolution since Darwin dreamed up his THEORY (over 150 years ago!!!...should have been plenty of time to see evolution in action, don't you think?), we haven't proven it. Proof ain't there!

I'm all for evidence. Evolution doesn't give it to us. Let's call Evolution an unprovable THEORY. Science is about provable phenomena. (Check out "Darwin on Trial." It's a pretty heavy read, but worth it.)

Evolution is a faith-based-belief as well. It really is. Believers in Evolution just believe their ancestors were monkeys instead of Adam and Eve. Which makes more sense? Can't prove either theory, can you?

One last thought...how do you explain the second law of thermodynamics? Entropy is the way of the world! Do you see things coming together and improving? Nah. When we see mutations, they're all destructive! Bodies break down and fail. Try as I might, I can tell that with each passing year, I'm losing more capability than I'm gaining.

Well, what about mixing two dogs together and getting a new breed? Or hybridized plants? What about the moths in England or finches in the Galapagos? Nah...VARIATION in a species. We're just twiddling with or seeing the limits of the breed. That's not evolution. No one has created a dog-cat yet. While I wonder about the governor of California, no one has seen a true missing link between the monkey/gorilla world and man. And we should have seen something by now.

Evolution is a theory. A stupid unprovable theory. ...Shouldn't be taught as science--any more than creationism!

[JRSFD]

Why do whales have legs?

[JRSFD]

hmm, where did the argument go? was that last post just that good a showstopper?

[Unregistered]

Creationism teaches us that life on Earth was created by a Supernatural power whom man, by his limited capacity can not decipher. Evolution, on the other hand is specifying only the changes that is taking place to a species over a period of time. It's not the primordial role of evolution to significantly disclose the origin of species. It explicitly uncovers us the idea that anything changes through time.

[Unregistered]

Not to bash religion here, but doesn't it strike you that claiming that whatever it was that brought about all this creation is undecipherable by man, yet also supernatural and fathomable, is a bit ironic?

Also, if we can't decipher our creator, be it a "supernatural being" which HAD to have been either created by something or just *there*, why not assume that we just came about randomly? By your reasoning, we have every reason to believe both, and every reason to believe neither.

[Unregistered]

(same person as last post)

Creationism teaches us that life on Earth was created by a Supernatural power whom man, by his limited capacity can not decipher. Evolution, on the other hand is specifying only the changes that is taking place to a species over a period of time. It's not the primordial role of evolution to significantly disclose the origin of species. It explicitly uncovers us the idea that anything changes through time.

so .... evolution tells us about what we can see and observe, and the origin of species, which we cannot decipher or observe, must have been created by a god. because naturally, since there is no observable god, there must have been one before, and presumably still here, although we can't see, hear, smell, or fathom his being or intent.

right?

[paul R. from Boston]

people who believe that everything there is to know is contained in a book written over one thousand years ago are never going to listen to the reason put forth by those who seek answers through scientific enquiry.

people who believe that reason should guide our discoveries are never going to listen to those who think they have all the answers direct from a Supreme Being.

Don't you folks get that? Or is this whole, long discussion just an excerise in venting?

[Lisa]

Paul R., both sides are looking for the undecided to help them break the stalemate between faith and reason that our country is locked in. Plus it is fun to ruffle the feathers of the self righteous.

[Unregistered]

Evolution is a big fat lie! Just like Hitlers prime minister said that if you say something lound enough and long enough people will soon believe it, same with this. If we came from monkeys, then why are they still around? I believe in natural selection or survival of the fittest because you can see it even now in our world. Animals that dont have the ability to defend themselves will die off, its just the way it goes. Some will say that there are no arguements with evolution and the Bible but there is. In the seven days of creation, God created the whole earth and the humans!! Adam and Eve, by the way everyone has the same mitochondrial rna thats passed through the women. How can that happen? That means that we all came from the same women..go figure! This just goes to show that we are no where close to coming from monkeys and evolution is fake!! Also mother Earth is not over billions of years old, its only a few thousand..over 6 i think, but you can find it on any science web page.

[Unregistered]

A lot of what is taught as evolutionary science has no scientific backing for them, many of them have been shown to be erroneous. You do see what you look for.

For example children are taught that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but species called "monsters have been with us until recently, as they were killed out. A few pterodactyl were killed during the civil war- those creatures give us the name Thunderbird.

A group of mathematicians and biologists went for a picnic. It ended in a "fight". the mathematicians showed that it would take 5 billion years for the DNA in e.coli bacteria to line up the right way, much more that of a more complex creature.THE BIOLOGISTS HAD TO ADMIT THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.

No one has ever shown that a dog came from a non dog.

Evolution teaches that man was shorter but are now getting taller, not so, large skeletons over 18" have been unearthed

Finally evolution teach us that coal formed before man came on the scene, but human artifacts have been found in coal, example a chain.

There is so much more information on this topic

If you teach that man evolved then you cannot say that he sinned, therefore he does not need a Saviour, then close down the churches and fire the priests.

[JRSFD]

A lot of what is taught as evolutionary science has no scientific backing for them, many of them have been shown to be erroneous. You do see what you look for.

For example children are taught that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but species called "monsters have been with us until recently, as they were killed out. A few pterodactyl were killed during the civil war- those creatures give us the name Thunderbird.

A group of mathematicians and biologists went for a picnic. It ended in a "fight". the mathematicians showed that it would take 5 billion years for the DNA in e.coli bacteria to line up the right way, much more that of a more complex creature.THE BIOLOGISTS HAD TO ADMIT THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.

No one has ever shown that a dog came from a non dog.

Evolution teaches that man was shorter but are now getting taller, not so, large skeletons over 18" have been unearthed

Finally evolution teach us that coal formed before man came on the scene, but human artifacts have been found in coal, example a chain.

There is so much more information on this topic

If you teach that man evolved then you cannot say that he sinned, therefore he does not need a Saviour, then close down the churches and fire the priests.

1. Show me the records of anyone actually killing and/or capturing a pterodactyl (pictures please!) from 140 years ago, and you might have a shot at convincing me. Until then, I'll just assume that you're being an idiot.

2. Great story! Do you have any that are a) true and b) sensible?

4. Wow, really? What about the fossil record? You seem to believe pterodactyls exist, so why don't you believe in the precursors of dogs?

5. I'm 72" tall. You say skeletons 18" tall have been found. Thus, you just proved the point you were supposedly trying to attack.

6. Strange nocturnal cave-dwellers called "Miners" used to inhabit certain areas of the earth in recent times. They have been known to posses artifacts similar to human necklaces.

7. Actually, firing the priests and taking down the churches might be a good idea.

[Unregistered]

First of all im a Freshman in high school so most of you adults can blow this off but you maybe sorry. Isnt not teaching Creationism offensive to Christans? Our society brings in so much to keep church and state seperate it actually becomes offensive to Christans and other religons. I also hate when , no matter the subject, science teachers will only teach one side of a story its not fair that we are forced to learn the greatest exceptance of every subject or maybe the most easiest to teach, Isnt it that it our high school teachers take easier way outs as we get farther in the future. I could say more but why waste the 6th grade vocabulary that the school systems will only teach up to because they hope students who cause fights, bring drugs to school and always have atleast one knife to use and one knife to sell wont drop out and waste their lives not making more money for the goverment to use on people who wont take me serious for another ten years.


ok im a sophomore
i am profoundly offended by the teaching of the religion of evolution at public schools and if this religion is going to be taught maybe other religions should be taught
this is outragous
and also if we get better evolved as time goes on i would have self-lubricating hands

(smiley face becuz God made me and i am happy)

[Unregistered]

1. Show me the records of anyone actually killing and/or capturing a pterodactyl (pictures please!) from 140 years ago, and you might have a shot at convincing me. Until then, I'll just assume that you're being an idiot.

2. Great story! Do you have any that are a) true and b) sensible?

4. Wow, really? What about the fossil record? You seem to believe pterodactyls exist, so why don't you believe in the precursors of dogs?

5. I'm 72" tall. You say skeletons 18" tall have been found. Thus, you just proved the point you were supposedly trying to attack.

6. Strange nocturnal cave-dwellers called "Miners" used to inhabit certain areas of the earth in recent times. They have been known to posses artifacts similar to human necklaces.

7. Actually, firing the priests and taking down the churches might be a good idea.



wow you actually came off as scared heres the photo of the pterodactyl

http://images.snapfish.com/34355:3523232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232:%3D6%3B%3C%3D878%3 DXROQDF%3E23237%3B7924435ot1lsi

[Unregistered]

1. Show me the records of anyone actually killing and/or capturing a pterodactyl (pictures please!) from 140 years ago, and you might have a shot at convincing me. Until then, I'll just assume that you're being an idiot.

2. Great story! Do you have any that are a) true and b) sensible?

4. Wow, really? What about the fossil record? You seem to believe pterodactyls exist, so why don't you believe in the precursors of dogs?

5. I'm 72" tall. You say skeletons 18" tall have been found. Thus, you just proved the point you were supposedly trying to attack.

6. Strange nocturnal cave-dwellers called "Miners" used to inhabit certain areas of the earth in recent times. They have been known to posses artifacts similar to human necklaces.

7. Actually, firing the priests and taking down the churches might be a good idea.

ya thats a typo
sorry to put ur hopes up evolutionists

[Unregistered]

I beg to disagree. Both theories should be presented in a classroom, be it a science or whatever classroom. Children have the right to know about these things and for us to assume that they don't need to know about alternative theories is robbing them of THEIR RIGHT to choose what to believe in. We cannot, should not, impose our beliefs on them. Make them aware of what's out there and let them make their own decision. If it is fitting to mention creationism while discussing evolution, why not? We should know our students well enough not to underestimate them. I, for one, believe that both theories actually compliment each other. Evolution really happens, and God designed it. God made me, he knew me even before I was born, and dinosaurs and giants really existed :) God bless you all!!!

[thatswhatshesaid]

question for evolutionists/natural selection supporters: how does natural selection explain the origin of male and female reproductive systems as we know it today? ur saying that somewhere along the line, a lucky mutation came along on an "organism" which gave it a male reproductive system. so how does this mutation get naturally selected to move on if there is no female reproductive system to use it on???

[JRSFD]

I beg to disagree. Both theories should be presented in a classroom, be it a science or whatever classroom. Children have the right to know about these things and for us to assume that they don't need to know about alternative theories is robbing them of THEIR RIGHT to choose what to believe in. We cannot, should not, impose our beliefs on them. Make them aware of what's out there and let them make their own decision. If it is fitting to mention creationism while discussing evolution, why not? We should know our students well enough not to underestimate them. I, for one, believe that both theories actually compliment each other. Evolution really happens, and God designed it. God made me, he knew me even before I was born, and dinosaurs and giants really existed :) God bless you all!!!

America is the laughingstock of Europe, thanks to your kind.

[JRSFD]

question for evolutionists/natural selection supporters: how does natural selection explain the origin of male and female reproductive systems as we know it today? ur saying that somewhere along the line, a lucky mutation came along on an "organism" which gave it a male reproductive system. so how does this mutation get naturally selected to move on if there is no female reproductive system to use it on???

Hey! Don't discriminate against snails, bacteria and hermaphrodites!

[thatswhatshesaid]

Hey! Don't discriminate against snails, bacteria and hermaphrodites!

Thanks that really answers my question seeing as though none of us are snail, bacteria, or hermaphrodites.

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

America is the laughingstock of Europe, thanks to your kind.


oh well, I suppose when we bail you out of the next world war, for the third time, we'll buy ourselves another 50 years of Europe's 'acceptance' :rolleyes:

Europe laughed at us in 1776, 1812, and begged for our help in 1917 and 1939

when they laughed, a country got it handed to them, othertimes, they were on the verge of collapse. Guess we know what the inevitable future is about to bring. :D

[Unregistered]

Is the evolution part of science taught in a mandatory science class? In my place, evolution is taught in grade 12 biology, and that course is not at all mandatory.

See, evolution is taught in a science classroom. Creation is taught in a religion classroom. Both are not mandatory. There shouldn't be any conflicts!

Personally, I see creationism as being illogical. See, we are human beings. We can only perceive our world through our senses, and our senses are imperfect. Because of this, there is always the fundamental doubt that our senses have a chance of making us believe we are seeing something when in fact reality is totally different. As a result, all information we have ever obtained is relative information, information relative to our own perspective.

No matter how much relative information you get, you cannot piece them into something that is absolute. If we are contemplating the absolute truth of the universe, it could be anything, because we have no reason to say otherwise since our perceptions are imperfect and we are limited to our perceptions.

Creationism says universal truth is that a creationist created the universe. They have to present this as absolute truth because it is the Christians forming the majority of creationism, and the Christian belief cannot accept something that is not absolute. This kind of absolute thinking is what makes most Christians unable to accept any other possibility (and thus difficult to argue with since they're always so stubborn and ignorant in their belief. See: Nightline Face-Off, though I don't think the atheists did well either). If Creationism presents creationism as merely a big possibility, then it will not be acceptable to Christians and creationism would lose its base support.

Evolution on the other hand is scientific, and science is never about absolute truth because the scientific method and the scientific philosophy is completely rational. Reason above emotion, that is. Science realizes that everything that it has ever established can, at most, be a really really big possibility that is almost certain to be truth (but we can never be completely certain). This is also why when a better explanation with a bigger possibility to be true comes along, science will throw away the old and adopt the new.

In summary, on the quest to understand ultimate truth, science is rational, religion is irrational. Religion thrives in absolute thinking which is basically "I'm right, everybody else who disagrees with me is wrong." Science thrives in relative thinking, and will always doubt itself in the hope of becoming better. Religion thinks it's already got the answer. Science believes that it will never get the real answer, but will try its hardest to get as close to it as possible. The only reason why we still have religions like Christianity in the world is because Christianity has had such a great influence back in the middle ages and its development until now that the damage it's done is not easily reversable. People who are stuck in the old ways are not willing to enlighten themselves and become humble, and the tradition goes on.

Religion is, at most, an interesting subject. It is not, and will never be, true. This is because we humans cannot ever know the ultimate truth of the universe (due to the relative nature of our perceptions), so making up a situation to describe the ultimate truth of the universe is, at best, an assumption. We can say that religion is true relative to the Christian belief, but Christianity demands more; Christianity wants religion to be always true regardless, and by logic that is asking too much of the human race.

People say that religion is required for morality. No, that's only a Christian belief. In a place like China, morality is passed down as confucian values and taught to kids in schools at the elementary level. During their teenage years many kids will doubt the values they've been taught and then make their own mind about their morals. The vast majority of people in China will not have values too much different from yours (e.g. do not kill, do not steal, help people who are in trouble, etc...) yet they will have never been exposed overwhelmingly to religion. All morality is is a large group of unorganized ideas about the desirability of various human behaviors that have been formed over the millenniums since the dawn of man, and it probably rose out of group survival instincts. Over time, the codes and rules of a survival group gets passed down the generations and eventually evolved into what we call morality today. Another thing to realize is that morality is personal, subjective. There exists no universal moral code. If you apply morality to a population, the best you'll get is a mean or mode of everyone's individual, personal morals.

Actually, I think I've gone off topic, I'll shut up now.

[Unregistered]

First post on here, but where's the proof?

[Unregistered]

Why do whales have legs?

All animals are designed well.

The "leg" bones are used for sexual purposes, they help the erection in the male and the contraction on the female.

[Unregistered]

I can't help but notice every entry on this forum claiming that Creationist do not believe in science or it's not science.

We creationist believe in the same science everyone else does, including natural selction but we have a solid foundation of thinking. Even the evolutionist has a foundation for their thinking wether they know it or not. Evolution is based on mans fallible word

The evidence in science that the evolutionist use also points to a young created earth. There is not one piece of evidence that disputes this

[Unregistered]

We creationist believe in the same science everyone else does, including natural selction but we have a solid foundation of thinking. Even the evolutionist has a foundation for their thinking wether they know it or not. Evolution is based on mans fallible word

Man's fallible word, as you put it, is the only reasonable way of thinking we currently have. It is because man's words are fallible that the philosophy of science calls for constant self-doubt. To further explain "man's fallible word:" man's perceptions and experiences are fallible, man formulates logic from perceptions and experiences, therefore logic is fallible. However, we assume logic to be infallible because thinking otherwise will not get us anywhere because a world illogical is one without rules, in which anything can happen. It gets complicated. To let our thoughts to be of any use to us, we assume logic to be infallible, and anything logical is as close to the universal truth as we are going to get.

Creationism has a foundation either in religious texts or a logically incorrect argument. Religious text is of questionable credibility. In terms of logic, the best creationists can do (intelligent design) works by saying "because we're so amazing, therefore we must have a designer, and that designer must be God." This is incorrect because logically speaking,

1) Amazingness is a relative concept, and without a frame of reference defined, "we are so amazing" becomes meaningless.
2) "We must have a designer" is nothing but an assumption that ignores all other possibilities. There are endless causes for us to be so amazing, so the best we can say is that "there is likely to be a designer," not "there must be a designer."
3) And even if it is true that we have a designer, saying that the designer must be God is another outrageous assumption. It's like saying "the chair was once built by a carpenter, so the carpenter must be Bob."

I have no problem with teaching what creationism is, what christianity is, how they influenced our world in history, what the core beliefs are, what the concepts are, etc... I do have a problem when we present it as something that's supposed to be as close to truth as possible. Science tries to get as close to the universal truth as possible. This is why creationism does not belong in a scientific classroom.

Disagree? Try to tell me how I am wrong. The long post about 4 posts ago was also by me. I will check back here from time to time to see anything you might want to tell me. I would appreciate it if you'd like to counter my points, because that way we both learn something via debating.

[Unregistered]

Man's fallible word, as you put it, is the only reasonable way of thinking we currently have. It is because man's words are fallible that the philosophy of science calls for constant self-doubt. To further explain "man's fallible word:" man's perceptions and experiences are fallible, man formulates logic from perceptions and experiences, therefore logic is fallible. However, we assume logic to be infallible because thinking otherwise will not get us anywhere because a world illogical is one without rules, in which anything can happen. It gets complicated. To let our thoughts to be of any use to us, we assume logic to be infallible, and anything logical is as close to the universal truth as we are going to get.

Creationism has a foundation either in religious texts or a logically incorrect argument. Religious text is of questionable credibility. In terms of logic, the best creationists can do (intelligent design) works by saying "because we're so amazing, therefore we must have a designer, and that designer must be God." This is incorrect because logically speaking,

1) Amazingness is a relative concept, and without a frame of reference defined, "we are so amazing" becomes meaningless.
2) "We must have a designer" is nothing but an assumption that ignores all other possibilities. There are endless causes for us to be so amazing, so the best we can say is that "there is likely to be a designer," not "there must be a designer."
3) And even if it is true that we have a designer, saying that the designer must be God is another outrageous assumption. It's like saying "the chair was once built by a carpenter, so the carpenter must be Bob."

I have no problem with teaching what creationism is, what christianity is, how they influenced our world in history, what the core beliefs are, what the concepts are, etc... I do have a problem when we present it as something that's supposed to be as close to truth as possible. Science tries to get as close to the universal truth as possible. This is why creationism does not belong in a scientific classroom.

Disagree? Try to tell me how I am wrong. The long post about 4 posts ago was also by me. I will check back here from time to time to see anything you might want to tell me. I would appreciate it if you'd like to counter my points, because that way we both learn something via debating.

"It is because man's words are fallible that the philosophy of science calls for constant self-doubt." That is the reason why we listen to God's infallible word.

"Creationism has a foundation either in religious texts or a logically incorrect argument."

God is logical,

The universe had a beginning.

It is illogical to believe something can exist without a creator.

"Religious text is of questionable credibility." The Bible? Have you done your homework? The true question is not wether there is a creator but which "religion" is right. A good look at all the possibilities quickly points you in the right direction.

"Relative" is your opinion against God's word. You can start from the presupposition of us being accidental spills of randomness that evolved (I'd love to see you defend that) and believe all you want that everythings relative but God's infallible word of absolutes is the only logical way of thinking today. I would love to see evidence that supports any other presupposition than a creator.

This debate is endless because to think you must be biased. You obviously start from a different point than I do, but surely you have to agree on the fact that evolution failed and there needs to be a new "theory" of existence to compete with a creator.

Evolution falls way short. Back to the drawing board.

I"ll respond the next chance I get.

[Unregistered]

Both concepts should be taught and the children should decide which to believe. At the level that this is going to be taught (high school), the kids should be able to make an educated decision on what to believe. If the facts (not personal opinions) are not given about both, then we have uninformed students, and that is not our job.

[Unregistered]

"It is because man's words are fallible that the philosophy of science calls for constant self-doubt." That is the reason why we listen to God's infallible word.
The premise for this to be true is that God is true.

"Creationism has a foundation either in religious texts or a logically incorrect argument."

God is logical,

The universe had a beginning.

It is illogical to believe something can exist without a creator.
No, you are wrong. I think the word you're looking for is "unlikely," not "illogical."

It is logical to say that there is a possibility that something can exist without a creator, and I'll show you why.

Firstly, if it is illogical to believe that something can exist without a creator, then the premise must be that all things that exist has a creator.

This is because that if some things that exist do not have creators (the negation of "all things that exist have creators"), then it is perfectly fine to believe that something can exist without a creator.

So, if what you claim requires a premise to be true, we shall see where the premise comes from. Your premise, as I remind you, is that "all things that exist has a creator."

How do we arrive at this? We arrive at this by taking a large sample of "things that exist" and study whether or not they have creators. For instance, a wheel is created by the person who makes the wheels. A chair is created by perhaps a carpenter. A car is created by a bunch of engineers and mechanics.

However, no matter how many things we look at, the most that we can ever say, logically speaking, is that: things that exist likely has a creator because unless we examine every single thing that ever existed, we cannot be 100% sure. Remember, logic is perfect, it must be perfectly precise, there is no room for approximations.

So, have you ever studied an atom and found its creator? Have you ever studied an amoeba and found its creator? Let's say that you have, indeed, studied all things ever known to mankind and found out that they all had creators.

Even then, you still can't be 100% sure, because you won't really know whether or not "everything mankind has seen" is the same as "everything that exists." There is still the possibility that there exists something without a creator that has never came into contact with man's knowledge.

So, you will never be able to say, with 100% certainty, that "absolutely all things that exist has a creator."

And thus, the best you can do is to say that "all things that exist likely have creators, but there is always the small chance that something (which we don't know about) does exist without a creator.

"Religious text is of questionable credibility." The Bible? Have you done your homework? The true question is not wether there is a creator but which "religion" is right. A good look at all the possibilities quickly points you in the right direction.

Despite the fact that I've just shown that your premise that "all things have creators" is false, let us just suppose for a moment that what you believe is true, that the universe does have a creator.

On earth, we have a finite number of religions. Your question then becomes "which religion is the truth regarding the creator?"

Because we don't know anything regarding this creator, reason and logic tells us that this creator can be anything

And "anything" means infinite possibilities.

Taking a finite sample (earth's finite number of religions) out of infinite possibilities that this creator could be, simple probability tells us that, the probability that one of the religions on earth is indeed the truth, approaches zero.

Furthermore, because we do not know anything about this creator, we will never have anything to compare current religions to to decide which religion is the same as the creator. As such, we will never know which religion is correct.

By logic and reason, once again Christianity fails.

[Unregistered]

"Relative" is your opinion against God's word. You can start from the presupposition of us being accidental spills of randomness that evolved (I'd love to see you defend that) and believe all you want that everythings relative

Of course, I can start from the presupposition of us being accidental spills of randomness that evolved, but I won't. This is because if I start there, then I am assuming that is true, and I know that isn't true, for saying something is true means saying it is 100%, absolutely correct. I will say, however, that through the logic and reason - which science embraces - we have arrived at what we believe to be the most logical and rational explanation, that is, the explanation that is most likely.

I may or may not agree with evolution, but I will tell you that regardless of whether or not evolution is true, it is more likely than the God the bible describes.

Now, to approach this God, there are two ways. We can either take the bible literally, or use personal interpretations.

If we take the bible literally, then the existence of a supernatural being who show himself to others as a burning bush, who murders massive people just because they do not go according to his will, who does trivial things, who punishes more than saves and at the same time claims that he forgives, who sent his son to death for a symbolic reason... the possibility of all these supernatural things to be true is, in my opinion, is similar to the possibility of any ancient mythologies to be true, for the events and happenings are similar. The probability of it being true is far less than that of evolution.

If we use personal interpretations, then we are viewing the bible subjectively - as in - relative to our own perception and thought. And once again, through only relative interpretations alone, we will only come to our personal truth, which is not the same as universal truth.


This debate is endless because to think you must be biased. You obviously start from a different point than I do, but surely you have to agree on the fact that evolution failed and there needs to be a new "theory" of existence to compete with a creator.

Evolution falls way short. Back to the drawing board.

I"ll respond the next chance I get.[/QUOTE]

but God's infallible word of absolutes is the only logical way of thinking today. I would love to see evidence that supports any other presupposition than a creator.

"God's infallible word of absolutes is the only logical way of thinking today" is an assumption, because you have not shown me sound logic as to how you came to such a conclusion.

Let us pretend for a moment, that all logic and reason does point to God being true; even then, we can only say that God is the most likely explanation. Christianity cannot accept this conclusion; it can only accept one that says God is the "absolute explanation." This is why Christianity - and any absolutist thinking - defies logic.

This debate is endless because to think you must be biased. You obviously start from a different point than I do, but surely you have to agree on the fact that evolution failed and there needs to be a new "theory" of existence to compete with a creator.

Of course I start from a different point than you do. I start out by recognizing that human beings perceive the world through their senses (unbiased beginning), and then I use logic to derive everything else that I say.

My logic says that because our senses are imperfect, so are the information perceived through them. If the information we perceive are always imperfect, then we cannot put the information into a perfect explanation for the universe and everything within it or outside it. As such, we will never be able to comprehend anything absolute, for all our information arrives to us in relative terms (relative to our imperfect perceptions).

If my logic is wrong, please tell me where, and I will review it. Otherwise, I still retain my lack of bias, since I started with an unbiased fact and followed through with sound reason.

If by logic, we will never be certain of anything absolute, then we can only at most say that "God is likely," not "God is certainly."

This point, arrived at through logic, contradicts what Christianity requires. Because of this, Christianity is not logic, it is illogic.

Of course, there is always a chance that logic might be false, but we humans think through logic, and if we abandon logic, then we would enter a world totally unknown and it will be very, very complicated. Please do not argue that this is the case, because neither you nor me will find any results in venturing here.

I do not defend evolution. On that issue, my opinion is that evolution is what scientists came out with, so let it stay in the science classroom. Religion is not something scientists came out with, so ban creationism from science classrooms. Keep creationism in religion classes if you want, I'm perfectly fine with that.

However, my problem is with people believing in religion and claiming that is a rational thing to do. Religion is anything but reason; religion is what appeals to emotions and the thought process used to arrive at a religious end always start with an imperfect assumption taken as absolute truth.

But hey, if you want to be unreasonable with your thinking, go ahead, it's your freedom right? Don't debate it though, because debate requires reason and you will surely lose.

Personally, I have a problem with the idea of "belief" itself. To believe is to make an assumption and call it absolute truth. I only believe for the enjoyment of things that stirs emotion, but I don't see it as a good way to develop one's rational thought.

I'm still visiting this topic every few days, please feel free to refute what I say. Debating is constructive because it helps us build our thoughts, right?

Cheers!
Jack

[Unregistered]

Please ignore this unquoted portion found in the middle of my post
This debate is endless because to think you must be biased. You obviously start from a different point than I do, but surely you have to agree on the fact that evolution failed and there needs to be a new "theory" of existence to compete with a creator.

Evolution falls way short. Back to the drawing board.

I"ll respond the next chance I get.
[/QUOTE]

This is an error I made when copying/pasting. Instead, stop reading at "which is not the same as universal truth" and start reading again at the quote that follows shortly after.

[Unregistered]

Imagine showing up at a football camp with a play that would lead to a sure touchdown every time: When the quarterback gets the ball it turns into an olive branch, he turns into a dove the rest of the team turns into a herd of stampeding elephants. The elephants clear the way over the defense, the quarterback flies with the olive branch into the end zone and the team transforms back to the way they were - it is called divine football. Because this play has in its title the word "football" it is real football and must be given equal consideration with other football plays; in high schools, college and NFL teams. Coaches must adopt it to allow for flexibility and options in order to respond to various game situations. Not doing so is a sign that the coach is stifling creativity and doesn't really want the team to learn how to play the game. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind of its validity, the divine football play book emphatically states that it works the same way every time and it's absolutely forbidden to question or modify it; just put it in with the rest of the plays and let the players decide which they think would be most likely to get points. They could hold an informal votes on the field to see if divine football is the best play to go with - the majority vote will mean that they got it right. Have a great football season.

Now, imagine showing up in science class.....

[Unregistered]

Let your thinking evolve, usethe scientific method to demonstrate that evolution does not work. When your reseach reveals it cannot be proven, then consider accepting this remarkable theory, so often sustained, as the scientific explanation best suited to explain life's origins and its great variety.
Once that occurs then what would be the value in writing about evolution vs, creationism. Leave the creationists in theology, leave the science to demonstrated outcomes. I consider myself to be empowered spiritually; I do not believe my beliefs in evolutionary theory limit my spiritual values at all. Rather, they are enhanced by them.

[Pastafarian_Fuzzle]

To a rational scientist who uses the scientific method to make observations of the world around us and hypothesize how it began, guess which alternative sounds better:
1. A magical man in the sky (who was always there) magically created the universe in six days. There is no evidence for this except for a book written by monks 1500 years ago (approx.), which is the absolute truth because. . .it says so. . .and if it is telling the truth. . .it must be true. This creation story breaks most laws of physics, but that doesn't matter, because the magical man used his magical powers to make it work.
2. The earth was formed billions of years after the universe was formed in a mysterious explosion that isn't fully understood. It took billions more years for it to form to current conditions. In a testable process almost totally proven to work, nonliving molecules in a complex and countinually heated chemical soup formed amino acids and proteins, eventually forming incredibly simple self-replicating molecules. These molecules (called "life"), through a simple process proven to be correct, evolved into more complex bacteria, which then through that same process (look at diseases for an easy-to-understand example) evolved into bacteria. These, after billions of years of constant evolution, became creatures which under climate pressure and habitat change became more and more intelligent, forming humans.

Which do you think the scientist would choose to study?
Which do you think should be taught in schools as science?
Which do you think is true?


- That silly Evil-utionist down the street

[Pastafarian_Fuzzle]

I made a small error in the previous post.
I stated that complex bacteria evolved into bacteria.
woops
Don't worry guys, that was a mistake in typing, not proof that evolution is false. . . but you might quote me on that - "...evolution is false..."
lol
anyway. . .i meant it the other way around. Simple bacteria evolve into more complex bacteria.
Pardon my foolishness of typing:)

-The silly Evil-utionist again


P.S. the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world w/ his noodly appendage ten minutes ago:) www.venganza.org

[Pastafarian_Fuzzle]

http://images.snapfish.com/34355:352...B7924435ot1lsi
This is a response to the image of a pterodactyl posted a few pages earlier
supposedly killed in the civil war.

---It seems to me that someone is pretty good at photoshop---
Can a good reference be found somewhere?
almost any image can be photoshopped nowadays, so images of dinosaurs walking with humans and spaghetti monsters in fields can very easily be doubted.

Are there bones from this creature?
from the civil war?
If so, these bones would actually be made of bone, not fossil material, and it could easily be proven to be real. Until these bones are found, the picture should be regarded as a fake.
-
-
-
This is my picture proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists:
http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/pasture1024x768.jpg

See my point?


-That darn Evil-utionist again

[Blah]

http://images.snapfish.com/34355:3523232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232:%3D6%3B%3C%3D878%3 DXROQDF%3E23237%3B7924435ot1lsi


Dude bad link. . .

[Unregistered]

Creationists must never, ever, be taken seriously. The fossil record clearly proves, beyond a doubt, that evolution happened. Claims that humans have no similarity to apes have been clearly shown to be untrue, our genes are almost identical and two ape genes having fused to make one of ours. And all the talk about abiogenesis breaking the laws of thermodynamics is just a smokescreen that doesn't even make any sense. Self-assembly explains how a cell came together on its own, it's just another chemical reaction, be it a complex one.

No teacher has any right to use a classroom to teach nonsense. And no child deserves to be left behind, for religious reasons, while fanatics like Ken Ham rake in millions from a world full of ****************ers.

[Truth]

Evilution is w rong NO Evidence evers uports the faith
of evolution if its true why dont we se monkies trtransform into peoople!
WRONG WRONG WRONG I love Jesus the bible is teh wrod of god u all evolutioners go to hell
all eviidence makes creation true and evolution is jsut a theory
If the monkeys tranformed ijntyo humANS why couldnt the rest of them makr it overr thee hujmp and be pple too?
Why did no evilutionisgt answer fthis because they arwe wrongg
There are no such thingss as feossils thet prov evoludtion its a belief faith gthat means its wrong and cretion is right
Jesus loves u and evoludtionisgts go die in hell fofr believing fAKE ness and being evil atheist ppl
CREATION IS THE ONLY THEOURY SUPORTRTED BY REAL SCICENCE AND EVOLUTION IS FAKE FAKE FAKE

[Unregistered]

Keep your head in the sand and your eyes on God. Christians say that magic is evil, but put forth their own version of mystical powers everyday. If one is to believe what you read in the bible as truth, then why not believe in evolution? You are making a bigger leap of faith to believe the fantastic stories in the bible than you are to believe mankind evolved from a single celled organism. I have no problem with people believing in a God, just don't ask me to present in a factual manner in my classroom.

That disbeliving heretic

[Gary Gaulin]

Hi Teacher(s)!

I was wondering what you and others think of two of my favorite experiments. The first one proves that Creationists are completely wrong about it being impossible for natural forces to spontaneously form complex structures.

http://members.aol.com/fromscience/experiments/cellmembrane.html

Another version with less detail is being carried here:

http://www.lessonplanspage.com/ScienceSelfAssemblyOfRealCellMembranesOriginOfLife Experiment68.htm

This experiment I did for the folks out in Kansas and beyond uses Jello as a protein source is the beginning of a new experiment that allows us to see how the heat of formation of the Earth converts organic once possibly living molecules into their basic components but the process is reversible so that life can form or come back again from these "volcanic gasses".

http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin//ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001054;p=

I'm currently evolving the aquarium experiment to use motor exhaust as the source of a realistic CO2 atmosphere, light on one side to generate a weather system that precipitates fresh water on land that runs into an increasingly saline churning ocean, volcano with a miniature kiln inside to provide sulphur compounds including carbonyl sulfide to polymerize amino acids that form into proteins, and could also include lightning using a safe to use static generator.

In my opinion the problem is that the old way of teaching origin of life and evolution only leads to confusion. What is needed are home/classroom experiments that make a normally hard to visualize process obvious to the students.

Gary
http://members.aol.com/dinoprints/

[Student]

You guys are being stupid about this whole debate. Obviously we aren't monkeys, nore have been in the past....and obviously you can't PROVE a faith (it ruins the entire meaning of the word)

All you're teaching and preaching is a theory. The big bang THEORY, the THEORY of evolution. Heck, what's one more THEORY to add? Kids are supposed to be rounded...how are they supposed to get a rounded education with only two unprovable theories are being shoved down their throats. They don't believe it anyway. You can't prove a theory, all you can do is hope for evidence to support it.

There is evidence to support god...just because you can't recreate it in a lab doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Look at the miracle of life...why do some people who are supposed to die end up living, and why do people who are supposed to be healthy die? It's the mystery of life...no scientist can answer those kinds of questions....

All you're doing by bringing religion into science is givng the children another theory to consider. It doesn't mean they believe it or are going to convert the next day....

[Unregistered]

ARE YOU QUALIFIED FOR THIS JOB??

Our school needs teachers.
Send your resume to leed.78@163.com or fao_xijing@126.com.
Mention my name --- David

[Unregistered]

I would just like to say that evolution has been disproven, because no scientists can create matter like that of which was described in the big bang. They can change it but not create it out of nothing. Charles Darwin denied everything he had written on his death bed, why do evolutionists see that he knew he was wrong. Also, think about this. The sun loses mass every year, if the earth was a billion years old then sun would have been so close it would have burnt the whole planet. Why are we teaching something that we know is not true?

[Untamed Shrew]

The sun loses mass every year, if the earth was a billion years old then sun would have been so close it would have burnt the whole planet. Why are we teaching something that we know is not true?

Well, you are somewhat right--the sun is burning up its fuel, but the process of becoming a Red Giant will probably take another 2 billion years.:cool:

There is plenty of evidence to support that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

And the Darwin family denied that Darwin recanted his beliefs. Christians shouldn't bear false witness. ;)

Well-meaning people need to stop spreading misleading information.

[Unregistered]

I would just like to say that evolution has been disproven, because no scientists can create matter like that of which was described in the big bang. They can change it but not create it out of nothing. Charles Darwin denied everything he had written on his death bed, why do evolutionists see that he knew he was wrong. Also, think about this. The sun loses mass every year, if the earth was a billion years old then sun would have been so close it would have burnt the whole planet. Why are we teaching something that we know is not true?

Darwin recanted nothing on his deathbed. Why do we feel the need to make this rubbish up? Faith should be strong enough without having to resolve to fabricating a story to support a belief! Evolution, whilst not perfect is the best scientific model to date. Creationism is not and never can be science and therefore has no place in a school science classroom. Philosophy, religious education etc., absolutely.

As far as the sun burning up the Earth, I think you need to read some Chandrasekar et al to get a better understanding of stars and their life cycle.

[Unregistered]

I would just like to say that evolution has been disproven, because no scientists can create matter like that of which was described in the big bang. They can change it but not create it out of nothing. Charles Darwin denied everything he had written on his death bed, why do evolutionists see that he knew he was wrong. Also, think about this. The sun loses mass every year, if the earth was a billion years old then sun would have been so close it would have burnt the whole planet. Why are we teaching something that we know is not true?


This is so funny to read...without looking up evolution I want you to define it.. can't wait to hear you response....

and how old do you think the earth is then...

don't voice any opinions... take a college science course... it will help you significantly...

[Unregistered]

Our constitution states that church and state should be separate. First of all, the public school system is a branch of the government, and therefore it is unconstitutional. Second, it is bigoted and ludicrous to assume that SCIENCE classes should teach a fundamentalist theology. While we're at that, let's go ahead and fill our science curriculum with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Regarding this response, please note that our constitution does not state, nor support, a separation of church and state - sorry. This argument is sadly unmerited when we use unsupportable evidence. We already have a curriculum that teaches the principles of world religions. These are taught in world history. We certainly do not need to reteach them in a science curriculum. It is always amazing to me that we are, in fact, able to teach all other theories and religious principals without objection except Christianity, whose principles our country was founded on not too many years ago.

[lam]

You guys are being stupid about this whole debate. Obviously we aren't monkeys, nore have been in the past....and obviously you can't PROVE a faith (it ruins the entire meaning of the word)

All you're doing by bringing religion into science is givng the children another theory to consider. It doesn't mean they believe it or are going to convert the next day....


I could be wrong... but my understanding of the purpose of education is to teach the young and prepare them to participate in life.

With respect to the fact that you consider evolution to be a mere theory, the difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution is researched and based on scientific principles, whereas creationism is based on myth evidenced in a book compiled by a committee of religious bureaucrats 2000 years (or less) ago.

I'm of the opinion that we should stick with teaching science in science classes. Creationism can be taught in churches or religious classes. IMO it has no place in a science curriculum. Note I'm not saying not to teach it, but rather, teach it in the correct time and place.

[Unregistered]

Hey Guys lets not forget that Isaac Newton,one of the greatest scientists that ever lived was a creationist.Looks like alot of people are forgeting that.Also one more thing,Louis Pasteur who did Bacteriology,Biochemistry,Sterilization and Immunization was also a creationist.He rejected Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution.Oooohh wait a second all the fore-fathers of science were creationists.I bet you didn't know that.

[Unregistered]

In order to investigate the question whether Creationism is scientific I have started this weblog (in Dutch).

http://www.bloggen.be/creationisme_op_objectieve_manier_bekeken/

[Unregistered]

In order to investigate whether Creationism is scientific or not I have started the following weblog. All reactions are appreciated.

http://www.bloggen.be/creationisme_op_objectieve_manier_bekeken/

[nairie]

Why don't we accept the ideas which we can't find sufficient answer to. I think that our ancestors were better than us in so many ways. At least they believed in the power of the sun and thunder when they were not able to understand it thoroughly.My point is that even when you don't believe in the minute details of creation, you should bring up generations that have some faith and give them a chance to from their own belief about the powers governing life. And I assure that we (I mean humans) are the most ungrateful and skeptical creatures. It's such a pity we don't have faith in anything abstract. If that is the case we should lose faith in Love too cause creation is the best example of Love.
:confused:

[Unregistered]

So what... I haven't seen a evolutionary scientist yet.... just because someone believes something does mean its right... I'm sick and tired of hearing; well this scientists believes this and this scientists believes that... that means we should believe anything they say right... your a fool to think this way and its very disturbing to see this post...

Out of all the scientists you named and fields in which they belong too... I haven't seen an evolutionary biologists... get my drift.... those scientists are not involved in evolutionary thinking plus may not even know what evolution truely is... just like yourself... They may have taken a course in it during their undergraduate years buts thats it... they don't study or use it everyday of their lives so you have absolutely no point... normally when I hear responses such as this I ask that person if they know what evolution is... obviously they don't and you don't as well based on your comments... stop blinding stating facts that have nothing to do with evoltuon...

creationism is soley a political view marketed by people who don't have to spend the money evaluating, researching, and gathering facts and come to any conclusion...Most people who believe in creationism can't even read or understand a simple scientific journal...get my drift...Scientists on the other hand don't have the money to market their ideas and facts because they use most of it on researching facts...creationism is based soley on "FAITH" which means a BELIEF without EVIDENCE...get my drift... man their are still people that believe in flying fire breathing dragons and unicorns....I guess as long as they have faith its real right...NO its not... its really pathetic.... Again I remind you uneducated believers that if there is a creator who then CREATED that creator... too confusing... don't respond... but again a good quesiton.

Also, again I remind everyone that just because you or somebody else believes in something doesn't mean its real.... make sense... take responsibility for your own research..get educated on both views and you will come to the same conclusion that I have...most of you are too lazy or so narrow-minded that you are afraid to become educated...I have accepted the reality and facts of what I have learned...its time you took that route and stop living in a fantasy or as in the other post replied.... myth...

-Andy

Again, I only accept educated responses and will not comment on narrow-minded biased views to my posts...

[Unregistered]

I think Evolution is crazy and should be talked about in school.

God created heaven and earth and he created man in his image so if we evolved from an animal how can god of created us in his image unless he looked like a monkey himself?


Wait, so you think it's crazy to believe that there's something to a theory that's being constantly tested through the scientific method, but it's not crazy to believe in an invisible guy that farted everything into existence?

[Unregistered]

Why don't we accept the ideas which we can't find sufficient answer to. I think that our ancestors were better than us in so many ways. At least they believed in the power of the sun and thunder when they were not able to understand it thoroughly.My point is that even when you don't believe in the minute details of creation, you should bring up generations that have some faith and give them a chance to from their own belief about the powers governing life. And I assure that we (I mean humans) are the most ungrateful and skeptical creatures. It's such a pity we don't have faith in anything abstract. If that is the case we should lose faith in Love too cause creation is the best example of Love.
:confused:

First of all its NOT ok to accept ideas which we can't find sufficient answers to. Its alright to question or come up with ideas but to "accept" them is ignorant. Furthermore, its ok to have "FAITH" (belief without evidence) in an idea but whats more signficant is that you must test that believe and accept the facts based on your research...so if you find out what you believed was not the case... then you should accept the reality or truth presented by your research. It seems that we tend to stay biased on our faith and can't break through that narrow-minded shell that we create ourselves. So its not such a "PITY" as you roboustly put...

You also say that you "ASSURE" humans are the most ungrateful and skeptical creatures. First of all, who are you to decide that. Without being skeptical where would you be today? Seems obvious... but seriously think about it.

Also, are you telling me that chimpanzees, the great apes, Neandertal, and the rest of our lineage are not skeptical as well (that goes for all animals). For some reason "THE FEW OF YOU" think we are the only animals that can love, manipulate our environment, have forethought, reason, and even survive. Well ladies and gentlemen, you are WRONG. I'm not going into details but take it upon yourselves to do your own research and you will find out that ANIMALS are more like us than you think.

Finally, I'm not going to waste too much time on you... you say that Creation is the "BEST" example of love. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Be careful what you say because you need to expalin yourself if you are going to state such a biased response as this. What is Love? You tell me.... think about it... now What is creation? ... get my drift... Research a bit more on love and I can't wait to see your reaction based on your research.

[Unregistered]

Hey Guys lets not forget that Isaac Newton,one of the greatest scientists that ever lived was a creationist.Looks like alot of people are forgeting that.Also one more thing,Louis Pasteur who did Bacteriology,Biochemistry,Sterilization and Immunization was also a creationist.He rejected Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution.Oooohh wait a second all the fore-fathers of science were creationists.I bet you didn't know that.

So what... I haven't seen a evolutionary scientist yet.... just because someone believes something does mean its right... I'm sick and tired of hearing; well this scientists believes this and this scientists believes that... that means we should believe anything they say right... your a fool to think this way and its very disturbing to see this post...

Out of all the scientists you named and fields in which they belong too... I haven't seen an evolutionary biologists... get my drift.... those scientists are not involved in evolutionary thinking plus may not even know what evolution truely is... just like yourself... They may have taken a course in it during their undergraduate years buts thats it... they don't study or use it everyday of their lives so you have absolutely no point... normally when I hear responses such as this I ask that person if they know what evolution is... obviously they don't and you don't as well based on your comments... stop blinding stating facts that have nothing to do with evoltuon...

creationism is soley a political view marketed by people who don't have to spend the money evaluating, researching, and gathering facts and come to any conclusion...Most people who believe in creationism can't even read or understand a simple scientific journal...get my drift...Scientists on the other hand don't have the money to market their ideas and facts because they use most of it on researching facts...creationism is based soley on "FAITH" which means a BELIEF without EVIDENCE...get my drift... man their are still people that believe in flying fire breathing dragons and unicorns....I guess as long as they have faith its real right...NO its not... its really pathetic.... Again I remind you uneducated believers that if there is a creator who then CREATED that creator... too confusing... don't respond... but again a good quesiton.

Also, again I remind everyone that just because you or somebody else believes in something doesn't mean its real.... make sense... take responsibility for your own research..get educated on both views and you will come to the same conclusion that I have...most of you are too lazy or so narrow-minded that you are afraid to become educated...I have accepted the reality and facts of what I have learned...its time you took that route and stop living in a fantasy or as in the other post replied.... myth...

-Andy

Again, I only accept educated responses and will not comment on narrow-minded biased views to my posts...

[St. Louis Blues]

My dear Mr. Ancy,
I am educated, probably more so than yourself, so continue to read. I resent your egotistical statement that the posters on this particular thread are lazy and uninformed. I beg to differ. Perhaps you perceive them as such because they do not agree with your views. Continue to post young man, but do not generalize please. Even Chocolate has kindly ceased that narrow-minded tactic, and still gets his point across.
St. Louis Blues

[Unregistered]

First off, I have not read through all 50+ pages of this discussion, so I apologize if others have presented this position. I just stumbled onto this site looking for better note-taking strategies for my AP Biology class. However, I think that its importance bears repeating.

I am both an evolutionary biologist and a Christian (an evangelical christian even). We must get past the science OR religion aspects of this issue. The crux of this debate comes down to Biblical literalism. If you believe that the Bible is literal in every word written, then there is no amount of evidence ( and there IS tons of evidence) that I can present that will make you change your mind about evolution. You will continue to believe that all of the evidence presented is either a conspiracy among scientists to corrupt the world, or that things like fossils were planted by God to test the faith of his followers.

If you believe (as I do) that the Bible contains parables, teaching lessons, and illustrations that were written (inspired by God) to help his people understand the person of God and who he is and how we are to live our lives, and was not written to be read as a science textbook; then teaching creationism/intelligent design is not only bad science, but also bad theology.

Teaching creationism only sets up young christians for a crisis of faith. I speak from experience. I was raised in a Christian home, went to church, and heard Christians speak of the evils of evolution. I heard all of the typical arguments that have been presented in the pages that I've looked through on this discussion thread. I don't blame my parents, they are great christians, but both know very little about science.

When I began to take biology courses, read books, and study evolution, I soon realized the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. It was not the hapless THEORY that I had been told about. So this sets up the problem of my upbringing. . . if evolution is right then . . .

I went through a couple years where I began doubting the existence of God and began to fall away from Christianity. Thankfully, God allowed me to take a few evolutionary biology courses with professors who were strong christians (something I did not think was possible). Through talks with these professors and reading several books on the topic like:

Finding Darwin's God (K. Miller)
The Language of God (F. Collins)
Coming to peace with science (D. Falk) - my most recent read. excellent book.

I was able to discover a wonderful unity between the study of science and the study of God.

So in conclusion, please do not teach your students creationism. You may think that you are doing the work of God and saving souls, but in reality you are probably doing more harm than good as far as the salvation and faith of your students are concerned.

Respectfully,

A Theistic Evolutionist

[Unregistered]

My dear Mr. Ancy,
I am educated, probably more so than yourself, so continue to read. I resent your egotistical statement that . I beg to differ. Perhaps you perceive them as such because they do not agree with your views. Continue to post young man, but do not generalize please. Even Chocolate has kindly ceased that narrow-minded tactic, and still gets his point across.
St. Louis Blues

Well I feel satisfied that you are educated... but not yet an adult, considering you compare your intelligence to someone who you don't really know. Sorry you feel so offended are resented by my comments but the truth the truth.. I don't feel that the posters on this thread are lazy and uninformed, and I am not generalizing anything... read my last post slowly and try hard to comprehend...

If you were referring to this:

Also, again I remind everyone that just because you or somebody else believes in something doesn't mean its real.... make sense... take responsibility for your own research..get educated on both views and you will come to the same conclusion that I have...most of you are too lazy or so narrow-minded that you are afraid to become educated...I have accepted the reality and facts of what I have learned...its time you took that route and stop living in a fantasy or as in the other post replied.... myth...

Then I still stand by it because most of us are afraid or lazy to research rather than accept ideas based on our faith...your guilty of it AS AM I... "most" of us fall into this category.. I don't generalize... merely state facts of what CAN be perceived, tested, and ascertained....

On a personal note I feel that the ideas and explanations given so far on this poster is amazing and I enjoy reading both the amazing and crazy ideas that appear when I can..

Did you ever think for one moment that you were generalizing when you stated that I said..."the posters on this particular thread are lazy and uninformed" I think you were...read my last post again and try hard to ascertain the information rather than nick-pick and point the finger... and again what does this have to do with evolution or creationism... Please, people don't want to hear bickering and whinning... I know an educated person as yourself have better things to do...really!!! oh its Andy not Acny!!!

[Unregistered]

First off, I have not read through all 50+ pages of this discussion, so I apologize if others have presented this position. I just stumbled onto this site looking for better note-taking strategies for my AP Biology class. However, I think that its importance bears repeating.

I am both an evolutionary biologist and a Christian (an evangelical christian even). We must get past the science OR religion aspects of this issue. The crux of this debate comes down to Biblical literalism. If you believe that the Bible is literal in every word written, then there is no amount of evidence ( and there IS tons of evidence) that I can present that will make you change your mind about evolution. You will continue to believe that all of the evidence presented is either a conspiracy among scientists to corrupt the world, or that things like fossils were planted by God to test the faith of his followers.

If you believe (as I do) that the Bible contains parables, teaching lessons, and illustrations that were written (inspired by God) to help his people understand the person of God and who he is and how we are to live our lives, and was not written to be read as a science textbook; then teaching creationism/intelligent design is not only bad science, but also bad theology.

Teaching creationism only sets up young christians for a crisis of faith. I speak from experience. I was raised in a Christian home, went to church, and heard Christians speak of the evils of evolution. I heard all of the typical arguments that have been presented in the pages that I've looked through on this discussion thread. I don't blame my parents, they are great christians, but both know very little about science.

When I began to take biology courses, read books, and study evolution, I soon realized the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. It was not the hapless THEORY that I had been told about. So this sets up the problem of my upbringing. . . if evolution is right then . . .

I went through a couple years where I began doubting the existence of God and began to fall away from Christianity. Thankfully, God allowed me to take a few evolutionary biology courses with professors who were strong christians (something I did not think was possible). Through talks with these professors and reading several books on the topic like:

Finding Darwin's God (K. Miller)
The Language of God (F. Collins)
Coming to peace with science (D. Falk) - my most recent read. excellent book.

I was able to discover a wonderful unity between the study of science and the study of God.

So in conclusion, please do not teach your students creationism. You may think that you are doing the work of God and saving souls, but in reality you are probably doing more harm than good as far as the salvation and faith of your students are concerned.

Respectfully,

A Theistic Evolutionist


Curious only,

You say, "I was able to discover a wonderful unity between the study of science and the study of God" Please enlighten us to this wonderful unity.... Not being sarcastic.. just curious on what made you feel this way??? Also, curious to see what reserach you worked on or are working on as well?

[Unregistered]

Operational science is a systematic approach using observable, testable and repeatable experimentation to understand how nature behaves. Neither the theory of evolution or creation fall into this category. They are both historical science - Interpretations of evidence from past events based on presupposed philosophical points of view. Neither creation or evolution are directly observable or testable - each are based on philosophical assumptions of how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes no God and creation assumes there was a God. The same evidence is looked at from two opposite pre-suppositions, resulting in very different explanations. The evidence is the same - the arguement is over the way the evidence should be interpreted. To claim Creation is not science because you don't agree with their pre-supposition is unfair and incorrect.
There are numerous inconsistencies in the theory of evolution that should be exposed when teaching. It is wrong to teach a theory as fact, when there are so many problems with it. For instance, mutations consistently result in a loss of information. The theory of evolution tells us that one celled organisms eventually became human by millions of untestable, unobservable years of mutations - a gain of information. There are also inconsistancies in the fossil records. There are no transitional fossils that have been found. Fossils and rock layers do not speak for themselves - they must be interpreted. The way evidence is interpretated depends on your presuppositions. Why is information such as this not discussed in the textbooks? Children should be given all the information concerning the origins of life and taught to weigh information and think critically about it. Read Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson and get all the information.

[Unregistered]

Suggesting that evolution is based on scientific fact is a tremendous leap of faith. Their are no empirical measures of evolution on the macroscale, only suppositions and conjectures using a very limited resource of fossil evidence. Many of the proposed facts have been proven to be fictionalized by the discoverers. However, textbooks continue to show them in print. It is a travesty to accept one philosophy over the other. Can't we just teach the known facts? Stick with what we know for certain.

[Unregistered]

Suggesting that evolution is based on scientific fact is a tremendous leap of faith. Their are no empirical measures of evolution on the macroscale, only suppositions and conjectures using a very limited resource of fossil evidence. Many of the proposed facts have been proven to be fictionalized by the discoverers. However, textbooks continue to show them in print. It is a travesty to accept one philosophy over the other. Can't we just teach the known facts? Stick with what we know for certain.

Actually, evolution is based strictly on scientific fact(s)... it is NOT a tremendous leap of faith... What is faith...faith is a belief without evidence... evolution is based on scientific facts...so I wouldn't go and generlize that evolution is a giant leap of faith...you are arguing without any evidence yourself as you rely on fossil evidence alone...which you may not even understand yourself... you may need to do a bit more research on evolution...

What you will find out is that there is copicous amount of significant DNA evidence including morphological data and fossil evidence which proves organisms evolve through modification from a common ancestor. We know that for certain!!! Also, who "believes" that there are no transitional fossils... who started that ignorance... THERE ARE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN... MORE THAN YOU MAY KNOW... read a scientific journal for once or do some research yourself rather than generalize and accept myths and tribal knowledge...

There are empirical measures of evolution taking place all around you... even more so.. they are being tested.... read the "beak of the finch" that will open your eyes to the testable and observations that is going on.... THAT IS STICKING WITH WHAT WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN...

Evolution is "real" there is evidence supporting it all around us... Understand and learn about mutations...understand or research natual selection ... If you truely understand these two mechanisms.. you will realize that together they will produce an evolutionary response in a changing environment...

So tell me has the HIV virus evolved... learn about reverse transcriptase... learn how a favorable environment will select the organisms fit for that change... learn... educate yourselves... then gernalize.... until then don't jsut state that evolution is a philosophy...

Guess what... you say, "Stick with what we know for certain" ALL OF THE ABOVE IS WHAT WE DO KNOW FOR CERTAIN... creationism... well if we are to stick what we know for certain... then i don't how we even include that way of thinking because we will never know for certain... Evolution exists... its real... and it doesn't mean there is no God, or Gods, or whatever you feel that is controlling everything and anything... if there such a thing... that "thing(s)" does not exist in space or time and taht means it can't ever be tested.... good luck

[Nabeel]

Hi, This post of mine is very beneficial and informative, however there are some specific facts or information that I require. If anyone can help me in this matter then please send me a private message. Best Regards,

Pakistan Property (http://www.zameen.com) | Wholesale Suppliers (http://www.dailytrader.com)
Wholesale Canadian Directory (http://www.wholesale-canada.com) | Property & Real Estate Directory
(http://www.propertydir.com)

[New to Teaching]

as a Christian, I am often called upon to defend my faith to skeptics whose image of Christ's teaching comes from people who support violence and oppose learning. Just a shout out to some of the posters in this discussion. Not all of us Christians seek to interfere in public policy in matters of scientific enquiry. Nor do we all support war. An athiest friend recently brought to my attention a current thought that says that even sensible believers inable the activists who feel entitled to push their ideas on others to the point of violence. It is getting to the point where intelligent people are rejecting faith entirely because of the dangerous few who mass together for political purposes. That is a tragic state of affairs.

If you don't believe in the scientific method as a means for determining workable answers to questions about life, that is your right. But if you love Christ, please have the humility to spread your faith through example and not through attacking science or blowing up those who believe differently.

I read of a preacher who once was part of an influential movement in the church to opposed environmentalism. He has repented of his earlier arrogance and asks others to rethink. he claims many have begun to question their earlier antagonism toward the environmental movement. That is heartening, but what business did church people have in oppossing people who felt called to protect God's creation in the first place? I wonder how much damage was done while those believers were learning their humility. I hope they have learned humility and will, in the future, spend their energies spreading the Good News through example and through good acts instead of putting their noses into areas best left to scientists.

[Unregistered]

If we evolved from the ape, like some believe......why aren't we still evolving from them? That's a question to think about!

:-)

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;23826]If we evolved from the ape, like some believe......why aren't we still evolving from them? That's a question to think about?

People who believe that we evolved from apes do not know or understand evolution. We didn't evolve from apes rather we evolved through modification from a common ancestor. You need to get educated on the subject before you start aksing questions. Read the above post (3 above from this one.. the "who knows" one...) that pretty much sums up what you need to know before you continue any more ignorant responses. Obviously he knows what hes talking about. Its about time we all did a little research ourselves before posting comments.

[Unregistered]

What are ya'll talking about. The only reason the forefathers had seperation of church and state was to keep political figures and debates out of our chruches. I will say this again, evolution has been disproven. The sun gets smaller each year, if the universe was billions of years old as evolution says, the sun would have been so close to the the earth that it would have burned the whole earth up.
I think creationism should be taught because it is the right way and the way that everything came to be.

[Unregistered]

What are ya'll talking about. The only reason the forefathers had seperation of church and state was to keep political figures and debates out of our chruches. I will say this again, evolution has been disproven. The sun gets smaller each year, if the universe was billions of years old as evolution says, the sun would have been so close to the the earth that it would have burned the whole earth up.
I think creationism should be taught because it is the right way and the way that everything came to be.

What does evolution has to do with the sun...tell us genius...Please tell everyone how evolution is disproved because the sun is getting smaller? .Your a prime and typical example of not knowing anything prior to posting your thoughts.

Also, if you "believe" this nonsense when did the sun and the other TRILLIONS come into existence? Take some of the other post's advice and GET EDUCATED.

Take the advice of the following above post:

"What you will find out is that there is copicous amount of significant DNA evidence including morphological data and fossil evidence which proves organisms evolve through modification from a common ancestor. We know that for certain!!! Also, who "believes" that there are no transitional fossils... who started that ignorance... THERE ARE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN... MORE THAN YOU MAY KNOW... read a scientific journal for once or do some research yourself rather than generalize and accept myths and tribal knowledge...

There are empirical measures of evolution taking place all around you... even more so.. they are being tested.... read the "beak of the finch" that will open your eyes to the testable and observations that is going on.... THAT IS STICKING WITH WHAT WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN...

Evolution is "real" there is evidence supporting it all around us... Understand and learn about mutations...understand or research natual selection ... If you truely understand these two mechanisms.. you will realize that together they will produce an evolutionary response in a changing environment... "


but again someone like you that is narrowminded can't see beyond your own ignorance... Its ok for now, but when you get out of Highschool you will see what I"m talking about!

[Unregistered]

Ok mister "educated person" if evolution is true, how do you explain the woodpecker, bombeder beetle, and all other sorts of animals that are living today. If they evolved there is no way that these animals could have survived with a process that takes that long. They need every part of themselves to work properly or they will go extinct by predators or climate. And yes, I have already read about the finches and that is nothing more than adaptation. Animals adapt to fit better to their surroundings, but they do not create new animals. A bird will not and has not given birth to a lizard!

[Unregistered]

Ok mister "educated person" if evolution is true, how do you explain the woodpecker, bombeder beetle, and all other sorts of animals that are living today. If they evolved there is no way that these animals could have survived with a process that takes that long. They need every part of themselves to work properly or they will go extinct by predators or climate. And yes, I have already read about the finches and that is nothing more than adaptation. Animals adapt to fit better to their surroundings, but they do not create new animals. A bird will not and has not given birth to a lizard!

EVERYONE, PLEASE OPEN YOUR YOURSELF AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME EXPLAINING:

Create new animals? No...Its all about survival and having viable offspring that can pass down herditary material to further generations... You seem to be missing a lot here...The species that are living today represent the survivors.... when our environment changes...and it will...mutations that allow speices to survive the enviornmental change will survive and the others without those mutations will not....

You said that a bird will not give birth to a lizard... well you need to keep your vetebrates straight because there you go generalizing again... a bird is a bird and a lizard is a reptile... reptiles evolved into birds.... I know that sounds like a generalization but there is signficant fossil evidence available to represent this transition.

Anyway, I guess the big misconception that most people are unaware of is how "mutations" and "natural selection" play a role in the evolution of a species based on the changing environment. If the environment does not change then the mutations that are not favorable for the environment will die out.... Go to the North Pole to see how Polar Bears are going to "die out" because of the environmental changes... Gloabl Warming etc..

Creating new animals takes along time... longer than you can imagine but it happens... if it didn't we would not be here today... However evolution takes place as quick as the environment changes... Lets look at the HIV virus.... the virus that causes the disease...AIDS... It has evolved significantly in the past few hundred years... Ok I'm going to get all "bio" on you now so bare with me!!!

HIV is a retrovirus...that means it works in the oppostie way normal cells work... what I mean is it transforms RNA into DNA... that way it can copy its genome instructions into the cells' and cause the cell to manufacture and produce many more copies of the injected virus... This is possible because the HIV viron can easily attach itself to the cell membrane of specific immune cells... Due to mutations in plasma membrane of the DNA of these immune cells will prevent the HIV viron to attach... so that cell has evolved to prevent the attached of the viron... however that is more unlikely to happen as normal eukaryotic immune cells has DNA repair mechansims that prevent most mutations... (insertions/deletions in DNA) However, retroviruses lack this repair mechasim (which we call reverse transcriptase) and that cause many more mutations to proliferate...these mutations cause changes in many things including the protein stuctures that allow the virus to attach to the immune cell surface membrane.. eventually these mutations will cause those protein structures to fit and continue to spread.... the other virus will die out and only those with the mutant structures will survive... this is evolution... the new changes survived while the others died out... this happens the same way for every living thing that has evolved to this point...

Now whether or not there is a supreme being or beings or thing that controls all this will never be known... evolution doesn't disprove that there is such a being... it does show that living things evole through modification over time... the most fit will survive..until... once again, the enviroment changes... and here we go again...when are there no more large reptiles or large insects roaming arond anymore... why is it the age of mammals? Well for the many reasons explained above... the environment changed... the organisms that survived that change was able to reproduce and pass down their hertibility and genes to future generations...

As of one organism giving birth a "NEW" species (which nobody can define anyway), that will only happen if their is signficant DNA mutations can will be able to survive... but thats rare and it takes many generations of mutations to be able to survive any environmental changes... the animals we see today are the survivors... chimpanzees, dogs, arthropods, protista,etc...

Plants on the other hand can create a new species in one generation... I'm not going to scrutinize this... you will have to do the research on this one... but I will say when two dipliod organims mate you are able to get a triploid organism... hence a completely new species that can only mate with a triploid partner... Again.. if you don't understand I can understand.

All in all... its important to realize that this is the case... pick an organism... study it and you will find out how these events take place. If you read "The Beak of the Finch" then you did not understand what was going on because adapations is one mechanism of many that caused an evolutionary response...

Well hope this helps the concerned...

[Unregistered]

and, blah, blah, blah.............

[Unregistered]

and, blah, blah, blah.............

MY POINT EXACTLY...."AGAIN IGNORE THE IGNORANT"

[Unregistered]

and, blah, blah, blah.............


Who are you to disrespect what that person explained too you. It seemed like he or she spent a long time giving you an intelligent response to your like he said, ignorance! What that person explained helped me a lot and it makes a lot of sense. So if I were you, you should apologize and at least say thank you for a well designed and intelligent response which makes understand evolution easier for us all. For the unregistered scientist would wrote that long response we would all like to thank you because I kinda understand now how it works and I can see how people can easily make things up or go with the flow when they don't understand. Thanks you should teach my class.

[Unregistered]

Where is your proof that Darwin converted to Christianty?

Anyways,
Out of curiosity does anyone know that Charles Darwin did indeed recant his theories on his death bed and converted to Christianity? *Now awaits the heat wave bashing by fellow "educators" and students alike*[/QUOTE]

[Unregistered]

Creationism does not belong in the science curriculum. Theories in science are based on evidence and inferences. Creationism is based on faith, so it should probably be taught only in a philosophy class.

You have to have a lot more faith to believe that we come from apes and that the world started from particles that evolved into a solar system which became more and more highly organized. Evolution is also based on faith, so to teach only evolution is only teaching half of the facts. A large number of things we teach today are based on faith--did Shakespeare write the plays attributed to him or was it Bacon, or Marlowe or a barage of other authors? Should we eliminate Shakespeare also? Take a look around you, if you just evolved and this is it, how sad.

[Unregistered]

What does evolution has to do with the sun...tell us genius...Please tell everyone how evolution is disproved because the sun is getting smaller? .Your a prime and typical example of not knowing anything prior to posting your thoughts.

Also, if you "believe" this nonsense when did the sun and the other TRILLIONS come into existence? Take some of the other post's advice and GET EDUCATED.

Take the advice of the following above post:

"What you will find out is that there is copicous amount of significant DNA evidence including morphological data and fossil evidence which proves organisms evolve through modification from a common ancestor. We know that for certain!!! Also, who "believes" that there are no transitional fossils... who started that ignorance... THERE ARE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN... MORE THAN YOU MAY KNOW... read a scientific journal for once or do some research yourself rather than generalize and accept myths and tribal knowledge...

There are empirical measures of evolution taking place all around you... even more so.. they are being tested.... read the "beak of the finch" that will open your eyes to the testable and observations that is going on.... THAT IS STICKING WITH WHAT WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN...

Evolution is "real" there is evidence supporting it all around us... Understand and learn about mutations...understand or research natual selection ... If you truely understand these two mechanisms.. you will realize that together they will produce an evolutionary response in a changing environment... "


but again someone like you that is narrowminded can't see beyond your own ignorance... Its ok for now, but when you get out of Highschool you will see what I"m talking about!

Wow! Are we not all educated people? Can we not give our ideas and be respectful of them? I think you may need to take a breath. Incidentally I think your response is not any less narrow minded than the original one, but it was definitely much less professional.

[Unregistered]

EVERYONE, PLEASE OPEN YOUR YOURSELF AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME EXPLAINING:

Create new animals? No...Its all about survival and having viable offspring that can pass down herditary material to further generations... You seem to be missing a lot here...The species that are living today represent the survivors.... when our environment changes...and it will...mutations that allow speices to survive the enviornmental change will survive and the others without those mutations will not....

You said that a bird will not give birth to a lizard... well you need to keep your vetebrates straight because there you go generalizing again... a bird is a bird and a lizard is a reptile... reptiles evolved into birds.... I know that sounds like a generalization but there is signficant fossil evidence available to represent this transition.

Anyway, I guess the big misconception that most people are unaware of is how "mutations" and "natural selection" play a role in the evolution of a species based on the changing environment. If the environment does not change then the mutations that are not favorable for the environment will die out.... Go to the North Pole to see how Polar Bears are going to "die out" because of the environmental changes... Gloabl Warming etc..

Creating new animals takes along time... longer than you can imagine but it happens... if it didn't we would not be here today... However evolution takes place as quick as the environment changes... Lets look at the HIV virus.... the virus that causes the disease...AIDS... It has evolved significantly in the past few hundred years... Ok I'm going to get all "bio" on you now so bare with me!!!

HIV is a retrovirus...that means it works in the oppostie way normal cells work... what I mean is it transforms RNA into DNA... that way it can copy its genome instructions into the cells' and cause the cell to manufacture and produce many more copies of the injected virus... This is possible because the HIV viron can easily attach itself to the cell membrane of specific immune cells... Due to mutations in plasma membrane of the DNA of these immune cells will prevent the HIV viron to attach... so that cell has evolved to prevent the attached of the viron... however that is more unlikely to happen as normal eukaryotic immune cells has DNA repair mechansims that prevent most mutations... (insertions/deletions in DNA) However, retroviruses lack this repair mechasim (which we call reverse transcriptase) and that cause many more mutations to proliferate...these mutations cause changes in many things including the protein stuctures that allow the virus to attach to the immune cell surface membrane.. eventually these mutations will cause those protein structures to fit and continue to spread.... the other virus will die out and only those with the mutant structures will survive... this is evolution... the new changes survived while the others died out... this happens the same way for every living thing that has evolved to this point...

Now whether or not there is a supreme being or beings or thing that controls all this will never be known... evolution doesn't disprove that there is such a being... it does show that living things evole through modification over time... the most fit will survive..until... once again, the enviroment changes... and here we go again...when are there no more large reptiles or large insects roaming arond anymore... why is it the age of mammals? Well for the many reasons explained above... the environment changed... the organisms that survived that change was able to reproduce and pass down their hertibility and genes to future generations...

As of one organism giving birth a "NEW" species (which nobody can define anyway), that will only happen if their is signficant DNA mutations can will be able to survive... but thats rare and it takes many generations of mutations to be able to survive any environmental changes... the animals we see today are the survivors... chimpanzees, dogs, arthropods, protista,etc...

Plants on the other hand can create a new species in one generation... I'm not going to scrutinize this... you will have to do the research on this one... but I will say when two dipliod organims mate you are able to get a triploid organism... hence a completely new species that can only mate with a triploid partner... Again.. if you don't understand I can understand.

All in all... its important to realize that this is the case... pick an organism... study it and you will find out how these events take place. If you read "The Beak of the Finch" then you did not understand what was going on because adapations is one mechanism of many that caused an evolutionary response...

Well hope this helps the concerned...


Thanks for your eloquent, rational response to the topic. Afraid I don't agree, but I appreciate that you were very open and accepting of others' views.
If you could answer this, where did all those particles come from that started the big bang? One of the theories of science is that matter has to be created from matter. How can that have started with nothing except by someone who was much more powerful than us, who we can't even comprehend how He works?

[Unregistered]

To the "narrow minded, uneducated, Billy Graham disciple" that dropped the old God must look like a monkey line.....Read these posts and educate yourself, there are some smart people writing some insightful things. Quit knee jerk reacting to someone threating the teaching/brainwashing of your Sunday School teacher with an educated viewpoint!

Its like dealing with students, gee whiz.


Interesting. You call the write narrow minded and uneducated. How would you describe your response. I am afraid you suffer from the same maladies of which you criticize the writer.

[Unregistered]

Thanks for your eloquent, rational response to the topic. Afraid I don't agree, but I appreciate that you were very open and accepting of others' views.
If you could answer this, where did all those particles come from that started the big bang? One of the theories of science is that matter has to be created from matter. How can that have started with nothing except by someone who was much more powerful than us, who we can't even comprehend how He works?

Thank you for your kind response... Not sure why you don't agree though... Its hard not to look at the evidence when its "right there"... Either way... Not sure where those particles came from... don't know if anyone will truely ever know... and yes matter can neither be created nor destroyed...

However, what does this have to do with evolution? Seriously.. ok you belive in God thats wonderful... but what does that have to do with evolution... Evolution doesn't disprove God or Gods or something... be careful not everyone believes in the same thing... Tell me why you don't agree and tell me the relationship between God and Evolution? Also if there is something that you didn't understand in my last post ask... Iwill be happy to clearly explain it... when I have the time of course...

[Unregistered]

Science is the system of approaching an understanding of nature in an objective manner. If one is truly objective then their observations should be free of bias. When science is approached in a biased manner, not willing to look at other's scientific findings, but bent on proving oneself correct no matter what the results, systematic error occurs. Both evolution and creation science are based on theory. Life originating from non-living matter or originating from an all powerful God are both untestable. Both theories have real scientific findings to back up their inferences. True science (and scientists that actually care about studying the natural world) should not be intimidated by studying, or teaching, either subject. Fear of one's premise being prooved false is what usually leads people, and scientists and teachers, into attacking other's theories. They know theirs doesn't fill in all the holes. Those that attack other's viewpoints, unwilling to listen and learn, end up being the fool.

[Unregistered]

Science is the system of approaching an understanding of nature in an objective manner. If one is truly objective then their observations should be free of bias. When science is approached in a biased manner, not willing to look at other's scientific findings, but bent on proving oneself correct no matter what the results, systematic error occurs. Both evolution and creation science are based on theory. Life originating from non-living matter or originating from an all powerful God are both untestable. Both theories have real scientific findings to back up their inferences. True science (and scientists that actually care about studying the natural world) should not be intimidated by studying, or teaching, either subject. Fear of one's premise being prooved false is what usually leads people, and scientists and teachers, into attacking other's theories. They know theirs doesn't fill in all the holes. Those that attack other's viewpoints, unwilling to listen and learn, end up being the fool.

CREATIONISM IS NOT A THEORY .... THATS ALL..

[Unregistered]

I really dont think we evolved or anything if you ask me we dont even come from monkeys i am not saying i know what is going on or ware we came from but hey eveloution = dont think it happened and i dont think we are from god either but hey i just dont beleve either theory!

[Unregistered]

Just so you know, for those of you who are saying that Evolution is JUST a theory. You are correct, it isn't fact, it is a theory. But if you think that it being a theory is reason enough not to teach in a science classroom then you need to go back to school. Theories are basically everything that is taught in a science classroom. There is no such thing as a scientific "fact". Before you start quoting Newton's Laws at me or anything else that you may attest to being a fact, there is an important difference between a law and a theory. A law states what happens, for example: things fall at 9.8 m/s on earth, you can't know the exact speed and position of an electron, matter cannot be created or destroyed, while theories attempt to explain WHY. This is why evolution is JUST a theory, this is why it will NEVER be a scientific law. The fact that evolution is a theory doesn't make it any more or less true, it just means that it is scientific and because of that follows a certain set of rules. The reason it is taught in a science classroom is because a majority of the scientific community has accepted it (which by the way takes a REALLY long time, not an act of congress). I'm not saying that creationism is wrong (I happen to believe in a nice little combination of the two) or that it shouldn't be taught in schools, I am simply saying that it should go through the same rigorous review that every other scientific thoery has to go through before being taught in a school, not skip to the head of the line because the legislature of that particular state passed a law.

Thats all I really have to say, thanks for reading.

Oh, and just so you know, ignorance is inexcusable, if you are going to argue this do yourself, your religion, and your maker credit and get informed so you don't sound like an idiot.

That is all.

[Unregistered]

What are ya'll talking about. The only reason the forefathers had seperation of church and state was to keep political figures and debates out of our chruches. I will say this again, evolution has been disproven. The sun gets smaller each year, if the universe was billions of years old as evolution says, the sun would have been so close to the the earth that it would have burned the whole earth up.
I think creationism should be taught because it is the right way and the way that everything came to be.

Do you really belive that the only reason there was a seperation of church and state is to avoid debates in church? I really hope not.

You do know that the people who first came to "settle" this country (I mean the first Europeans not the first people) came here to escape political persecution over their RELIGION. So when the founding fathers wrote the constitution the seperation of church and state was included to prevent any such persecution from happening in this country.

Just thought I would point that out.

Don't do ignorance kids, its just not cool.

[Unregistered]

I really dont think we evolved or anything if you ask me we dont even come from monkeys i am not saying i know what is going on or ware we came from but hey eveloution = dont think it happened and i dont think we are from god either but hey i just dont beleve either theory!

Its people like yourself who provide society with misconceptions... please stop posting what you "think".... you obviously know nothing about evolution... and again I remind you that creationism is NOT A THEORY.... so stop saying that....thank you

[Unregistered]

Just so you know, for those of you who are saying that Evolution is JUST a theory. You are correct, it isn't fact, it is a theory. But if you think that it being a theory is reason enough not to teach in a science classroom then you need to go back to school. Theories are basically everything that is taught in a science classroom. There is no such thing as a scientific "fact". Before you start quoting Newton's Laws at me or anything else that you may attest to being a fact, there is an important difference between a law and a theory. A law states what happens, for example: things fall at 9.8 m/s on earth, you can't know the exact speed and position of an electron, matter cannot be created or destroyed, while theories attempt to explain WHY. This is why evolution is JUST a theory, this is why it will NEVER be a scientific law. The fact that evolution is a theory doesn't make it any more or less true, it just means that it is scientific and because of that follows a certain set of rules. The reason it is taught in a science classroom is because a majority of the scientific community has accepted it (which by the way takes a REALLY long time, not an act of congress). I'm not saying that creationism is wrong (I happen to believe in a nice little combination of the two) or that it shouldn't be taught in schools, I am simply saying that it should go through the same rigorous review that every other scientific thoery has to go through before being taught in a school, not skip to the head of the line because the legislature of that particular state passed a law.

Thats all I really have to say, thanks for reading.

Oh, and just so you know, ignorance is inexcusable, if you are going to argue this do yourself, your religion, and your maker credit and get informed so you don't sound like an idiot.

That is all.

Just want to throw out a big thanks for your explanation of a theory... people need to be informed before they generalize.... good job... and g= 9.8 m/s/s... easy typo I understand.... Oh and the accleration of gravity changes as you move closer or further away from the center of the earth.... slightly, but it does.....on this planet...like you said...

[Unregistered]

Hello, I was doing a essay on the Evolution vs Creationism argument and just wanted to ask what you people think of it

If you're going to create a "balanced" argument, then I, as a student, would not appreciate that.

You ought to present both sides and emphasise why evolution works better. Evolution simply IS a better theory. Do not hold anything back- show how evolutionary biology kicks the **************** out of creationism.

[Unregistered]

evolution has evidence creationism is just relighion wich is based on faith and religion is a beleive so think logic things cant just appear out of no where god wasnt like pof people are here

[Unregistered]

evolution has evidence creationism is just relighion wich is based on faith and religion is a beleive so think logic things cant just appear out of no where god wasnt like pof people are here

You must not be very informed. If you read the Bible, God wasn't like "pof" people are here. It says that it took God seven days to make the universe but back then time wasn't the same as it is now. We don't know whether God's day was a day or one million years. faith and religion are based on truth it's just told in metaphors. Don't take what religion says literally. When the Bible says that God took a rib from Adam to create Eve, that could have been a metaphor to evolution so it's possible that evolution and creationism are related. You must read between the lines in order to understand.

[Unregistered]

You must not be very informed. If you read the Bible, God wasn't like "pof" people are here. It says that it took God seven days to make the universe but back then time wasn't the same as it is now. We don't know whether God's day was a day or one million years. faith and religion are based on truth it's just told in metaphors. Don't take what religion says literally. When the Bible says that God took a rib from Adam to create Eve, that could have been a metaphor to evolution so it's possible that evolution and creationism are related. You must read between the lines in order to understand.

Its always the same thing with you type... religion always involves reading inbetween the lines... lets just make up anything we want and belive it... sounds pretty easy...well we have been doing that since people question are prehistoric events... hate to ruin your long life belief... but the bible was written by phiolosphers at the time based on no facts... just stories... thats it... read in between the lines... keep doing it and you can make up anything... its not based on truth... stories.. myths.. thats it... why are there so many different religions and beliefs... why because their based on myths... stop being nieve and just accept the person for who you are and not rely on a God or Gods or things that are just simple not real...

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;18885]Will someone please tell me where exactly it says in the constitution that there is to be separation of church and state? [quote]

I don't know what you mean by the phrase "separation of church and state", but I use the term to signify the political principle of no human authority over religion. The American people put separation of religion and government in the U. S. Constitution by granting the national government no power except those expressly enumerated and withholding from the government all power over religion. James Madison explained it by saying that, "there is not a shadow of a right in the national government to inter-meddle in religion."

[Unregistered]

"Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. The only mention of religion or church is in the first amendment which says (I paraphrase but I think I am pretty close): Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or preventing free worship. There are 2 clauses here, the establishment clause is the one which prevents congress from establishing a state religion. The free excercise clause protects the right the individual to worship as he/she chooses. That's it. That all it is.

[Robert W]

The only reason the forefathers had seperation of church and state was to keep political figures and debates out of our chruches

No, they saw that in Europe religious persecution was a bad thing.

None of America's forefathers were notably religious. Some were notably against Christianity, especially Thomas Jefferson, who said:

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.

and...

Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.

or Abraham Lincoln...

The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.

Benjamin Franklin...

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.

John Adams...

The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.

And while I'm quoting, since theists often try to claim Einstein as one of their own, Einstein said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly

It's often said that America could never have an atheist president, and yet they already have had. I must say they did a better job than the theocracy we see today.

Secularism is important for the government of any country, regardless of its citizens' religions.

Creationism is religious doctrine. The supposed "evidence" creationists constantly bring up has been refuted time and time again for decades. Much of it is transparently silly, some is harder to instantly dismiss without a deeper understanding of the subject, but none of it has had the slightest impact on the general scientific community.

Evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. The theory explains the existence and complexity of life we see today without any need to invoke a deity. It is really clutching at straws to say "OK, the evidence points to evolution, but maybe God guided it along its way". Natural selection works and does not require a guiding hand.

The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution. They see no "crisis" as the Creationists often claim. In fact, after the Discovery Institute started a list of all scientists who "doubt" evolution, apparently to show what momentum their movement had, the National Center for Science Education started theie own list called Project Steve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve). It listed only scientists named Steve who support evolution. Despite this limiting the potential of the list to only 1% of the population, the list overtook the Creationist list, and contained many more eminent scientists (Stephen Hawking and both of the Nobel prize winning Steves).

This debate about Creationism vs Evolution is only taking place in the popular press, not among the scientific community. Surely at a high school level we should teach the cornerstones of modern science. Those theories which are accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, something which can only happen via overwhelming evidence. This includes evolution. It certainly does not, and never will, include Creationism.

Why don't we let scientists decide what is and what isn't good science, and not resort to our own gut-instinct based on whatever faith we happen to have been raised in?

Rob.

[Saint George Tucker]

"Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution.

Separation of church and state means no human authority over religion, dude. The Constitution grants the government no power over religion. Therefore, it is a lie, or at least highly misleading, to say that the Constitution did not separate religion from the authority of the U. S. Government.

PS: That insipid argument may work on the weak minded, but it don't fly with me, buckaroo.

The only mention of religion or church is in the first amendment...

The word "church" doesn't even appear in the First Amendment, dude.

...which says (I paraphrase but I think I am pretty close): Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or preventing free worship. There are 2 clauses here, the establishment clause is the one which prevents congress from establishing a state religion.

Why do you say the word "religion" means "state religion?" Why doesn't it mean "the duty we owe to our Creator?"

The free excercise clause protects the right the individual to worship as he/she chooses.

Not if, as you maintain, "religion" means "state religion." If we accept your definition of "religion", the only thing protected from Congress is "state [established] religion."


That's it. That all it is.

Where did you flunk U. S. Constitution 101?

[Saint George Tucker]

No, they saw that in Europe religious persecution was a bad thing.

They saw that in the colonies, dude.

None of America's forefathers were notably religious. Some were notably against Christianity, especially Thomas Jefferson...

The Constitution wasn't written to be construed according to whether or not our forefathers were religious.

[Robert W]

The Constitution wasn't written to be construed according to whether or not our forefathers were religious.

Agreed. I often see people trying to introduce religious concepts into government though, arguing that these were the values the forefathers held, and that this is apparently what they wanted all along and the constitution is somehow being misinterpreted and not what was originally intended. I just wanted to make it clear that separation of church and state is exactly what they intended, even though those exact words don't appear.

Rob.

[Saint George Tucker]

Agreed. I often see people trying to introduce religious concepts into government though, arguing that these were the values the forefathers held, and that this is apparently what they wanted all along and the constitution is somehow being misinterpreted and not what was originally intended.

The Constitution wasn't written to be interpreted according the values the forefathers held, other than those they expressed with the words they put into the Constitution.

I just wanted to make it clear that separation of church and state is exactly what they intended, even though those exact words don't appear.

You're making the same mistake made by those you criticize. You're not construing the Constitution objectively according to the common law rules of construction.

[Unregistered]

How about a new slant to the creationism vs evolution argument? Present both sides and let our intelligent children make their own decisions about what they believe.

[Robert W]

The Constitution wasn't written to be interpreted according the values the forefathers held, other than those they expressed with the words they put into the Constitution.

OK, I agree. That was kind of my point, that I often see Christians stating that the forefathers were Christian (false) and that the constitution should be interpreted in a favourably Christian light.

You're making the same mistake made by those you criticize. You're not construing the Constitution objectively according to the common law rules of construction.

I didn't mean to argue that the constitution should be taken in a non-Christian light. The point surely was to be secular, ie independent of any one person's personal beliefs. But yes, although it may be interesting to discuss the intent, what's written should stand on its own and not be interpreted with any particular bias.

I don't think it's necessary to call on the constitution though to discuss whether or not Creationism should be taught under the banner of science. Surely what is and what is not science should be left up to the experts, ie the scientists, and they are overwhelmingly on the side of evolution. At a high school level, we should teach the widely accepted theories.

Rob.

[Unregistered]

The bottom line is this folks. This is not an argument over what is right and what is not. Science classrooms do not teach truth, they teach science. If you don't want your children to learn science than send them to a Christian or or some other Non-secular high school.

If we look further at the issue, the fact that Creationsim is inherantly religious is not even a problem (as to whether or not it is science). The faith that generates the hypothesis (the faith that all creatures on earth were created by a divine entity "god") is not a problem, hypotheses do not have to be generated from reason, they can be generalizations or simply a guess, this can include a hypothesis formed on the basis of faith. So in this way, Intelligent Design has the ability to be just as scientfic as any other theory.

The problem arises in the fact that due to ones faith in the hypothesis, the objectivity and questioning mind so crucial to science are removed. The theory of evolution has changed hundreds of times since it was originally proposed, and most scientists that work on it hope that it will continue to be changed and molded to be more correct, and, hopefully, closer to the truth. Creationism lacks that flexibility due to the fact that it has to be absolute in its nature. Science does not deal in absolutes. So, even if Intelligent Design had the ability to be Scientific in its conception, it has not remained so in its implementation.

The bottom line is that the amount of faith involved or whether or not something is correct is not the question. The question about what is science and what is not science is. Evolution is science, Creationism is not.

[Unregistered]

Hi I'm a HSHS student (Home School High School) and a regular debater on the CARM.org creo vs evo debate. I manage several websites on this subject one is a regestered domain name. I just wanted to ask someone to please state some, "Proof" for your religion (evo is after all is a faith). I've heard pathetic teacher after teacher say, "evo is a scientific fact all hail darwin." I'm sick of it! Evo is at best an unconfirmed hypothesis!

Oh, and what was that animal you called, "Seperation of church from state?" I went and looked it up, you people are crazy! Here's what wikipedia says on the subject:

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. <<<<The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution,>>>>> but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

Creation has just as much right to be taught in public schools as evolution. I believe that a great powerful God created the unverse, you believe that the universe created itself! Truly you have great faith to put you life in the hands of chance. What if I'm wrong? You and me will die someday and nothing happens, we just sort of fall into an eternal sleep. But what if I'm right? And there is a heaven and hell? You will be dead alot longer than you will be alive. If I were you I'd re-think this very seriously, cause it is the most important decision you will ever make. It has eternal consequenses.
Peace and wisdom be with you, I will pray for this countries teachers, they are very important to our society.

[Robert W]

I just wanted to ask someone to please state some, "Proof" for your religion (evo is after all is a faith).

The word "proof" is for maths, not science. Science has theories which, to gain any standing in the scientific community, are supported by observational evidence from the world around us. No one can "prove" gravity, only show that it continues to be observed, so is highly likely to continue tomorrow. The evidence for evolution comes from many scientific disciplines which all corroborate together, so it's not straight forward to pin-point a single piece of evidence which represents a "proof" as Creationists demand, even though they have no evidence of their own.

Scientists believe in the observations they make and what they say about our world. They believe that which is tangible. They will change their minds in the light of new evidence, but will not believe anything without strong evidence. I'd hardly call that faith. Faith is believing in something despite the lack of evidence for it. Faith is what you have.

If you really want to investigate it for yourself, here are some links:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

I've heard pathetic teacher after teacher say, "evo is a scientific fact all hail darwin." I'm sick of it! Evo is at best an unconfirmed hypothesis!

The evidence for evolution has only ever grown since Darwin came up with his Natural Selection hypothesis. In fact there were some things he couldn't explain which have now been answered thanks to the discovery of DNA. The evidence has only ever grown.

I know it's a grand thing to comprehend, especially for someone indoctrinated into a faith whose beliefs contradict those of established science, as there is a lot invested in those beliefs.

Oh, and what was that animal you called, "Seperation of church from state?" I went and looked it up, you people are crazy!

So what if that exact phrase doesn't appear in the constitution? It's a short description for what does appear, which is that government should not force any religion upon its people, nor descriminate against those of any belief system.

Anyway, the debate about teaching one particular religion's historic belief about creation in science class hardly needs us to call on the constitution.

Creation has just as much right to be taught in public schools as evolution.

As something of historic and cultural interest, under the heading Myths & Legends maybe. Shall we also teach them about the rainbow serpent and other dreamtime legends? It's not science. It doesn't belong in the science room. What a pathetic state we're in when this is even an issue.

I believe that a great powerful God created the unverse, you believe that the universe created itself! Truly you have great faith to put you life in the hands of chance.

So you believe that God created himself? How's that work? Or if God has always been there, how come? Do you think that by saying he's always been there you can avoid the huge improbability of his being there?

Your belief is in one huge improbability, the lucky happenstance that God happens to exist. My belief is just that small changes can occur. That's it. Lots of small changes lead to big changes. The process of natural selection gives us a purely naturalistic explanation for a driving force from the simple through to the incredibly complex. I believe in small managable steps.

What if I'm wrong? You and me will die someday and nothing happens, we just sort of fall into an eternal sleep. But what if I'm right? And there is a heaven and hell? You will be dead alot longer than you will be alive. If I were you I'd re-think this very seriously, cause it is the most important decision you will ever make. It has eternal consequenses.

Ah, Pascal's Wager returns again. What if you're wrong and the Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims are right? What if your particular branch of Christianity is wrong? What if the ancient Greeks were right about Thor and Zeus? I believe you should hit your head hard against a wall three times every day or you'll burn in hell forever. You don't, but what if you're wrong?

OK, if you're wrong, then you'll have wasted your one and only life praying to someone who was never there. If I'm wrong, I give God more credit that most Christians. I presume he's an intelligent and reasonable fellow. If I'm wrong I will say that I studied all the evidence available and tried really hard to figure out the truth, and it all led me to be convinced that there was no God. I'll commend him on an excellent job in covering his tracks regarding creation, being careful not to leave any evidence behind, and trying to deliberately misguide us with a wealth of evidence for an apparently wrong explanation. He'll see that I've been a good person and done my best, and if that's not enough for him then frankly I want nothing to do with him. I imagine he will be much harsher on Christians who've never even questioned the world, but just blindly followed their faith. I'd be mad if I created an intricate universe and the life I filled it with completely ignored it.

Finally, this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather appeals to fear regardless of his actual existence. If anything it just explains your motivation for belief in something that isn't there.

If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth, which is pretty much the only way to Creationism, then you also have to believe things like this:

"If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death."
- God (Leviticus 20:9)

I take it you follow this law?

Rob.

[mihistorian@hotmail.com]

As individuals, we each have the opportunity to study all sides of an issue and develop our own conclusions. We may from time to time alter those conclusions with new information, experiences, or belief systems based on our inner "freewill". If we determine our decisions without reviewing all components surrounding an issue or refuse to "re-think" an issue when offered new information then we are not determining our own individual thoughts. Lacking the ability to think, analyze, and draw our own conclusions hinders the advancement and use of an individuals mind. As instructors we should help students develop their minds to examine issues and develop their own conclusions even if they are different from our own. Our jobs are not to program individuals with information but to open doors that will develop the desire and the types of pathways that will extend the learning process for all individuals for the remainder of their lives. Hence offering an essay on Evolution vs. Creation is applicable in any course that will grade the individual on presentation, extent of research, and evidence that the individual used to determined their conclusion based on a well-rounded review of information. Of course, the essay and conclusions will vary with age levels. This includes the ability to re-evaluate thoughts and a belief over time when new information may alter an individual’s viewpoint the continuation of this process teaches growth. . Teaching how to think, research, and understand why one believes as they do (their chosen platform) now or for a lifetime is a valuable of lesson we teachers provide our students.

[Robert W]

Sure, encouraging critical thinking is a good thing. Anyone who's studied science knows it wasn't just about learning a bunch of facts though, as many concepts are established from first principles.

If Creationism or any form of intelligent design was introduced into the science curriculum, it would be the only hypothesis to be taught at the high school level not to be generally accepted by the scientific community. We don't get them to write essays about flat earth vs round, or whether the moon landing really occurred. There's no more reason to make them write essays about evolution vs creationism. It would just be an excuse to get a non-scientific hypothesis into schools.

Rob.

[Saint George Tucker]

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

I use the phrase "separation of church and state' to signify the concept of no human authority over religion.

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. <<<<The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution,>>>>> but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

The meaning of the words of the Constitution is not affected by what occurred after the instrument was given legal effect. The founders intended for the well established common law rules of construction to be used to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution.



Creation has just as much right to be taught in public schools as evolution. I believe that a great powerful God created the unverse, you believe that the universe created itself! Truly you have great faith to put you life in the hands of chance. What if I'm wrong? You and me will die someday and nothing happens, we just sort of fall into an eternal sleep. But what if I'm right? And there is a heaven and hell? You will be dead alot longer than you will be alive. If I were you I'd re-think this very seriously, cause it is the most important decision you will ever make. It has eternal consequenses.
Peace and wisdom be with you, I will pray for this countries teachers, they are very important to our society.[/QUOTE]

[Unregistered]

There is a reason that faith requires belief in something that you cannot actually see, feel, or touch. You ask how is it possible for Noah to carry carbivores and herbivores sided by side. The answer to that is faith. In faith comes miracles. I say BELIEVE!

[Unregistered]

Creationism and id dont belong in the SCIENCE classroom because there is not a body of evidence to support them. You cannot make testable hypothesis to study them. The basic principles of science go out the window when you bring ideas like this in. You should be more than welcome to discuss them in a philosophy class, assuming you are prepared to give equal coverage to any other religiously derived theory. IMO religion is taught in church and that is where it should stay.

[Unregistered]

Separation of church and state is NOT in our constitution. Take some time to read it before using it as a ridiculously unsound argument.

[Robert W]

This whole debate has nothing to do with the constitution. I live in Australia. We don't have a constitution. But we still recognise that ID is religion-based with no scientific backing.

Give me one example of something taught in science class at high school level that is not accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

Most Christians world-wide accept evolution. Let's stop dumbing down our education system to pander to America's fundamentalist extremists.

Rob.

[Saint George Tucker]

Separation of church and state is NOT in our constitution.

Where did you flunk out of law school?

[Unregistered]

I am an openly athiest Biology teacher and allow discussion about creationism in my class. Apparently their are no new arguments supporting creation. "The bible says..." So I write on a piece of paper "GOD DOES NOT EXIST", "now that it's is writing do you believe me?" No matter how silly I find the argument to be, It is important to allow any debate that drives conversation and interest in the subject. If they are looking for holes is the Theory of Evolution, well at least they're paying attention.

[musicllover]

What do the evolutionist on this site thing about DNA findings, even though it is "young" evidence compared to Darwinism it literally blows evolution out of the water. I didn't read the whole thread so many be this has been suggested before. But Darwin's theory is just another theory, why is it still taught as fact in all the kids books?

The DNA/RNA facts prove there is no scientific way that we evolved from one cell. Even science itself (laws of thermodynamics) says evolution can't be true...and these are LAWS of science that have been proven time and time again. Where evolution is still considered theory. There is so much out there to suggest that evolution is wrong, its an outdated theory, its time it becomes one of those funny little beliefs we laugh at it like we do when we tell our students that some believed the world was flat. We don't have to teacher evolution, there is so much more about science than that one erroneous chapter. What we teach our students is the facts as we know them, many years ago, evolution was believed to be how we came to be, what we know today is completely different. We as teacher are responsible to teacher our child the facts, FACT evolution is wrong, but we now have evidence and teach them about DNA and how it works. Scratch Darwinism, evolving from ape...they have nothing to do with reality. It doesn't have to be about religion, its about teaching the truth.

musicllover

[Robert W]

What do the evolutionist on this site thing about DNA findings, even though it is "young" evidence compared to Darwinism it literally blows evolution out of the water.

What DNA findings? Please give references. I've seen plenty of "evidence" that supposedly "blows evolution out of the water" presented by creationists and most of it has been pretty transparently weak.

I didn't read the whole thread so many be this has been suggested before. But Darwin's theory is just another theory, why is it still taught as fact in all the kids books?

The "just a theory" argument has been churned out thousands of times on pretty much every creation vs evolution discussion I've seen. I won't churn out the answer yet again, but refer you to this page:

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/7-11.html

By the way, even the most fundamentalist creationists advise against the argument you make:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#just_theory

The DNA/RNA facts prove there is no scientific way that we evolved from one cell.

What DNA/RNA "facts"?

Even science itself (laws of thermodynamics) says evolution can't be true

Another old argument that's just plain false. Actually the laws of thermodynamics are called on in a few ways. Which are you refering to? Probably the second which claims increasing entropy in a closed system. Firstly it is a statistical law and absolutely DOES NOT rule out increasing entropy over any given finite time nor in an open system. Secondly entropy has a scientific measure rather than the emotive one creationists call on. By the scientific measure the Sun has very low entropy (high order). Life on Earth gets its energy and low entropy from the sun.

There is so much out there to suggest that evolution is wrong

No, there's not a single piece of evidence yet found that the scientific community recognises as suggesting evolution is wrong. You just want it to be so. Otherwise, show us the evidence (with references).

its time it becomes one of those funny little beliefs we laugh at it like we do when we tell our students that some believed the world was flat.

You mean like Christianity? There's certainly plenty of evidence that the Bible is erroneous.

FACT evolution is wrong, but we now have evidence and teach them about DNA and how it works.

The discovery of DNA was actually huge supporting evidence for evolution. IT explained certain things that were not understood before, like why a new trait did not merely dilute out again over generations. Now they can use DNA to help establish the evolutionary tree.

If evolution did not occur, then God went to a lot of trouble planting evidence to make it seem like it did.

It doesn't have to be about religion, its about teaching the truth.

We're talking about science class, so it DOES have to be about science, and there's just no science behind creationism, except in the minds of the creationists.The scientific method, which has been used to shed light on all disciplines of science (including evolution), is the closest thing to objective truth we have. Science IS about the truth. Religion never starts from a position of truth.

Rob.

[musicllover]

What DNA findings? Please give references. I've seen plenty of "evidence" that supposedly "blows evolution out of the water" presented by creationists and most of it has been pretty transparently weak.



The "just a theory" argument has been churned out thousands of times on pretty much every creation vs evolution discussion I've seen. I won't churn out the answer yet again, but refer you to this page:

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/7-11.html

By the way, even the most fundamentalist creationists advise against the argument you make:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#just_theory



What DNA/RNA "facts"?



Another old argument that's just plain false. Actually the laws of thermodynamics are called on in a few ways. Which are you refering to? Probably the second which claims increasing entropy in a closed system. Firstly it is a statistical law and absolutely DOES NOT rule out increasing entropy over any given finite time nor in an open system. Secondly entropy has a scientific measure rather than the emotive one creationists call on. By the scientific measure the Sun has very low entropy (high order). Life on Earth gets its energy and low entropy from the sun.



No, there's not a single piece of evidence yet found that the scientific community recognises as suggesting evolution is wrong. You just want it to be so. Otherwise, show us the evidence (with references).



You mean like Christianity? There's certainly plenty of evidence that the Bible is erroneous.



The discovery of DNA was actually huge supporting evidence for evolution. IT explained certain things that were not understood before, like why a new trait did not merely dilute out again over generations. Now they can use DNA to help establish the evolutionary tree.

If evolution did not occur, then God went to a lot of trouble planting evidence to make it seem like it did.



We're talking about science class, so it DOES have to be about science, and there's just no science behind creationism, except in the minds of the creationists.The scientific method, which has been used to shed light on all disciplines of science (including evolution), is the closest thing to objective truth we have. Science IS about the truth. Religion never starts from a position of truth.

Rob.

I am far from an expert on the DNA evidence and was simply inquiring, most of what I understand comes from a personal conviction and what I've read in books and reading at place such as
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/short_history.html


Nor am I going to tell you how wrong you are to call the bible erroneous, which is a statement made on your opinion not fact, besides like a science book is going to be anymore truthful, they are both books if you want to look at it like that? ITs what we take from each that we base our own beliefs on, I happen to believe the bible over any science book. But then that again is a personal choice. I don't understand it completely either.

You keep speaking about facts, help me understand some of the "scientific evidence," answer three basic things..

1. If there is such a thing as life evolving out of one cell, how did that one cell sustain life and create more cells out of nothing?

2. With all of our scientific knowledge we supposable have, has man ever been able to scientifically create life or even a protein molecule? Because darwin would have use believe a protein molecule simply formed out of nothing?

3. Darwinism says we get better as the years progress, by his theory we shouldn't have any sicknesses, like cancer, aids..., we should live to be
100o's of years old by now...so give ONE beneficial example of a human mutation?

I do understand that to have DNA you have to have the other protein RNA, one doesn't exist with out the other. Its is unexplained how these two proteins came into existence but it is a proven fact that they do exist. Where Darwinism explains the beginning of life as one cell, which is impossible.

Do you believes we evolved from an ape? DNA finding of today strongly explain that each animal has its own DNA/RNA proteins, plants their own, canine their own, feline their own and so forth, every living thing living has its own distinct DNA. We share similarities, but they do not and never will be able to combined DAN from a dog and man and create life, because the DNA/RNA die. I am not identical to any apes that I've met lately:D. Although I have met some people who act like apes...

Oh by the way, life on earth gets it energy from the SON, so your telling some truth there. But you believe what you want on that one, I don't want to debate religion here.

Just for the record, I believe Darwinisms should be taught, science has some very strong facts surrounding many things so why shouldn't it also give more views on how the earth and man came to be? I simply believe evolution needs to be taught along side other theories, not as the only theory.

By the way Your link to www.answersingenesis.org/home...sp#just_theory

isn't working.

[Robert W]

...most of what I understand comes from a personal conviction and what I've read in books and reading at place such as
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/short_history.html

But where does your personal conviction come from? Gut-feeling should not be trusted as a source of information. It's a good starting point for a hypothesis maybe, but the scientific method should be applied to test such an idea. This is where evolution succeeds and creationism fails.

I'll have a look at your link.

Nor am I going to tell you how wrong you are to call the bible erroneous, which is a statement made on your opinion not fact

Hardly my "opinion". See here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html) for example. Take the first example: the gospels give two different genealogies for Joseph. They can't both be right. This example alone is enough to prove that the Bible is not the magical perfect word of God. It was just a book written by people, and contains errors.

besides like a science book is going to be anymore truthful, they are both books if you want to look at it like that? ITs what we take from each that we base our own beliefs on, I happen to believe the bible over any science book. But then that again is a personal choice. I don't understand it completely either.

If I write "1 + 1 = 2" on one piece of paper, and "1 + 1 = 3" on another, you can't say that they're both just pieces of paper and you can believe whichever one you want. How about looking a little deeper than that. Religious people often accuse atheists and scientists of also just "believing" what they want and having their own "faith". Firstly this is funny since they are admitting that they see a position of faith is unreliable, and are trying to insult us by saying that we are like them :-) Secondly it's totally untrue. Scientists are the most skeptical bunch you will find. It is the scientific method I have faith in, if you must, but who doesn't? It has given us computers, cures for diseases, and made pretty much everything I can see around me in my room possible. I can't see anything that was made possible via religion. Science works, we all know it, even you, so don't claim it is merely my faith. And the same scientific method, including falsifiability and peer review etc, has given us the theory of natural selection.

Compare this to the Bible, which basically you believe because you believe and have presumably been brought up to do so. It's baseless.

1. If there is such a thing as life evolving out of one cell, how did that one cell sustain life and create more cells out of nothing?

Not out of "nothing" of course, but out of simpler inanimate parts. What do you mean by asking how it sustained life? It would have been self-replicating (just as cells split during pregnancy). The primordial soup provided the elements required. Note: life is "created from nothing" every time someone gets pregnant.

2. With all of our scientific knowledge we supposable have, has man ever been able to scientifically create life or even a protein molecule? Because darwin would have use believe a protein molecule simply formed out of nothing?

Science knows full well it's limits, and never claims to know everything. We can't make black holes either, but that's no reason to presume they don't exist. We are limited by the very small, the very large, and the very complex. This is an example of the very small and very complex. However, as science progresses the limits are slowly pushed further back, and there are groups working on this very problem.

If we saw every unsolved scientific problem as a place to insert God (and plenty of people seem to), it would end research and we'd get nowhere.

3. Darwinism says we get better as the years progress, by his theory we shouldn't have any sicknesses, like cancer, aids..., we should live to be
100o's of years old by now...

Sorry, but this is totally untrue. A virus can evolve faster than we can (having quicker turn-around time between generations). The virus has indeed got "better" over the years.

AIDS hasn't been around very long. Certainly not long enough for us to evolve an immunity to it. But evolution does not create perfect beings anyway. Presumably God would or could, so I guess cancer was his little gift to us?

Living to 1000 would be counter-productive in evolutionary terms. Fast turn-around between generations is better because evolution can act faster. Don't confuse "better" in evolutionary terms. That's like suggesting that lions and deer should be friends, because that would be "better" than fighting, but that's just a human moral version of "better". There's also no evolutionary advantage in preventing sickness in older animals who have already reproduced.

so give ONE beneficial example of a human mutation?

Actually, here's one: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/4-10b.html. Scroll down to (ii).3.

Where Darwinism explains the beginning of life as one cell, which is impossible.

There's no reason to think evolution started with a complete cell.

Do you believes we evolved from an ape?

We each evolved from a common ancestor, but yes apes (chimps and bonobos in particular) are out closest cousins.

DNA finding of today strongly explain that each animal has its own DNA/RNA proteins, plants their own, canine their own, feline their own and so forth, every living thing living has its own distinct DNA.

Er, of course their DNA are different. The further apart on the evolutionary tree the greater the differences, and of course all creatures within a species have far fewer differences. Um, so?

We share similarities, but they do not and never will be able to combined DNA from a dog and man and create life, because the DNA/RNA die.

Again, so? Evolution doesn't say that man and dogs should be able to cross-breed. There's a really interesting example with bird species across the US. I forget which ones exactly, but there's a chain that changes gradually across the US, and the neighbouring species can cross-breed, but the ones at either end (far east and far west) can't.

I am not identical to any apes that I've met lately:D

Wouldn't be a very good example of evolution if you were would it?

Rob.

[Robert W]

...most of what I understand comes from a personal conviction and what I've read in books and reading at place such as
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/short_history.html

The first page of the short history you linked to contains nothing refuting Darwin, so let's look at the four claims made on the second page (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/short_history_01.html).


"It was true that some cows were bigger than others, while some had darker colors, yet how could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species?"

A lot of small changes make a big change. Take one step and you don't go far. Take a lot of small steps and you can travel many miles. Same thing. The fossil record (yes, there is a healthy fossil record despite creationist claims) goes to fill in many of these transitions.


"Darwin asserted that "Living beings evolved gradually." In this case, there should have lived millions of "transitional forms.""

Darwin wasn't able to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. We now know that evolution is punctuated. When changes in the environment occur, lifeforms which were well adapted (and thus not evolving much) would be forced to evolve in order to match their new environment. The rate of mutation remains the same throughout, but the target has moved, so natural selection will favour more rapid change.

Modern Darwinism expects to find few transitional fossils compared to stable species, which is what we find.


"How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes, ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing?"

The old irreducible complexity argument. Wikipedia has a great article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity[URL]. Scroll down and read about blood clotting and the eye.


"How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate?"

I would say yes to the second part, just as a computer can be built from parts that are not able to compute. There would have been a time when the question of whether something was alive was somewhat grey. Is a self-replicating RNA molecule alive? Probably not, but by that point you're already at a stage of self-replication. We don't have a fossil record for the evolutionary stages that early, but there are plenty of theories about how it may have happened. Even if you want to believe that God created the first living cell, it doesn't discount the evidence for evolution taking over from there, and God wouldn't have had much to do with our creation under that view.


I should point out those are all old arguments that have all been refuted many times.

Just for the record, I believe Darwinisms should be taught, science has some very strong facts surrounding many things so why shouldn't it also give more views on how the earth and man came to be? I simply believe evolution needs to be taught along side other theories, not as the only theory.

Evolution IS the only scientific theory we have to explain the complexity of life on Earth. High school students should be taught science that is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Creationism is not. Why should it receive special treatment? Might make a good case study for critical thinking however.

By the way Your link to [url]www.answersingenesis.org/home...sp#just_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) isn't working.

Did you copy and paste rather than clicking on it? This forum tends to shorten the displayed link sometimes although the link itself remains in full. Try again by clicking here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#just_theory).

Rob.

[annettemcd]

I am confused and disappointed that this discussion has been going on for so long on a site about education and teaching. Robert W makes some very good points.

I only want to add that I spent twelve years studying Biology at two different universities and not once in all of that time was Creationism or Intelligent Design even mentioned in a class, seminar, discussion group, or lecture. Evolution by a process of Natural Selection as presented by Darwin is the accepted, working theory in every class which I have taken and is the basis for much of the understanding of many aspects of Biology.

[musicllover]

The site I offered is huge, and very deep. It is also written by a non christian man. Maybe that will help you at least look at what he writes closer.

I read through a portion of your link on a "good" mutations, I fail to see how this proves a mutation causes an better effect, this piece is talking about Microorganisms not humans, and admits that this new enzyme is imperfect and occurs randomly. Have you got a mutation mixed up with a different bio type? Mutation in humans causes birth defects at its worse and at its least a crocked pinky.

Again your opinion of the bible being erroneous is only an opinion, the links you offer to say other wise is again one mans word against another. So honestly that isn't even a debatable point for here. I want to discuss the possiblity that there are other facts that need to be considered about life. In the end we will find out the truth, we will both rot in our graves and never know the difference, or if faith in Jesus is right then it is another scenario, I believe I have more to gain by what I believe.

I asked How the one celled sustains life....and then you said, life may not have started with a complete cell? that makes it even harder to believe. OK, how did this 1/2 cell reproduce and make more cells?

The facts are, To have life DNA/RNA is present first, it then reproduces itself, neither can exist with out the other. Life doesn't not create itself, it requires a man and women to create a child, two cells the sperm with its genetic markers and the egg with its genetic markers meet, and then the cells split each cell carries the RNA/DNA code to create eye hair color, heart, brain...... Women cannot get pregnant by themselves although some might try to suggest that. Amazing as it is, these codes reproduce themselves over and over again, some corrections are made, deletions, substitutions occur and still some mutation come through and you have issues such as Downs Syndrome, a crooked pinky, or attached or unattached earlobes. And as odd as it is, these mutations have been around since the beginning of man, so if we are evolving how come we are still dealing with the same mutations? You say living to be a 1000 wouldn't benefit evolution...really? Are you sure, if we had 800 or maybe a 300, or even a 150 year old person living wouldn't that PROVE evolution? Just think we could relatives who walked like an apes. A eye witness so to speak. Why is we don't have really old old people walking around today? Evolution suggesting an increase, we bet better and better, the weak die out, what will man be like in 200 years, 500 years will man live to be older and older? When does evolution stop?


You say that We are limited by the very small, the very large, and the very complex. So what do you call life, small, large or complex? LOL, or maybe we could say it was ALL three. The fact remains that darwin theory has never been totally proven, if it were then it would darwins law. Where is the scienctific method to prove evolution? Not even science can prove this theory because they can't. Why shouldn't we offer our students more than darwims theory, along side the DNA facts, (some do offer it, but just a page or two). Isn't education about teaching our children, letting them know the pro's and con's. What honestly would be wrong with offering facts concering the DNA findings at this point? I find it a very fasinating science.
musicllover

[bioteach200]

Why do some people assume that science teachers teach the theory of evolution as fact? Maybe its because some take that approach. In the state of MN it is part of the graduation standards that evolution is a part of thier science curriculum. I've never had a problem with students or parents in this area. I tell my students that I don't grade them based on thier beliefs (religious or otherwise) I grade them based on thier mastery of the content. I don't get into debates of ANY kind on either side of the fence with my students and I don't them them debate amongst themsevles about it either.

I tell my students that they are young adults, and if they don't start forming their own opinions/beliefs/ideas about things....other people will tell them what to believe or think- and THAT'S dangerous.

[musicllover]

I am confused and disappointed that this discussion has been going on for so long on a site about education and teaching. Robert W makes some very good points.

I only want to add that I spent twelve years studying Biology at two different universities and not once in all of that time was Creationism or Intelligent Design even mentioned in a class, seminar, discussion group, or lecture. Evolution by a process of Natural Selection as presented by Darwin is the accepted, working theory in every class which I have taken and is the basis for much of the understanding of many aspects of Biology.

I am not discussing creationism or Intelligent Design. I am a Christian, and was always confused by what I learned at school compared to what I learned at Sunday school. At school man coming from apes and the big bang theory. BUT I understand you concern about "relegion." That isn't where I wanted to go and have said that ithe right or wrong of the bible is not the point for debate. I am pointing out that there is now evidence to suggest that darwins thoery is old and out dated. Did you ever study the DNA facts in your 12 years. I just graduated last May, and we did study both the DNA facts and Darwins theory. I found both interesting, and continued on as a novice in DNA/RNA facts. I'll admit the DNA facts are basically a new idea compared to darwins theory. I hope you will give the DNA studies some room as a new sciencetific discovery, and be willing to offer it to your students as simply another idea, I am sure the facts will prove themselves soon enough, becasue we are teachers wanting to educate our students on the facts as we understand them.

[Unregistered]

I am not going to comment on whether I believe creationism or evolution should be taught in school. I only plan to state that when I was in school, it was never made clear to us that evolution was a theory. Perhaps when I was young no one clearly explained to me exactly what "theory" meant, but I grew up believing evolution was a fact. The only thing I would ask is that whatever is taught in school, it be made clear to the students that it is theory, and yes this could be said about creationism (remember, I'm not taking sides here).
Within our students, perhaps lies the greatness to discover the truth.

[Robert W]

The site I offered is huge, and very deep.

So? It's nothing compared to the bulk of proper science on the subject.

I refuted the first points I came to from the link you gave. If those are clearly wrong, why should I trust the rest? Rather than saying it's huge (to imply some of it must be right?) give us a link to one specific argument that you think is the strongest.

It is also written by a non christian man

Ha, it's written by a muslim, who would also include the Old Testemant as one of his holy books.

...your link on a "good" mutations...talking about Microorganisms not humans

Did you scroll down to (ii).3. as I suggested? There's a gene in humans that has a mutant form that has been show to slow the progress of AIDS.

Mutation in humans causes birth defects

It can do, but everyone has mutated genes. You do, I do, there's always error in the replication process. Mutations are mostly not useful, but the ones that are have a better chance of being passed on.

Again your opinion of the bible being erroneous is only an opinion

It's not my "opinion" that Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 give completely different genealogies for Joseph. Read them yourself. The two lists of his ancestors can't both be right. This is a simple fact and you can confirm it yourself by reading those passages in the Bible. You seem to think truth is just a matter of opinion.

we will both rot in our graves and never know the difference, or if faith in Jesus is right then it is another scenario, I believe I have more to gain by what I believe.

Ah, this argument always comes out before long :-) Pascal's wager, as it's known. I agree that you have more to gain, which is precisely why you can't see the issue objectively. Your argument says nothing about the truth of whether or not there might be a god, just that you should believe it regardless out of fear.

I asked How the one celled sustains life....and then you said, life may not have started with a complete cell? that makes it even harder to believe. OK, how did this 1/2 cell reproduce and make more cells?

If I'd said that eyes didn't start complete, would you have presumed that at some point animals must have had 1/2 an eye? No evolutionists are suggesting that single living cells appeared all at once, THAT would be hard to believe. The idea that it evolved makes more sense without requiring such a huge leap. How? We don't know, but science is working on it and has ideas.

The facts are, To have life DNA/RNA is present first, it then reproduces itself, neither can exist with out the other.

I guess this is kind of an irreducible complexity argument. We've seen plenty of those overthrown already. Parts that all depend on each other can still evolve by gradual steps (see the blood clotting example I referred you to earlier). There are hypotheses about how it happened, see here (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/3-3.html). And the fact that we don't know how it happened is not cause for presuming it didn't.

these mutations have been around since the beginning of man, so if we are evolving how come we are still dealing with the same mutations?

Evolution can't stop mutations from occuring (without mutations obviously evolution could not progress). A mutation is a changed gene. You're probably asking more about old negative mutations that remain in the gene pool. I'm not sure of the best answer to that, but I think things like Downs Syndrome can pop up as new mutations without hereditary. As for viral diseases, they themselves are also evolving.

As I said last time, evolution does not make perfect beings, but you would expect God to.

You say living to be a 1000 wouldn't benefit evolution...wouldn't that PROVE evolution?

I have no idea what you mean here. How would that prove evolution? Evolution can progress faster by favouring a faster turn-around between generations. It actually requires death to be effective. I said this already.

When does evolution stop?

Evolution doesn't really stop, but it can reach an equilibrium when a lifeform is very well adapted to an environment. The big changes happen when the environment changes. Suddenly features which were well-adapted are no longer of use, and new mutations are more likely to be suited. "Better" in one environment may be worse in another and vice versa. Eg there are flightless birds. The ability to fly has been selected out, as in certain environments resources are better used elsewhere.

You say that We are limited by the very small, the very large, and the very complex. So what do you call life, small, large or complex? LOL, or maybe we could say it was ALL three.

It's mostly limited primarily by complexity. And a little by the smallness of DNA etc. Not limited by largeness. That applies to things like distant galaxies.

The fact remains that darwin theory has never been totally proven, if it were then it would darwins law.

Didn't I already correct your terminology? The words theory and law have specific meanings to science. The word theory does not imply doubt.

Where is the scienctific method to prove evolution?

You also use the word "proof" inappropriately. It really belongs to maths. We can't "prove" gravity exists, just that every observation seems to support it. It's the same with evolution. See links like this (http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm), this (http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html) or this (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html) if you're actually interested in following the evidence.

The smoke screen of bad science put up by a very small number of non-peer-reviewed sensationalists gets a lot of press coverage because it's controversial. But it has made no impact on the scientific world because it's yet to come up with a single convincing argument against evolution. Seriously, natural selection is falsifiable, but no one has been able to show it as false and evidence for it continues to mount. The massive bulk of real science carries on mostly quietly, but gets far less press coverage.

...the DNA facts...What honestly would be wrong with offering facts concering the DNA findings at this point?

You keep talking about "the DNA facts". The discovery of DNA, after Darwin's time, was a huge boost for Darwin's theory. It explained a lot of the issues that remained unsolved. Stop talking about "the DNA facts" as if they somehow contradict evolution, or explain what you're talking about.

Rob.

[Robert W]

when I was in school, it was never made clear to us that evolution was a theory. Perhaps when I was young no one clearly explained to me exactly what "theory" meant, but I grew up believing evolution was a fact.

It sounds like still no one has clearly explained to you what "theory" means. Have a look here (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/7-11.html), since it's not what you think.

Rob.

[Robert W]

I am a Christian, and was always confused by what I learned at school compared to what I learned at Sunday school.

One is based on evidence, the other is not.

the right or wrong of the bible is not the point for debate

It is really, because the only people who have put forward cases against evolution are coming from a position of indoctrinated belief. They are convinced of something without any recall to evidence, and feel compelled to make the real world match their beliefs.

If evolution really was "in crisis" as often claimed these days, then everyone would agree, not just those who want it to be so. The source of the dilemma is religion itself. Society quietly accepts people's unfounded beliefs and rituals, and their right to indoctrinate their own children into this fairytale. If the well-documented errors in the Bible were more widely known, maybe people would cling less to the literal word of the rest of the Bible, and no longer have a need to rally against science.

I am pointing out that there is now evidence to suggest that darwins thoery is old and out dated.

No there isn't. Seriously, scientists are the most skeptical bunch you will find. They love finding an unknown because it's something to study. If any claims put forward by the creationists had merrit the scientific community would sit up and listen. The fact is that none of these claims have made a dent. Those few papers that have been published were mostly not peer-reviewed, and have all been refuted.

The conspiracy theories against evolution are no better than those against the moon landing. Some points sound reasonable at first, especially to the conspiracy-hungry general public, but it all falls down when you look a bit deeper.

Did you ever study the DNA facts in your 12 years. I just graduated last May, and we did study both the DNA facts and Darwins theory.

Do tell us about "the DNA facts" :-)

Rob.

[Unregistered]

It sounds like still no one has clearly explained to you what "theory" means. Have a look here (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/7-11.html), since it's not what you think.

Rob.


Thank you for the read.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=newbie-x;1771]i finally was able to figure how to post my reply... or at least i hope so...
several quick thoughts
1) some people are already going against their conscience by not being able to bring up creation as a theory
anybody

Anybody, who believes in the creation theory and is teaching science isnt much of a science teacher.

[Unregistered]

I teach high school Biology and I must say that most of my students tend to lean toward creationism. I hear the arguments against how it should be left out of public school and how we should strictly teach evolution but I don't think it is possible. Of course, creationism is based on faith but how about evolution? Aren't there so many holes in this idea that we have to believe that it happened this way?? We as teachers are told that we cannot mention Christ or creationism because it may go against the beliefs of our students. I understand that but what about those students that believe in creationism? I think they should be able to discuss their ideas about life just as much as those that believe in evolution.

You say there are holes in the theory evolution, well at least evolution has some proof, creation theory has zero proof, well they do have a book called the bible, which for all we know could of have been the rantings of a crazy unstable man.
Evolution Rules
Creation drools

[Robert W]

You say there are holes in the theory evolution, well at least evolution has some proof, creation theory has zero proof, well they do have a book called the bible, which for all we know could of have been the rantings of a crazy unstable man.

Saying evolution has holes is like saying gravity has holes because we can only test gravity on Earth or within our own solar system. The fossil record has shown us hundreds of transitional forms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils), yet Creationists claim there aren't any. Even a gap in the fossil record is not a "hole" in the theory. A hole in the theory would be something that contradicts the predictions of modern evolutionary theory, and so far no one has presented a single example of such a thing.

Oh, you should talk of evidence rather than proof, by the way. Proofs belong to maths, not science.

As for the Bible, we do know a lot about its history, but it isn't taught in any schools as far as I know. Now THAT is something we should be pushing to be taught in religious class at school. Things such as the obvious self-contradictions in the Bible, its dubious morality, the mistranslation that led to Mary becoming a virgin, etc etc. Even though this is all well documented by modern theology, children are denied this evidence and taught to believe with neither reason nor evidence and that this is somehow a virtue (they call it faith).

Rob.

[Unregistered]

I personally dont like creationism because none of the facts point that way. But never say anything bad about it to students because there are a lot of people, certain religions in particular, that will go loopy when you say that creationism is silly.

[Robert W]

I personally dont like creationism because none of the facts point that way. But never say anything bad about it to students because there are a lot of people, certain religions in particular, that will go loopy when you say that creationism is silly.

Maybe we should avoid saying anything against the idea of a flat Earth too? ;)

Rob.

[Unregistered]

I went to the page you cited. There were not hundreds, but rather about 50, and these are simply "best guesses" reconstructed from limited fossil evidence. Furthermore, some could easily be compared to present day species.

Have you ever thought about the thousands and thousands of species present today and the fact that none can breed with each other to form new evolutionary species? We should be finding not hundreds, but tens of thousands or even millions of transitional species fossil remains. After all, a horse can not mate with another horse to produce a dog, given all the billions of year in the world. This complete lack of evidence has led evolutionists to recently (and desperately) accept the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium theory.

I agree that perhaps Creationism does not belong in the science classroom because it is based on a supernatural act. But don't get down on students and parents that don't buy into the theory of evolution.

[CrypticLife]

As correctly noted, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. It does, however, appear in several Supreme Court decisions, and the principle of stare decisis indicates that where possible, the law should be interpreted in accordance with those decisions.

Where many people have trouble is with the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,". The religious tend to hold this merely prohibits a formal authorization of a state religion, but the word "establish" can actually have several meanings, including "to favor or tend to favor one over the other". Laws cannot be passed which favor one religion over another, even when it is not made an official state religion, because this would still be establishment. Further, as there is no modifier preceding "religion" (i.e., it doesn't say, "establishment of a religion" or "establishment of one religion"), the clause refers to religion generally.

For anyone who has any trouble with the basics, the First Amendment (the entire Bill of Rights, actually) was applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to this, state governments actually could have official religions. Additionally, the restriction applies to government-created entities. Congress cannot create an agency to do something it cannot do itself.

The next part of the Amendment is "or prohibit the free exercise [that is, of religion] thereof". Congress may not make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Students may pray in school, bring Bibles, etc., within general school policies (there are also rules to determine when a school is impermissibly limiting religion, and many theists will correctly point out violations engaged in by individual school districts).

The reason this is germane to the debate is that even if one were to argue (as Robert W does so well) that creationism isn't a scientific philosophy, allowing the disagreement would allow school districts to vary on this point. The fact of the matter is that it's not just a bad idea to teach creationism as part of the science curriculum, it's illegal to do so. A school could teach about creationism in a philosophy class from an objective standpoint (assuming a teacher is actually capable of it -- I wouldn't want the job personally). Teaching creationism in a science class gives it a firmer stance and thus would serve to establish religion.

It does tire me to see gross mischaracterizations of evolution as being faith-based, as demanding such oddities as equine-equine pairings resulting in canines, and as claiming that related species cannot exist at the same time. Especially alongside vehement assertions on how well the supporter of creationism understands the theory of evolution. I don't know very much about the theory of evolution at all compared to a professional biologist, but I can still recogize such spurious claims as the dreck they are.

[Unregistered]

Based on evolution, cell mutation will occur and produce more variety of a species, then answer me this,

Why with 6,000,000,000 human on earth, none of them have the bird feather, bird wing, fish flip, rabbit ear, if evolution really will occur, we should have seen some baby with mutation have a wing and along the time might evolve into a human bird

You might say that 6,000,000,000 human and maybe few thousand of year is not enough for random mutation to create a wing, but how about snake?

after zillion of year, shouldnt one of the baby snake should have a wing that evolve into a flying snake?

[CrypticLife]

Based on evolution, cell mutation will occur and produce more variety of a species, then answer me this,

Why with 6,000,000,000 human on earth, none of them have the bird feather, bird wing, fish flip, rabbit ear, if evolution really will occur, we should have seen some baby with mutation have a wing and along the time might evolve into a human bird

You might say that 6,000,000,000 human and maybe few thousand of year is not enough for random mutation to create a wing, but how about snake?

after zillion of year, shouldnt one of the baby snake should have a wing that evolve into a flying snake?

There are a few potential answers to your question. One is no, based on the rather specific example you posed. You likely wouldn't be satisfied with answers that showed that wings would not be especially helpful to snakes that eat ground-burrowing creatures. They'd get in the way trying to slither through some rat's lair. Or that the physics of a long, flexibly-spined creature wouldn't enable winged flight anyway.

You might not be happy with examples of tree snakes that glide using long folds of skin very satisfactory either, as you'd just say something like "Well, it's still a snake". What you're asking for, and what evolution does not claim, is for fully formed complex organs to spring from nothing, not as part of a gradual process but instantaneously.

Another potential answer is that you're not looking at mutations that DO happen, such as blue skin in humans or any number of other mutations. A list of the ten most common is at http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-10-Most-Common-Human-Mutations-57223.shtml, but I'm sure you can work to find more exotic mutations if you wish.

Above all, my quote from above applies:

It does tire me to see gross mischaracterizations of evolution as being faith-based, as demanding such oddities as equine-equine pairings resulting in canines, and as claiming that related species cannot exist at the same time. Especially alongside vehement assertions on how well the supporter of creationism understands the theory of evolution. I don't know very much about the theory of evolution at all compared to a professional biologist, but I can still recogize such spurious claims as the dreck they are.

It's pretty clear you don't understand evolution. If you really want to clarify it, go to a reputable source.

[Unregistered]

"Common misconceptions
Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5]
The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record."

You should really read the whole link before you put a link up to it. This section on COMMON misconseptions is EXACTLY what you are asking about in your previous post. Try reading the whole article before you use it as support.

[bioteach200]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Wikipedia is NOT a resource for accurate or valid information Unregistered!!!

[Unregistered]

The Creation Museum is a new museum in Petersburg KY and a great tool for Church groups as well as public schools...if more state superintendents and state employee curriculum instructors would visit this wonderful resource, maybe school curriculums would be reviewed and even open to implementing the not so new "Creation" theory...check it out!
CREATIONMUSEUM.ORG
888-582-4253

[Unregistered]

The Creation Museum is a new museum in Petersburg KY and a great tool for Church groups as well as public schools...if more state superintendents and state employee curriculum instructors would visit this wonderful resource, maybe school curriculums would be reviewed and even open to implementing the not so new "Creation" theory...check it out!
CREATIONMUSEUM.ORG
888-582-4253


Assuming you want a lawsuit, it's wonderful.

[Unregistered]

Morallity isn't the issue, knowledge and understanding is. Evolution is a prominent matter in scientific fields and to not to teach the Theory of Evoultion is to leave children in the dark about a major scientific theory that has had an undeniably large impact on the growth and devlopement of the biological sciences. Whether or not it is right, evolution is very relevant to the study of biology IF ONLy because it is the basis of alot scientific studies and is the foundation for alot of what the students are being taught. There is a way we should teach it. It should never be called fact, because it is not. This is where the intellectual hang up is. If we approach students in a manner in which we teach based on what we want them to think is true then we simply fail as educators. If we present Evolution as Theory, not fact; that it is acccepted and believed by scientist as a rational for what is otherwise difficult to explain, than it is not an issue. If we stress the theoretical aspet of Evoltuion, the only complaints would be from the those of religiously insecure parents. In which case, we can only please so many by doing what is right and approaching matter in an acedemic manner, as we should.

[Unregistered]

In the end we will find out the truth, we will both rot in our graves and never know the difference, or if faith in Jesus is right then it is another scenario, I believe I have more to gain by what I believe.


Or possibly you'll be going to hell regardless. Afterall, there are countless other Gods who promise you an eternity of suffering for failing to recognize them as the one true creator. With consideration to all the scientifically unfounded religions, it's really a total crapshoot. You might as well play the lottery with your soul.

As they say, an atheist is just a theist who doubts one more god.

[Unregistered Ash]

well seeing how you have to prove a theory wrong to make it wrong, instead of the person coming up with the theory having to prove that its right to make it right, i'd say that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools either. Seeing how its a theory, that makes it somewhat of an opinion, because it hasn't been proven right, and since apparently Creation is a "theory" although i highly disagree, its not taught in schools either. when is fair gonna be fair?

[Unregistered]

Well this old tail has been chased in schools for far to long. Evolution may be a theory still postulated, however the newest Scientific information is very clearly pointing to Intelligent Design. Don't concern your students with thoughts of "is there a God?" and/or faith based lessons. They have their important place. As teachers we aught to simply relate the best non bias information regardless of our preconceived beliefs (evolution/creation or ???). Thats the theory that SHOULD be taught to students. Look for your selves the science is pretty compelling. The scientific information that is based in actual proof and not force feeding children evolution as "this is how it all went down!, but why did it stop? where are the 2 celled life forms? where are the living mutant monkey men?..." Questions that can't real be answered, as the theory has been rejected by the top minds. However the human condition being what it is people resist change and some die hard old schoolers still grasp the flat earth in one hand and evolution in the other and preach it with the fervor of any minister ;)

Look up

Documentary - Unlocking the Mystery of Life

you should be able to find it on a search engine.

A large body of scientists (bio, chem,phy...) debate evolution vs Intelligent design. At the end they concur that evolution can not possibly be valid. And the reasoning is sound science based in bio-chem and several other disciplines.

So, no God almighty did not create (Micro) evolution, neither did nature or random chance. Marco evolution? now that has merit. But it is wholly different from the random chance new DNA mutation concept that just will not work, even given the ridiculous time frame put forth in the classical evolutionary theory.

[Unregistered]

Our constitution states that church and state should be separate. First of all, the public school system is a branch of the government, and therefore it is unconstitutional. Second, it is bigoted and ludicrous to assume that SCIENCE classes should teach a fundamentalist theology. While we're at that, let's go ahead and fill our science curriculum with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Fundamentalist theology like the religion of global warming? That is taught everyday with evidence from great scientist like Al Gore.

[Evo]

Look At The Facts Retards You Cant See Past Your Clouded With God Mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Unregistered]

Well now the guy sites ACTUAL scientific facts, but YOUR message is just so well thought out and compelling... I bet you have stores of knowledge with all the books you've read by glancing at the covers! Enlighten us further o wise one... OR

Check your sources as was mentioned? of course there is also the stick your head in the sand and refuse to learn method.....

[Unregistered]

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about about this, but I do know that the seperation of church and state was established by our government to keep the State out of the Church -not the other way around, as evidenced by the fact that they prayed prior to and following "state sponsored" meetings. And anyone who says that a science that proclaims we've evolved from fish or monkeys or that over millions of years a group of cells "randomly" came together to create life by luck is based on evidence is not dealing in science him/herself, because there is no proof to support that.

Someone once said "I'd rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find that there isn't than to live as if there isn't a God and die to find that there is."

Wishing you all Jesus Joy!

[Unregistered]

It's hard to believe that there is this endless discussion about evolution in the US. In Europe nobody would ever think of changing the curriculum, and all children are taught about evolution in Biology - no matter which European country they live in, albeit in some European countries the Catholic church has a very big influence!

Keep creationism to the curriculum of Religion or Sunday schools, and evolution to Biology - so the children don't grow up without scientific knowledge. To keep them in the dark and just teach creationism is medieval, just like haunting witches and the then heretics like Galileo.
When do you start haunting people who aren't Christians or who aren't believers of creationism?

[Unregistered]

This discussion has nothing to do with the influence of church or what Europe dose compared to Americans. This is a dialog of what aught to be told to students as science.

You clearly have not looked at any of the CURRENT science. The idea is that students will grow up WITH scientific knowledge that is up to date and not the left over ideas of yesterday.

So I encourage you to actually read the posts before yours and check your concept of what is science. So many people still think of evolution as their belief system and will NOT see any FACTS to the contrary.

And there for drop the sarcasm on witch hunts and what not. Actually check your science and post something informed and well thought out.

Or if we all went your way the poor student in Europe would be stuck in 'medieval' thought only taught the old unfounded lessons that have no base in current science. Do you really want that? And have the rest of the world PITY the un-scientific backwards European children?

Or, is it better to have educators challenge their preconceived notions and leave their comfort zones to find out the most up to date information and teach the science.

[Unregistered]

Well this old tail has been chased in schools for far to long. Evolution may be a theory still postulated, however the newest Scientific information is very clearly pointing to Intelligent Design.
...


Look up

Documentary - Unlocking the Mystery of Life


A large body of scientists (bio, chem,phy...) debate evolution vs Intelligent design. At the end they concur that evolution can not possibly be valid. And the reasoning is sound science based in bio-chem and several other disciplines.


"Unlocking the Mystery of Life" is no debate -- it's an ID spokespiece. It also relies heavily on the bacterial flagellum argument, an argument that's been discredited for years. See http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html for an example. Behe will, naturally, move to some other structure, but honestly he's grasping at straws.

[Unregistered]

I read you link page http://www.millerandlevin. Leaps are made, real evidence is discounted, or ignored. No depth has been made to look at whats really happening in the sub substructure of the proteins that are the base of Irreducible Complexity.

Mostly that page is a half assed attempt at belittling the ID science. With a 'holier than tho' ;) grasp on Darwins' ideas.

By hey go ahead! Maintain your flat earth ideas! Whats stopping you!? well besides proof (if you ACTUALLY look into it in depth) and your preconceived notions... but you like those! :)

[Unregistered]

I appreciate the desire of scientists to stick to empirically verifiable information. A creation event stands outside of the empirically verifiable, but this is true whether you are talking about a divine creator doing the creating or a completely natural beginning to the universe. In other words, both an evolutionist and a creationist must base their conclusions on faith. Its true that we can and must look at our current world and come up with the best theories about its origins and why it is the way that it is, but ultimately one's beliefs about origins must rest on faith--faith that it all had a naturalistic beginning or a supernatural one. Recognizing this is an important part of deciding which theories should be taught in the school.

[ehickey]

I have been teaching science for awhile, and have never had students challenge the idea of evolution, once the mechanism for change, i.e., natural selection was taught. Most opposition has been based upon the misinformation about the process of change.

Newbie X writes: "if all things go to disorder (as the 2nd law of thermodynamics states) then how would it be possible for a one cell organism to evolve into millions upon millions of varying species of vegetables or animals... it would seem that that is not disorder at all"

The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to energy (heat).

Do cells move toward entropy??? It is very possible for a single cell to reproduce and divide until millions of cells become differentiated into liver cells, skin cells, bone cells, etc. Each very different, but with the same genetic origin. This all happens in the womb as a fetus develops. At the time this is happening there are random variations. Not all cells work the way they are programed. Sometimes that variation is an advantage that is inherited by offspring. Sometimes the variation serves no distinct advantage that we can ascertain, but it is passed along to offspring. Over time change in a species occurs. Random mutation/variation certainly seems less "ordered" to me.

In the classroom, I have had to spend more time defending the idea that the universe and earth is more than 5000 years old than trying to defend evolution.

[Unregistered]

but this is true whether you are talking about a divine creator doing the creating or a completely natural beginning to the universe. In other words, both an evolutionist and a creationist must base their conclusions on faith. Its true that we can and must look at our current world and come up with the best theories about its origins and why it is the way that it is, but ultimately one's beliefs about origins must rest on faith--faith that it all had a naturalistic beginning or a supernatural one. Recognizing this is an important part of deciding which theories should be taught in the school.

a) Evolution is not about origin, but about change, and it is not about the beginning of the universe.
b) Law does not limit teaching to known verifiable fact. Conjectures and hypotheses can be taught. Religion cannot be.

I read you link page http://www.millerandlevin. Leaps are made, real evidence is discounted, or ignored. No depth has been made to look at whats really happening in the sub substructure of the proteins that are the base of Irreducible Complexity.

Well, you couldn't spell it, so I'm not sure you actually read it. Certainly you give no evidence of having done so.

You'll note that it's Dembski who makes no effort to look at what's really happening in the substructure of the proteins. He calculates odds based on pure random assemblage, something no scientist claims occurred. Irreducible complexity is essentially, "I can't imagine how it might have occurred, so it must have been god".

[Unregistered]

Quote:
I read you link page http://www.millerandlevin. Leaps are made, real evidence is discounted, or ignored. No depth has been made to look at whats really happening in the sub substructure of the proteins that are the base of Irreducible Complexity.


Well, you couldn't spell it, so I'm not sure you actually read it. Certainly you give no evidence of having done so.

You'll note that it's Dembski who makes no effort to look at what's really happening in the substructure of the proteins. He calculates odds based on pure random assemblage, something no scientist claims occurred. Irreducible complexity is essentially, "I can't imagine how it might have occurred, so it must have been god".

-------------------------------------

Well, your ignorance is pretty compelling! I actually cut and paste the link, in part... It wasn't worth copying the whole. And Random assemblage of genetic data/mutation over ridiculous time frames is the basis of the poor old Darwin theory.

Note thats THEORY not FACT.

In fact it is so lacking in facts that it is failing in the light of REAL scrutiny, not miss-guided, if persistent dawininan dogma haha!

That old tripe keeps popping up on here shaking a fist at the sky and cowering when God sends the thunder of intellect,proof and sound science. And thats REAL science, you know , study, proof,facts. Try it some time you might like it!!

It's that last one that chokes those poor old fossils that cleave unto darwins' false ideas. FACTS Not "well....uhhhh we'll fill in the details of how it reeeealllllly um...er... coff... works, ummm LATER!" yaaaaaa So far there has been fools born every minuet that will buy that for a dollar! ;) Maybe in 50 bagazillion MORE years you'll finally find all that proof you say will support darwin? sure ya will champ! you little rascal! Sigh let the little minds have their delusions . The rest of us will look at the REAL science and facts and make those decisions that you are incapable of. Leave the real important thinking for us, you just run along with old information that you think is you god.

As for the poor jab at -"I can't imagine how it might have occurred, so it must have been god".- One can imagine whatever they like, you have shown that with your blind adherence to darwin's old ideas. But the science that shows one way as impossible, well thats just the way it is, isn't it? :) But as for how it all happened... Even quantum physics supports the 'cause of all causes' and the 'end of all time/space/matter' or in the old language Alpha/Omega ;)

So some thing started everything, created it you might say. That is were the answers are. Not in a guy that died whom you still believe in.... Hey you aught to be a Christian with thoughts like yours! ;)

Well cept He didn't STAY dead!

how is darwin these days? HA HA!

[Unregistered]

I think of few of the previous posters need to study there constitution. No where in the constitution does it state that there should be separation of church and state. (If you find it, let me know, but you won't.) It is a very common misconception of the United States Constitution.

Also, I think both creationism and evolution should be taught in school (yes, even in science class). Both are theories of how life is formed. I don't think that there is anything wrong with presenting them. Teachers don't have to show a particular preference to one or the other. I think, in reality, life was formed with a mix of both. The theory of evolution has yet to tell me how the first cell was formed and although creationism does tell me this, it has yet to provide a reason for all the evidence on the evolution side of the argument.

[Unregistered]

Please tell me you people are trolling. I'll promise to keep responding, even if you are. It's just that your arguments are so ludicrous, and so poor, and have been defeated so many times that even serious creationists don't recommend using them.

"Separation of Church and State" -- the phrase is found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, where he is describing the first amendment. It is also found in several Supreme Court decisions. Note that the amendment only applied to the federal government until the Fourteenth amendment was passed.

Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense. It could be a hypothesis, I suppose, if one were able to conceptually design a means to falsify it.

Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. This means it makes predictions, and can be falsified. To date, it has not been. Note that if it were scientifically falsified, the reaction of the scientific establishment would probably be similar to when Newton's theory of motion was falsified -- there would be some initial resistance, but then people would gradually go over to the new theory (in Newton's case, to relativity).

"Just a theory" -- Heh. You mean, like the theory of gravity. Or atomic theory. Or the germ theory of disease. I find it hard to believe that people seriously propose the "It's just a theory" argument.

Incidentally, you should argue against evolution, not Darwin. Though Darwin was the originator, the theory has changed significantly since then.

[In reply]

"Please tell me you people are trolling. I'll promise to keep responding, even if you are. It's just that your arguments are so ludicrous, and so poor, and have been defeated so many times that even serious evolutionists don't recommend using them." Thats more like the truth

and "Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. This means it makes predictions, and can be falsified. To date, it has not been. Note that if it were scientifically falsified, the reaction of the scientific establishment would probably be similar to when Newton's theory of motion was falsified -- there would be some initial resistance, but then people would gradually go over to the new theory (in Newton's case, to relativity)."

More likely the established order, fearing loss of credibility and power would deny whatever they had to and ridicule those who prove them wrong. And so far in the real evidence the evolution theory has been shot down. The old order can't accept that for the stated reasons , fear, power ,creditability... Who has ever lied for those little reasons! Or do you hold the old guard in such high esteem that you think them above the corruption they display? Give your head a shake.



also "Just a theory" -- Heh. You mean, like the theory of gravity. Or atomic theory. Or the germ theory of disease. I find it hard to believe that people seriously propose the "It's just a theory" argument.

Incidentally, you should argue against evolution, not Darwin. Though Darwin was the originator, the theory has changed significantly since then.""


It HAD to be chaged what with all the HOLES and mis conception and errors and problems and proof to the conta... well no biggy who pays any attention to THAT stuff! When all you gotta do is TELL the mindless masses what YOU say is true, and they buy it! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Proud day for your family to fool so many people, don't ya think?


Ya just a theory an IDEA and a not a LAW, not a FACT. A detail of concept you have forgotten it seems, and as for your posing the miss guided notion of evolution along with Gravity atomic and medical knowledge well that just shows your idiocy, to stand a midget beside giants and say 'see how big I am!! Grrrrr!!'

Bark on puppy, but the outdated and unfounded theory posed by darwin is failing, some won't, even CAN'T except that, well...... get swept aside with the other useless junk of history. You MIGHT just get remembered as 'those foolish backward people way back then' like We think of flat earth and boogy man in the night people before our times. So I guess that could be your mark in history...

[dipsydoodle]

I think Evolution is crazy and should be talked about in school.

God created heaven and earth and he created man in his image so if we evolved from an animal how can god of created us in his image unless he looked like a monkey himself?

Evolution doesn't state that man came from monkeys. That's what I mean when I say "educate yourself". It's clear that you aren't aware of the many facets of the theory of evolution. Once you're educated, you'll embrace it.

[Unregistered]

It HAD to be chaged what with all the HOLES and mis conception and errors and problems and proof to the conta... well no biggy who pays any attention to THAT stuff!

Yes, like atomic theory has changed, and the theory of gravity, and the germ theory of disease have changed. The theory of gravity will almost certainly change further. None of these are "laws", and they are all subject to revision. The theory of gravity has enormous holes in it, starting with a lack of knowledge of why mass attracts mass in the first place.


Bark on puppy, but the outdated and unfounded theory posed by darwin is failing, some won't, even CAN'T except that, well...... get swept aside with the other useless junk of history. You MIGHT just get remembered as 'those foolish backward people way back then' like We think of flat earth and boogy man in the night people before our times. So I guess that could be your mark in history...

I'd be quite interested to see the theory of evolution fail. As I'd pointed out, many of the original ideas failed already. What do you think, realistically, might replace evolution? "Intelligent design" has no chance. Even if it were true, it wouldn't be a useful theory -- you couldn't make any predictions based on it, and it would be the same as saying, "We have no idea", except that it would kill any reasonable angle of scientific research. A replacement for evolution would say more about how species develop, inherit particular traits, and adapt. It would still look a lot closer to evolution than any creationist would like. They might even like the new theory less than evolution.

[Unregistered]

I would think that a theory so highly regarded would be able to stand up against scrutiny. Science is based on experimental design without blinders. Students should have the privilege of learning all theories, hearing all scientific fact and then, using the scientific method of discovery, be encouraged to deduce which view they believe on their own. When education only presents one viewpoint and only the science that backs that particular viewpoint how honest is that? There are many scientists that believe evolution to be truth and there are many scientists that believe creation by God to be truth and both sides have science to back their findings. Fear is the only thing that keeps both sides from being taught.

[Unregistered]

Well said!!

[JeffGor]

Hey evolutionists. To win the battle you have to a) demonstrate how life was originated from non-living things, and b) find the mechanism to strengthen the evolution process. You cannot rely on a random mutation just became the chances for such mutation to be positive are negligible

[Unregistered]

I point of fact there has NEVER been a recorded instance of a positive or beneficial mutation ever. Mutation has , as far as real science has even shown, always been harmful if not fatal. Evolution fails to be a valid concept, but adherents choose not to listen. Evolutionists don't want to know the truth. If the theory they worship is wrong it would shake the foundations of their lives. Evolutionists can't fact that. Facts shoot the concept to bits, ah but close mindedness now that can stand the test of time! lol ;)

[JeffGor]

Personally I don’t have any religions bias; I'm just seeking for the truth. A few days ago I had dozens of exchanges with some very prominent evolutionist. And finally I learnt their two-steps offense against the creation theory.

It is very simple. During the first step they are trying to prove that intelligent design is impossible. The main arguments are along the line: imperfect bodies, junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc.. and who created the designer? Second step is that if there is no designer that it got to be evolution, because there is no other mechanism. At this point all improbabilities do no matter, because we see the result – the life if here

Basically he approached this dispute on the offensive note, trying to destroy the opponents theory and then introduce his as the only remaining choice. Then of course, all arguments about the improbable course are out of the windows… just waist of time. I don’t think it is really clean way... but they do not have anythin else.

On the other hand, the evolutionist does not even approach the origin of life. And I don’t think they have even one clear undeniable case of macro-evolution - transferring of one species to another. The best indirected prove that I ‘m right, is that not a single evolutionist was able to respond to my original statement

[Unregistered]

Hey evolutionists. To win the battle you have to a) demonstrate how life was originated from non-living things, and b) find the mechanism to strengthen the evolution process. You cannot rely on a random mutation just became the chances for such mutation to be positive are negligible


A) Given that evolution doesn't address the origin of life, can you explain why evolution needs to demonstrate the origination of life from non-living things? You're talking about abiogenesis, which is a different field from evolution. Creationism disputes both fields.

B) On the beneficial effect of mutations, try http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html for a list of beneficial mutations achieved in the laboratory. Also keep in mind that a mild mutation, either positive or negative, is likely to go unnoticed. Moreover, for these mutations, the characterization of strictly "positive" or "negative" may be misleading. Sickle-cell anemia is a disease, right? You'd think it pretty deleterious, unless you also learn that it's protective against malaria. Something that's useful in one environment might be useless or dangerous in another.

There are multiple examples of speciation within the scientific record (google "examples of speciation"). The claim of creationists tends to be along the lines of "well, it's still a bird/cat/bug/etc.". They tend to demand evidence that wholescale changes happen all at once, which is not what evolution claims.

Science looks at useful theories. ID is not a useful theory. It's not useful to explain diversity of life, and it's not useful to explain origin of life, even in the absence of any other theory.

[Harry Bosch]

i finally was able to figure how to post my reply... or at least i hope so...
several quick thoughts
1) some people are already going against their conscience by not being able to bring up creation as a theory
2) science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive sets
3) science, at least in my estimation, as well as any discipline, is to better help our understanding of the Earth and Universe and to communicate it to others, then with whatever knowledge one has he/she makes new discoveries or passes on what he/she knows
4) one only has to look around at the wonder of it all to recognize that from wherever or whenever or whatever or Whomever started this process, albeit evolution or creation it is/was clearly WITH design so hence not happenstance
5) if all things go to disorder (as the 2nd law of thermodynamics states) then how would it be possible for a one cell organism to evolve into millions upon millions of varying species of vegetables or animals... it would seem that that is not disorder at all
6) go to www.icr.org (institute of creation research)... it has many articles (close to 400 in just the impact articles section) as well as comparing science facts and Biblical truths to each other
7) and lastly... just thinking out loud!
i do think that we all are still evolving... but only each species within its own species... i do not know how it could or would be at all possible for a one- cell parimecium to evolve into a cucumber... a chimpanzee... a dog... or a human... however i do think that God is the Master Designer and Artist and He alone has the ability to change and work on His creation as does any artist however and whenever he desires....and i think that throughout the centuries we have constantly come across new scientific facts that shows we can only begin to imagine what was actually being said in the Bible .. Thus [if] Christ is the maker of it all... it is only a miracle to US that He was able to walk on water or turn water into wine as it may defy all natural laws ...but aren't those only laws as we discover and agree with them (through observation and ability to re-create them)?... thus as Creator He clearly would be able to change its composition to make it be exactly as He wanted or needed it to be... and LASTLY.... whatever one decides to believe it still takes a stand of FAITH regardless whether it is creation or evolution


1) ok, although so far as I know, it's not illegal to bring it up as a theory in the classroom... it's just not to be part of the curriculum
2) I agree
3) I agree
4) I don't see a lot of design in nature. Things that appear to be designed are easily explainable by natural selection.
5) an understanding of the 2LoT would help here. Do all things go to disorder? What about a growing child? Or flower? The 2LoT, understood properly, states that, in the absence of energy being input into the system, then the sysem will naturally decay. Curious how that phrase "in the absence of energy input" gets left out of all the creationist propaganda.
6) ICR has long been discredited by real scientists. I know you won't believe me... so you might try perusing this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/ to find scientific discussions of many of the articles posted on ICR.
7) and of course, true to creationist tradition, the religious "I just don't get it" comes out... after the reasonable-sounding pandering to science, we get told that God must have done it, because "that's what I believe".

[Harry Bosch]

Personally I don’t have any religions bias; I'm just seeking for the truth. A few days ago I had dozens of exchanges with some very prominent evolutionist. And finally I learnt their two-steps offense against the creation theory.

It is very simple. During the first step they are trying to prove that intelligent design is impossible. The main arguments are along the line: imperfect bodies, junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc.. and who created the designer? Second step is that if there is no designer that it got to be evolution, because there is no other mechanism. At this point all improbabilities do no matter, because we see the result – the life if here

Basically he approached this dispute on the offensive note, trying to destroy the opponents theory and then introduce his as the only remaining choice. Then of course, all arguments about the improbable course are out of the windows… just waist of time. I don’t think it is really clean way... but they do not have anythin else.

On the other hand, the evolutionist does not even approach the origin of life. And I don’t think they have even one clear undeniable case of macro-evolution - transferring of one species to another. The best indirected prove that I ‘m right, is that not a single evolutionist was able to respond to my original statement


One clear undenialble case of macro-evolution? Could you be a bit more clear as to what you mean? "Tranferring of one species into another" isn't very clear....

If you mean "bacteria to bears" or "dogs into cats", then no, evolution doesn't have any examples. And it doesn't claim that that's what happens.

But as it happens, if you are interested, I can point you to hundreds of clear cases of macro-evolution, as the THEORY OF EVOLUTION defines it.

[Atrisk]

There are a lot of good points here from both sides of the argument.
First of all we must understand that "separation of church and state" is NOT in the constitution. It is in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a minister, a friend of his explaining how they must not allow the state to enforce a specific religion on the people. It had nothing to do with keeping religion out of governement, really, the other way around.

Secondly, if creation should be saved for a philosophy class (as one person mentioned), then so should evolution. It is just as much religion and philosophy as some say creation aught to be. Think about it. If we humans, happened by chance over millions of years, then the only purpose we exist for is to please ourselves. To do what we want, or, what we feel we need. That my friends is philosophy, its called humanism. Its all relative to what we think is moral, right, wrong, etc. There is no higher power, not rule setter, no one to answer to but yourself. That's right, the evolutionary theory does teach philosophy. And also requires a whole lot of faith to believe that an explosion occured, a rock, a spark of lightning, a tad pole, fish, lizard, bird, etc. As for all that scientific evidence, where is it? its not in all the "missing links" found. Those have been proven to be hoaxes. Do your research. There would be true fossils of cross breeds everywhere. Not ones that are fabricated, so that more funding is available.

Lets call a spade a spade. As educators let's do the right thing and teach Evolution and Creation side by side, and state them both as theories and educate students evenly, as much as we can. Then let the students make their own choice on what to believe. The problem is that the foundation for brainwashing our future generation in believing this evolutionary theory, starts as early as kindergarten. Its as simple as reading a story that says..."millions and millions of years ago, the dinosaurs roamed the earth..." And its not the dinosaur part that does the brainwashing. The table is being set for them to buy into evolution at a young age. Why then do we ask, why our kids act like animals? that is what is being taught, everywhere, even the most prestigous institutes. That's what gives evolution credibility. But, if you've got courage, then you can counter that.

[Harry Bosch]

Lets call a spade a spade. As educators let's do the right thing and teach Evolution and Creation side by side, and state them both as theories and educate students evenly, as much as we can.

Sure. Except that there's about 10 million times as much evidence for evolution as there is for creation. So.... if you want to be fair, we can give 10seconds to creation (which would actually be MORE than it's fair share) and use the rest of the time for teaching real science...

but why not call a spade a spade and tell us what you are REALLY after? hmmm?

[Unregistered]

First of all we must understand that "separation of church and state" is NOT in the constitution. It is in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a minister, a friend of his explaining how they must not allow the state to enforce a specific religion on the people. It had nothing to do with keeping religion out of governement, really, the other way around.

No, were that the case only the free exercise clause would exist. Once religion is in government, the government tends to enforce religion just as if they made a concious decision to establish a religion de novo.


Secondly, if creation should be saved for a philosophy class (as one person mentioned), then so should evolution. It is just as much religion and philosophy as some say creation aught to be. Think about it. If we humans, happened by chance over millions of years, then the only purpose we exist for is to please ourselves.


Evolution does not necessitate atheism. It is quite easy to believe in evolution and a deity, and in fact the pope agrees with evolution. He hasn't become an atheist.


Why then do we ask, why our kids act like animals?

You've got to be kidding.

[Atrisk]

No one said anything connecting the belief in evolution to a specific religion (atheism). But maybe you are on to something. There is definetly a connection between evolution and a philosophy of life.

If you (postees) think there is no evidence for creation. All you need to do is look, it is there. Lots of evidence. There is a plethera of science in the Bible. A Bible that was written over 2000 years ago, and some of those evidences, written long ago, are just being discovered by scientist today. Its there and it is not hoaxed material.

I am just saying. Teach both theories side by side. Give the evidences from both sides, and if you don't know where to find it, ask, search, its there. Regardless of what you believe. They both take faith.

And if you don't think our teenagers are acting like animals, you live in a bubble.

[Harry Bosch]

No one said anything connecting the belief in evolution to a specific religion (atheism). But maybe you are on to something. There is definetly a connection between evolution and a philosophy of life.

If you (postees) think there is no evidence for creation. All you need to do is look, it is there. Lots of evidence. There is a plethera of science in the Bible. A Bible that was written over 2000 years ago, and some of those evidences, written long ago, are just being discovered by scientist today. Its there and it is not hoaxed material.

I am just saying. Teach both theories side by side. Give the evidences from both sides, and if you don't know where to find it, ask, search, its there. Regardless of what you believe. They both take faith.

And if you don't think our teenagers are acting like animals, you live in a bubble.

so tell us

what IS the theory of creation?

how might it be falsified?

when you have satisfactory answers to those questions

come back

and we'll talk

[Atrisk]

There is evidence in multiple areas. Astronomy, biology, plate tectonics. Its there. Do some research with an open mind. If you get your information from a bias source, then you will be biased. So use both points of views.
I too have found some compelling arguments for evolution, that make it hard to go against. But the same is there for creation. I teach them both.

Like I said. Both theories should be considered religion/philosophy, lets call it what it is.

One side says, how did the Intelligent Designer come to exist?
The other asks, where did the material that caused the Big Bang come from? How did that come about?
These are question without answer. That is why the debate will go on forever.

It takes FAITH, my friend. Just be fair as to what you say is religion and what is not. Because they both are. Nobody was around to witness "the very beginning."

For the previous poster. Just b/c the Pope believes evolution is true, doesn't mean it is, and its irrelevant. He is certainly not the one who dictates truth or non-truth in the land. That's just his opinion. Just like mine or yours.

[Harry Bosch]

There is evidence in multiple areas. Astronomy, biology, plate tectonics. Its there. Do some research with an open mind. If you get your information from a bias source, then you will be biased. So use both points of views.
I too have found some compelling arguments for evolution, that make it hard to go against. But the same is there for creation. I teach them both.

Like I said. Both theories should be considered religion/philosophy, lets call it what it is.

One side says, how did the Intelligent Designer come to exist?
The other asks, where did the material that caused the Big Bang come from? How did that come about?
These are question without answer. That is why the debate will go on forever.

It takes FAITH, my friend. Just be fair as to what you say is religion and what is not. Because they both are. Nobody was around to witness "the very beginning."

For the previous poster. Just b/c the Pope believes evolution is true, doesn't mean it is, and its irrelevant. He is certainly not the one who dictates truth or non-truth in the land. That's just his opinion. Just like mine or yours.

so, since you teach science you should be able to summarize the theory of creation in a couple of sentences

what is it?

how can it be falsified?

you're making the claim, put up something instead of telling me to find out for myself.

personally I'm unaware of ANY evidence from the fields you mentioned.

btw, you seem to be somewhat confused... what does Evolution have to do with the origin of the universe?

[Unregistered]

For the previous poster. Just b/c the Pope believes evolution is true, doesn't mean it is, and its irrelevant. He is certainly not the one who dictates truth or non-truth in the land. That's just his opinion. Just like mine or yours.

I wasn't using it to prove evolution was true, I was using it to show that believing in evolution didn't necessitate a world view. You claimed that belief in evolution means there is no purpose in life -- the pope believes, and I seriously doubt he holds that there's no purpose in life. Hence, you are incorrect.

"Acting like animals" is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Moreover, that's not the part of the assertion I was objecting to (though I admit, I did not make that clear) -- I was objecting to the causal relationship you drew between teaching evolution and kid's behavior. That's a ludicrous assertion.

[Unregistered]

Google search it. I dare all of you, on both sides of the argument. If you truly desire an intelligent and informed debate, go ahead... I dare you. Then come back and lets see what folks have to say.

Just my job... to stir the pot.

p.s. atrisk... you are indeed living up to your name.

[Unregistered]

Sure. Except that there's about 10 million times as much evidence for evolution as there is for creation. So.... if you want to be fair, we can give 10seconds to creation (which would actually be MORE than it's fair share) and use the rest of the time for teaching real science...

but why not call a spade a spade and tell us what you are REALLY after? hmmm?

I would like to know, on what do you base this statement. Can you prove it? I think I can prove otherwise. Just wondering what you base this on?

[Unregistered]

"wanna see me screw with their minds, I'll make them think that a god actually exists."

Religion = social control

Anything that mandates the belief in a cartoon character should not be taught in school. "God exists," what a silly notion that is. If by some rediculous fragment of a chance there is a god, I'd rather spend my eternity burning in hell than being loved by someone or something so biased and judgemental.

[Unregistered]

But if God is spirit (cf 1 John ) then the question isn' t so much species as something interior to the person or form of creation. So one may begin by asking what plants, animal life and human life have in common - more than one would think at a casual glance. Then the next question is what is it that distinguishes human persons from other forms of created life - plenty. Consciousness, self-transcendence (dreaming, conceptualizing, imagination, remembering), ratiocentesis, the capacity to make choices within limits

[Unregistered]

Is it God who is biased and judgemental or those who attempt to interpret God without examining their own biases, prejudices, etc. and projecting them on to God. There is a difference my friend.

Doctrine properly understood and taught is nothing more than a bridge to the sacred setting forth wise parameters as guidelines.

And if you claim "religion is nothing more than social control" explain the wonder of totalitarian governments, reductionistic views and philosophies of life parading under the guise of "open-mindedness"

[tru24m]

And if you claim "religion is nothing more than social control" explain the wonder of totalitarian governments, reductionistic views and philosophies of life parading under the guise of "open-mindedness"

You're right, they're all social control. That doesn't change the fact that organized religion is the same thing, serves the same purpose, and accomplishes the same means. All flourish with the denigrating of others, all make its followers believe half truths with super-strong doses of propaganda, and all are run by individuals who view themselves as above the law and ethics of the rest of society. The religious powers-that-be are no more innocent or righteous than the dirtbag that lies for a living, or the politician who sends the young men and women of OTHER families into battle to fight his own personal battles. I fail to see how one is better than the other. As with everything everyone has posted here, mine is just an opinion.

[Unregistered]

But if God is spirit (cf 1 John ) then the question isn' t so much species as something interior to the person or form of creation. So one may begin by asking what plants, animal life and human life have in common - more than one would think at a casual glance. Then the next question is what is it that distinguishes human persons from other forms of created life - plenty. Consciousness, self-transcendence (dreaming, conceptualizing, imagination, remembering), ratiocentesis, the capacity to make choices within limits

Plants and animals do have plenty in common, from source of energy to DNA.

Show me that humans have consciousness, AND that animals have none. Show me that animals do not dream. Quite clearly they conceptualize, imagine, and remember -- you know nothing of psychological research if you doubt these things. I'm not sure what you mean by "ratiocentesis". Since you're probably unwilling to question human free will, show me that animals do not have free will "within limits".

Of course, you base all this on a conditional acceptance of 1 John, and don't actually indicate what your conclusion is (though you do throw in a reference to "created" life, so presumably you've already accepted creationism). However, your evidence is quite dubious.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=newbie-x;1771]5) if all things go to disorder (as the 2nd law of thermodynamics states) then how would it be possible for a one cell organism to evolve into millions upon millions of varying species of vegetables or animals... it would seem that that is not disorder at allQUOTE]


The thing about thermodynamics is that it supposes a closed system.....and the earth is by no means a closed system. For example, we get most of our energy from the sun, which continues pouring energy into our system on a continual basis. Without sunlight energy to power us, we would move into a state of disorder as the law of thermodynamics says. This isn't the only example, but it's certainly the most relevant to refuting the argument of creationists who try to use thermodynamics to refute evolution.

I also firmly believe there's no reason God couldn't have set things up to run the way they are...evolution included. Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive by any means.

[Unregistered]

I also firmly believe there's no reason God couldn't have set things up to run the way they are...evolution included. Christianity and science are not mutually exclusive by any means.

There's no reason God couldn't have set things up to run in any way conceivable. Christianity and science are only incompatible where Christianity starts making assertions about matters of fact -- like how old the earth is, or how we were actually originally created, or whether there were an Adam and Eve who lived to be 900, or whether Jesus existed, or whether there was a flood that covered the world and one man happened to put all the animals (except the fish, frogs, etc.) in a large boat, etc.

Of course, there are a lot of areas where Christianity can be proven wrong. Christians can then fall into claiming those particular Biblical passages were symbolic or metaphorical.

[Unregistered]

As mentioned above, I am from Kansas. I have always been amazed by science. From the time I was five I have told my parents that I wanted to be a scientist. I was in high school at the height of the creation v. evolution debate. As such, my high school biology teacher was afraid to teach anything of the sort. We skipped whole chapters of the text to keep from mentioning evolution. I am now finishing my senior year at KU. I was shocked when my freshman principles of bio teacher taught for three weeks on the evolution of the world and how one cell engulfed another and that is where organelles come from. And by the way, this is a pretty good theory as mitochondrial DNA and chloroplast DNA all belong in amongst the bacteria. I felt behind my class because I had never heard of this before. I am a pretty well educated person but I feel as though this debate itself has hindered my education, for, had I not gone into the field of biology I never would have been exposed to evolution in an academic setting. I do not fault my teacher. He was and still is one of my favorite teachers. He was caught in a battle that was bigger than him.

P.S. I am a firm Christian and I do teach Sunday school at my local church and I believe evolution should be taught in schools!

[xleo]

Apes?

How can humans be apes? I mean, don't tell me that I don't know evolution. I've been taught evolution(since Junior high) and all I heard from my professor in Sac State is natural selection somehow did the trick. I mean where is the proof. Just telling me that we, humans came from apes is a none sense. And don't tell me, "Our fossil records" prove that we have evolved from apes. "Yes boys and girls, we have evolved from apes" funny!!! lol

Science is NOT evolution. Evolution is an RELIGION. What does Science has to to with evolution??? Don't get me wrong, I love science. Tell me, what does Budwiser beer has to do with athletes? It's has nothing to do with athletes, but we see it all the time while watching super ball, basketball, etc... Same thing with evolution, it has nothing to do with science. It's pure Religion and it's supported by our government. Way to go congress! NOT.

If you believe in evolution, you have to believe that there is no God and you have to believe that you somehow evolved from a rock(There is not even a shred of evidence for the theory of evolution. Not even the "fossil record". Actually, fossil record proves that there was a world wide flood. (Google it if you need more info on that.)

If I can have a brave fellow to answer these questions???
Q1 CAN MATTER BE CREATED OR DESTROYED?
Q2 Where did all the laws of physics came from?


I have a lot more questions to ask, but these are the ones that my professors denied to answer.

Now, we need to define few things here. Both, Creation and Evolution are religions, but it's easier to believe that God created beautiful world and everything that's included. Now, if you want to believe that humans(including You) came from a rock, ape, neanderthal and etc, be my guest. Also some of you seriously need to get out to 'Nature' little bit, so you can see/explore how everything is designed.

Remember ONE thing in your mind, Our kids are being indoctrinated in our schools. One thing I want to mention, my professor would always say that humans are animals and there is no point in living, and etc... I could see some people in the class would take that seriously. These kind of things push young kids to commit suicide. I don't know what the suicide rate is, but it's increasing every second here in US. Where you think "Emo" came from? It's all devils plan to kill young teenagers. On the other hand, Jesus Son of God has a purpose for everyone. Also remember devil hates us, humans because we're an image of God.

By the way, Darwin himself said, evolution couldn't have happened. I don't know where exactly it's written in his book... I'll need some research on that.

DON'T READ BELOW. It gets more offensive.

Now, read this: Computer has evolved from Palm computer. Yes boys and girls it's been proven. They're are 97% identical and our fossil record prove that. NO, NO, NO... Computer hasn't been evolved from anything. It was designed and created. Computer design shows the patterns of creation. There is CPU(Processor), RAM, GPU etc... and they have their own functions. And its creators are outside of it. Creators are not dependent on what they create. Same thing with us(humans) we have organs which have specific functions and they show signs of creation.

Just open your minds little bit to be able to think critically, and don't just trust professor/teachers. You as an unique human being have your rights to explore facts. Professors are just doing their jobs. They're being paid for what they're doing.

BTW there is a great movie called "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed."

Don't just trust them(Professors/Teachers). SEEK THE TRUTH.

PS: For the guy from Kansas, You have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution is dangerous for our kids. Did you know that Hitler applied Darwinism in his plans and actions? Think about it...

[Unregistered]

Sure, xleo doesn't look like a fanatic or anything. Rational, reasonable people regularly use all-capital letters to make their point.

[Unregistered]

I have skimmed through much of this discussion and I just have to laugh. There is something very important to keep in mind. Science is and should continue to be a quest for the truth. There is a disservice being done to the field of science when we allow opposition to religion to block the truth. It is fine to support a theory that one feels strongly in but it is not fine to pretend that at its basis there is enough to warrant it being categorized as anything more than just a theory. We can go round and round but the fact still remains that Darwinian Theory has a plethora of flaws. Beginning with, "the beginning". Take for instance the flagellum. This bacterium has many parts and works like a machine. One part on its own however, renders it useless. In order for it to evolve, it would need to survive and evolve without all of its parts working together (evolving 1 part at a time). Coinciding with this theory, any part not beneficial to an organism will deem it unfit and consequently it will die. How could flagella possibly evolve? They couldn't. The only way that their existence could be explained is if they didn't evolve but rather they were "designed". This is one of the many examples that support that evolution is flawed. How could the first proteins have been formed without DNA? Impossible. The instructions for protein synthesis would have had to have been present and arranged perfectly. Many professors from top Universities around the world who have written "great works" to support Darwinian theory have stepped down from their support of this theory and are now "coming out of the closet" and admitting that they too have a problem with what they have written in regard to the evolution theory. For those of you who don't know, there is a field of science that fills in the gaps where evolution can't. It is called creation science. Yes science. My guess is that those who say it is all a religion haven't done the research. I recommend that if you fall into this category and aren't "in the know" that you do some investigating. In the field of science it is very important to remember that it is always necessary to investigate both sides and always seek the truth at all times. We should also be aware of those who will lie to protect their viewpoints. For example, in a high school text book that I use to teach my class, Haeckel is noted as "fudging" drawings of embryos of different species that appear to be similar thus supporting the evolution theory. He attempted to make them look more similar than they really are. And this is still worthy of being printed in a modern day science textbook? We all know that this "evidence" is still used to support the theory today. Is truth really the goal of the scientific community? Isn't it interesting how in society we are more than happy to be accepting of everyone and everything which we call being politically correct, but we will be the first to close the door on theories based on a creator. I find it very interesting but none of this surprises me however. This is how it is all supposed to play out for...It is written.

[Unregistered]

Check out answersradio.org and give Ken Ham a listen if you have the courage to challenge evolutionism.

[xleo]

For those of you who think bible is just a book that's not worthy of reading, check this video... It shows how bible is scientifically accurate.

http://www.thefirmament.org/


PS: If you strongly oppose bible, be aware that this will change your mind.

Leo

[Unregistered]

I have skimmed through much of this discussion and I just have to laugh. There is something very important to keep in mind. Science is and should continue to be a quest for the truth. There is a disservice being done to the field of science when we allow opposition to religion to block the truth. It is fine to support a theory that one feels strongly in but it is not fine to pretend that at its basis there is enough to warrant it being categorized as anything more than just a theory. We can go round and round but the fact still remains that Darwinian Theory has a plethora of flaws. Beginning with, "the beginning". Take for instance the flagellum. This bacterium has many parts and works like a machine. One part on its own however, renders it useless. In order for it to evolve, it would need to survive and evolve without all of its parts working together (evolving 1 part at a time). Coinciding with this theory, any part not beneficial to an organism will deem it unfit and consequently it will die. How could flagella possibly evolve? They couldn't. The only way that their existence could be explained is if they didn't evolve but rather they were "designed". This is one of the many examples that support that evolution is flawed. How could the first proteins have been formed without DNA? Impossible. The instructions for protein synthesis would have had to have been present and arranged perfectly. Many professors from top Universities around the world who have written "great works" to support Darwinian theory have stepped down from their support of this theory and are now "coming out of the closet" and admitting that they too have a problem with what they have written in regard to the evolution theory. For those of you who don't know, there is a field of science that fills in the gaps where evolution can't. It is called creation science. Yes science. My guess is that those who say it is all a religion haven't done the research. I recommend that if you fall into this category and aren't "in the know" that you do some investigating. In the field of science it is very important to remember that it is always necessary to investigate both sides and always seek the truth at all times. We should also be aware of those who will lie to protect their viewpoints. For example, in a high school text book that I use to teach my class, Haeckel is noted as "fudging" drawings of embryos of different species that appear to be similar thus supporting the evolution theory. He attempted to make them look more similar than they really are. And this is still worthy of being printed in a modern day science textbook? We all know that this "evidence" is still used to support the theory today. Is truth really the goal of the scientific community? Isn't it interesting how in society we are more than happy to be accepting of everyone and everything which we call being politically correct, but we will be the first to close the door on theories based on a creator. I find it very interesting but none of this surprises me however. This is how it is all supposed to play out for...It is written.

The bacterial flagellum argument is seriously flawed. It presumes only one use for a structure, when structures can go through a number of different uses. Like those who used to claim an unfinished eye is useless, when an eye that senses only light gradients is far more useful than no eye at all.

Creation science is not science at all. But I'm willing to listen. Present your overview as to why it's science.

[Unregistered]

For those of you who think bible is just a book that's not worthy of reading, check this video... It shows how bible is scientifically accurate.

PS: If you strongly oppose bible, be aware that this will change your mind.

Leo

I very much hope your job isn't teaching critical reasoning skills. This shouldn't change the mind of a jr. high student.

It's numerology. You do recall the Bible Code being debunked by someone using Moby **************** in the same manner, right?

[xleo]

I very much hope your job isn't teaching critical reasoning skills. This shouldn't change the mind of a jr. high student.

It's numerology. You do recall the Bible Code being debunked by someone using Moby **************** in the same manner, right?


In my opinion that was the way to get my message right.

I apologize if it hurt you anyway.

[Unregistered]

Wow, this thread is unbelievable. Someone actually said evolution was crazy because if it were too, we should have the appearance of monkeys (?!)

I hope you're an Art teacher or something where you can't give the children brain damage by speaking about this. Before you criticize it evolution, wouldn't you be better off to actually research it? Rational thought is a prerequisite for being a teacher and if you aren't capable of it, then you shouldn't be one. I suppose if you were capable of rational thought, you wouldn't believe in "god" either :P

[Unregistered]

In my opinion that was the way to get my message right.

I apologize if it hurt you anyway.

Don't be ludicrous. Your believing an intangible, all-powerful being who made vast quantities of space but is only interested in one small planet, who takes an active interest in the lives of a particular species on that planet and especially the sex lives of those creatures, is unbounded by space and time, who has set up a byzantine structure of extra dimensions for punishment and reward, and who wants everyone to believe in him but doesn't want to give any solid evidence for his existence, based on a few numbers derived from strained interpretations of text in an ancient book, doesn't hurt me a bit.

Your "apology", of course, is rather snide. I would apologize to you, for questioning your reason faculties, but I can't. Because it's important for anyone you might convince to have some idea how bad the reasoning really is.

[MisterBachler]

I very much hope your job isn't teaching critical reasoning skills. This shouldn't change the mind of a jr. high student.

It's numerology. You do recall the Bible Code being debunked by someone using Moby **************** in the same manner, right?


Please dont feed the troll. The whole creationismvs evolution argument is doomed form teh start as you are inherently dealign with people that cannot grasp the difference between reality and fantasy. Noone ever told them that jesus is just a story we tell kids until they are old enough to accept that magic doesnt exist.

[Unregistered]

Sometimes we forget that evolution is simply a theory and only as good as its founder. Many argue creationism is based on religion yet it could be argued that evolution is based on the same but as a lack of. I don't believe in evolution never have. I see too many wonders around me every day and studing science just reinforces my belief in creationism.
If we are to teach evolution then we should also teach creationism because we want our children have a more well rounded education to be able to weigh all sides of an issue and decide for themselves. Isn't that what education is about? As educators we should also teach and instruct impartialy without bias in the studies we present. So when people choose to to exclude creationism they are discriminating and taking sides that as educators should never done. Good grief even the Creator himself allows free will shouldn't everyone else.
Many years later I still remember being taught evolution in 7th grade. I failed the course because my beliefs would not allow me to agree with the teacher and the curriculum. The whole class and teacher harrassed me for days, weeks and on the final I was told be everyone in the class to simply admit that Darwin was correct, evolution was right, etc. Details are vague but I do remember thinking why should I have to compromise my beliefs in order to pass a test. All I had to do was write one sentence and mark 'true' on one mutiple choice question but to have done so I would have compromised everything I had learned in life, all that I held dear and knew within me to be true. I refused to do it, so I was failed for the entire course.
Theories are just that, and evolution is just a theory created by a flawed and imperfect man who had some major issues with himself. Creationism is based on my knowledge of a perfect creator, without flaw, without imperfections - some may say its a theory that is ok with me, because it is my right to decide to believe or not. As should be every other student's in the public school system. We shouldn't take that right away.

[Unregistered]

okay so i've read a couple of the reply's and i notice that most of u are not students therefore most likely would not know what they teach in schools today.

i go to school in new york. teachers do not teach evolution as a theroy they teach evolution as a fact. to force their beliefs that evolution is an actual fact on students isnt right. i believe it is the same thing as teaching religious beliefs in school and should be banned or atleast censored the same way religion is censored in school. a teacher isnt even allowed to discuss religion in class unless it is in history i.e. confucious, christianity in europe so on and so on.

but teachers are allowed to teach students that we evolved from apes monkey's or any other animal. i don't believe this is fair and i think this should be looked into more closely. the theory of evolution is exactly that. a theory and should be taught as such.

oh and there are also scientific evidence that religious events has happened and could have happened in history.

[Unregistered]

okay so i've read a couple of the reply's and i notice that most of u are not students therefore most likely would not know what they teach in schools today.


I find it hard to believe that you're paying attention sufficiently to know what they're teaching in schools today, either. Unless they've stopped teaching spelling, punctuation, and grammar, in addition to failing to teach the distinction between the scientific term "theory" and the non-scientific use of the word.

And sure, "religious events has [sic] happened". In fact, there were thousands of church masses this past Sunday. Evolution makes no claim about these events.

[Not Confused]

I heard about creation, and then i heard about evolution. I then set out to find out the truth.

The point is, that every person believing in a powerful source, that directs life from the birth of its universe to the dying of it, is in my opinion a creationist(whether Christian or not), believing in an almighty force having created something and probably driving it to its end.(as the ecological/universal trends today suggest)
The rest, not from the above category are unsure therefore non committal, and vying for the only other explanation available, evolution, which in itself offers no proof, nor substantial reason.

Science is not a theory. Its a discovery. Evolution is a theory, therefore it would be prudent to teach both creationism and evolution each in its own context, in order to give the learner an opportunity to draw his/ her own conclusion.
It is this choice that propelled me to open mindedly search for a formidable answer with regards to science and religion. I wondered if any religion's holy book was bound with any proof of scientific discoveries founded in our era.

You may be surprised to hear that i found such proof in the holy book of the Muslims, in the Quran.
This book mentions that the different seas and oceans meet but dont overlap. It mentions mountains placed as the pegs of the earth. It mentions an age that would resound with natural disasters very frequent and largely disastrous. it mentions so many of todays scientific discoveries, in addition to so many other answers that completed the puzzle for me. All because of my unbiased quest to seek the truth.

I have proof now, and have acknowledged the sense of one Almighty power in the creation of the universe and its contents, guiding, sustaining, and steering it towards its destination. I suggest you check this book to draw your own conclusions, i've reached mine.

[Unregistered]

I heard about creation, and then i heard about evolution. I then set out to find out the truth.

The point is, that every person believing in a powerful source, that directs life from the birth of its universe to the dying of it, is in my opinion a creationist(whether Christian or not), believing in an almighty force having created something and probably driving it to its end.(as the ecological/universal trends today suggest)
The rest, not from the above category are unsure therefore non committal, and vying for the only other explanation available, evolution, which in itself offers no proof, nor substantial reason.

Science is not a theory. Its a discovery. Evolution is a theory, therefore it would be prudent to teach both creationism and evolution each in its own context, in order to give the learner an opportunity to draw his/ her own conclusion.
It is this choice that propelled me to open mindedly search for a formidable answer with regards to science and religion. I wondered if any religion's holy book was bound with any proof of scientific discoveries founded in our era.

You may be surprised to hear that i found such proof in the holy book of the Muslims, in the Quran.
This book mentions that the different seas and oceans meet but dont overlap. It mentions mountains placed as the pegs of the earth. It mentions an age that would resound with natural disasters very frequent and largely disastrous. it mentions so many of todays scientific discoveries, in addition to so many other answers that completed the puzzle for me. All because of my unbiased quest to seek the truth.

I have proof now, and have acknowledged the sense of one Almighty power in the creation of the universe and its contents, guiding, sustaining, and steering it towards its destination. I suggest you check this book to draw your own conclusions, i've reached mine.

I've heard of the supposed science found in the Quran, but not found any of it very convincing. Your examples are particularly unconvincing. What makes you think the oceans don't overlap? They mix continually. Mountains are not pegs of the earth, and it's not very predictive to say there will be an age with a lot of disasters. Even the earth being the shape of an ostrich egg argument is more persuasive (though, if you look at the earth, it's not very close to the shape of an ostrich egg).

Many of the examples from the Quran are also deceptive translations or make use of phrases that are interpretable in multiple ways.

As for general errors in the Quran, take this one from Surah 20:71:

20:71 (Pharaoh) said: Ye put faith in him before I give you leave. Lo! he is your chief who taught you magic. Now surely I shall cut off your hands and your feet alternately, and I shall crucify you on the trunks of palm trees,

Wondering what's wrong with it? At the time of the pharaohs, crucifiction was unknown, as it was invented by the Romans.

That you note that evolution is a "theory" discredits your entire argument unless you make it very clear that you know what the word means.

[Unregistered]

The bacterial flagellum argument is seriously flawed. It presumes only one use for a structure, when structures can go through a number of different uses. Like those who used to claim an unfinished eye is useless, when an eye that senses only light gradients is far more useful than no eye at all.

Creation science is not science at all. But I'm willing to listen. Present your overview as to why it's science.

Sorry for the late reply. I think that "use" might be a convenient "out". Use and being functional are 2 different things. Natural selection would not allow for non functioning parts to survive. The individual parts would not be operational without all working as a system. The flaws lie within the evolutionary theory itself. It is not debatable that creationists and evolutionists agree that natural selection occurs but where the 2 theories don't align is in the DNA. Any changes that have occurred over time have been due to mutations, change in genetic variability, environment and location. Any changes that have occurred have not done so due to an addition of information but rather a loss of information. In order for one organism to "evolve" into another species there would have to be an addition of information. We should also not negate the fact that Darwin based his theory on "old science". Now we have the ability to see inside the cell and view the intricate structures. By examining the cell, we can now see how without already assembled DNA life couldn't exist. A random assemblage of nucleotides is impossible. According to Darwin, different "races" evolved at different times and rates suggesting that all humans were not created equal when in actuality the genetic difference among "races" (people groups) accounts for .01%. Let us not forget the full title of Darwin's book, "Origin of Species, The Preservation of favoured races in the Struggle for Life." The implication of this theory is a scary one. As soon as one believes that human beings have evolved from creatures of lesser intelligence, it is an easy connection to assume that some people groups are more evolved than others. This of course was part of the seed for tragic events such as eugenics (elimination of people viewed as inferior due to mental or physical impairments) as well as the holocaust, and of course slavery. Perhaps this is less "scary" to evolutionists than the implications of being a believer in God's creation. See Bible reference Romans 1:20.

[Unregistered]

Let me start by saying I believe you're earnest. That said, you're laboring under some rather spectacular misconceptions. I'm not a biologist, but I read enough to be able to respond. If you doubt my responses here, contact a few biologists and ask their opinion.

To a certain extent, this is going to look like a fisking. Sorry about that. I just want to try to hit each point, as you do pack a lot into a paragraph.

Use and being functional are 2 different things.

If something has a use, is it not functional for that use? Take, for example, a paperclip -- you could bend one prong to allow it to serve as a tool to probe into keyholes (I won't suggest lockpicking -- perhaps to clean them of gum or something). But that doesn't mean that if you don't bend it, the paperclip is nonfunctional. It functions as a paper clip. Behe admitted the point in the Dover trial. And, if you look at youtube for "bacterial flagellum" you can find a number of videos describing the functional steps the bacterial flagellum could have gone through to reach its eventual state. These videos are interesting, not particularly long, and accessible to those with a high school understanding of biology.

Natural selection would not allow for non functioning parts to survive.

I don't know that this is true. If a part isn't actually detrimental to an organism, there's no reason to think it wouldn't survive quite some time. Moreover, it's a matter of some debate how rapid evolution actually is, so it could be that the non-functioning part would be around for quite some time even if it *was* detrimental (so long as it wasn't cripplingly so).


Any changes that have occurred over time have been due to mutations, change in genetic variability, environment and location. Any changes that have occurred have not done so due to an addition of information but rather a loss of information. In order for one organism to "evolve" into another species there would have to be an addition of information.

I pretty much agree with your first sentence. I'm not sure why you think an addition of information is required to create a new species. The argument sounds a bit like the argument that evolution doesn't ever add information and thus cannot drive growth in complexity, but this is different from saying it can't lead to speciation. However, it is not true that there is no addition of information. Many mutations involve addition of information. It's true that the spectacular additions also tend to be spectacularly maladaptive from what we can tell -- no one argues that trisomy 21 or Klinefelter's syndrome is the next step in evolution. However, this ignores many much smaller changes that can be successful.


We should also not negate the fact that Darwin based his theory on "old science". Now we have the ability to see inside the cell and view the intricate structures. By examining the cell, we can now see how without already assembled DNA life couldn't exist. A random assemblage of nucleotides is impossible.

And I think you'll find that evolutionary scientists agree wih you on a lot of this as well. It's only creationists who still call it "Darwinism". Science is meant to be revised. However, your assertion that without pre-assembled DNA life couldn't exist is a bit questionable. First, there's the possibility of DNA precursors such as RNA. Second, you're assuming that replication must have started with cells. I don't think this is necessarily warranted. As far as a "random assemblage" of nucleotides being impossible, I think what you mean is not that it's not possible (heck, give me a blender and a bunch of nucleotides, and I'll give you a random assemblage in thirty seconds), but that such a random assemblage wouldn't support life. You're probably right about this, but that's not what evolution claims. Most random assemblages probably indeed wouldn't support life, but there are some pretty good arguments about the statistics being far different from what creationists claim.

According to Darwin, different "races" evolved at different times and rates suggesting that all humans were not created equal when in actuality the genetic difference among "races" (people groups) accounts for .01%. Let us not forget the full title of Darwin's book, "Origin of Species, The Preservation of favoured races in the Struggle for Life." The implication of this theory is a scary one. As soon as one believes that human beings have evolved from creatures of lesser intelligence, it is an easy connection to assume that some people groups are more evolved than others. This of course was part of the seed for tragic events such as eugenics (elimination of people viewed as inferior due to mental or physical impairments) as well as the holocaust, and of course slavery. Perhaps this is less "scary" to evolutionists than the implications of being a believer in God's creation. See Bible reference Romans 1:20.

*sigh*

Evolution was made a theory in 1859. It's ludicrous to try to blame it for slavery, which pre-dates it by thousands of years. One can't even blame Christianity for a "seed" of slavery: in fact, one can't even blame racism, since slavery almost certainly started within the same race. Similarly, practices of eugenics were going on long, long before Darwin. The Manchurians have believed they're superior to the Han Chinese for centuries, without any reliance at all on evolution. "Noble blood" and all that is hardly a rare sentiment in human history -- and I believe as much of it has been inspired by theology as hematology, with the "divine birth" of emperor-kings and the idea of a "chosen people".

[Unregistered]

Evolution does not do a good eneough job (to me) explaining how the beings that we evolved from got here. To me it only makes sense that anything here on earth has a creator. No one would accept the argument that a model of the solar system in my classroom, just appeared or evolved from a globe I had setting there. Everything comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is God, when we are talking about the universe and all living things.






I am a college student at a well known university and was looking over the replies that you've received. I am currently writting an english paper on the same topic except I am reseaching it from which should be taught in the public school system. I completely think 100% that evolution is what should be taught to children. I think that creationism is a way for religious individuals to get there views into the public. Don't get me worry, I think religion is important but not in the science class room.

[Unregistered]

Evolution does not do a good eneough job (to me) explaining how the beings that we evolved from got here. To me it only makes sense that anything here on earth has a creator. No one would accept the argument that a model of the solar system in my classroom, just appeared or evolved from a globe I had setting there. Everything comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is God, when we are talking about the universe and all living things.

Okay, it sounds like you accept evolution and are questioning explanations for the genesis of life. Keep in mind the two are separate. Evolution is silent on the origin of life, and the field is a bit speculative.

As for what "anyone would accept", keep in mind that not long ago no one would have accepted the idea of tiny microorganisms causing disease. Certainly they would not have accepted that solid objects are made of atoms that are mostly empty space.

The issue, though, isn't what you're skeptical of, it's with what you've accepted as an "explanation". God doesn't actually explain anything in any meaningful sense. Why not a committee of gods? Where does this god live? Is it even "alive" in the same sense we talk about biological creatures? Where did this deity come from? Why did it create a universe?

There are no scientific answers to any of these, and a god thus has the same explanatory power as saying "poof! It just happened" (which is none at all). Even if there were a god who created everything, we're not going to find evidence of god in a scientific manner; we would find evidence of the method.

[Liane]

This is such a great topic. It reminds me of something my Junior College Biology teacher told us once.

One summer, he taught a biology class to a group of, shall we say, "very religious" young Christians.. Anyway, evolution was one of the first topics discussed. As soon as he mentioned it, some girl shouted out, "what, are you gonna tell us that some monkey fell out of a tree and became a human?" He said the class average that summer was 34/100.

I think it's great that people have strong beliefs, that they are spiritual... But it's sad when people don't question; when they don't look at everything around them and make informed decisions. If someone looks around their world and reads about Darwin and still can explain why they believe in creationism over evolution, then they are creating intelligent ideas. But people who take others' ideas as their own without any type of research (personal or formal) do not have much to offer to others. Except close-mindedness.

Anyway, who here has studied any psychology? Isn't there some stage in life where kids just believe EVERYTHING they are told? If some 20 or 30-year old still believes everything they are told, aren't they just a little... umm....handicapped?

[Unregistered]

Down through the history of evolution all things changed animals plants and birds ( science today believe the pre-historic inhabitants changed in todays birds ) being that the case....science believes based on minute fragments of bones that man evolved from chimps or apes..Man evolved from monkeys than why are their still apes and monkeys around today..if man evolved from them they would not be here today....

[Unregistered]

Down through the history of evolution all things changed animals plants and birds ( science today believe the pre-historic inhabitants changed in todays birds ) being that the case....science believes based on minute fragments of bones that man evolved from chimps or apes..Man evolved from monkeys than why are their still apes and monkeys around today..if man evolved from them they would not be here today....

Even Answers in Genesis lists this as an argument that should not be used.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

[Unregistered]

I am still amazed at how many people, including the teaching community, are still buying into the false teachings that somewhere written into our constitution is the 'separation of church and state'. The only mention of this term was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It has for years been taken out of context. Jefferson was trying to explain how government had no business in dictating church affairs. But conveniently since, those wanting absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or wanting it removed from society altogether, have for decades convinced the gulible population that it IS written into law. I recommend you re-read the constitution. As for Creationism/Evolution...one question. If we have 'evolved' from apes and other species have done so then why are we not 'evolving' today or even for the past century for that matter? Why are there still apes among us? Were the only apes to evolve ones with a certain IQ? Ah, the ignorance!

[Unregistered]

I am still amazed at how many people, including the teaching community, are still buying into the false teachings that somewhere written into our constitution is the 'separation of church and state'. The only mention of this term was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It has for years been taken out of context. Jefferson was trying to explain how government had no business in dictating church affairs. But conveniently since, those wanting absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or wanting it removed from society altogether, have for decades convinced the gulible population that it IS written into law. I recommend you re-read the constitution. As for Creationism/Evolution...one question. If we have 'evolved' from apes and other species have done so then why are we not 'evolving' today or even for the past century for that matter? Why are there still apes among us? Were the only apes to evolve ones with a certain IQ? Ah, the ignorance!

Jefferson was describing the Constitution and how it sets up a wall of separation. For the government to start teaching creationism WOULD be dictating church affairs and would be forcing people to support a religious institution through taxes. That the actual phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution itself is a terrible argument.

We are evolving today. And I've just given a link showing even hardcore creationists don't think the "Why are there still apes?" argument is a good one.

Ignorance? Yes, there's a lot of ignorance. Starting with you.

[Unregistered]

My take on the whole debate is simple. No, creationism should not be taught in school. Why? because as a science evolution falls under a basic rule of thumb. You can disprove it. You dig up a T-Rex and find a iPhone in it's claws.... Houston we have a problem! Basically it goes this way. Evolution can be 'proven' or 'dis-proven' unlike creationism. Yes there are holes in the Theory, yes we have tons of questions, but when we find a new piece to the puzzle it fits. Some theories are not 'neat' and 'clean' and evolution is one of them. So is Gravity. Still haven't found that Graviton have we? Gravity is a 'theory' yet not too many people out there trying to disprove it. Creationism is too closely related to faith. You can not prove or disprove God. You have to have Faith. Intelligent Design isn't so intelligent. All it says it "Well it's complicated... so it must have a creator". Yet if we were designed why was it done so sloppy? I wear glasses, I'm a diabetic, I'm bald! Why design a bald blind diabetic??? I could use ultra violet vision. Insects have it, why don't we? Four arms would be better than my two, why did I get short changed? Evolution does not disprove God. Nothing can, nor will. But the best argument against creationism is "4 pm last Thursday", that is when the Earth was created. Crazy? Disprove it. Oh but you remember before last Thursday? God gave you those memories. You see where this is going? It's Faith, don't cheapen it by trying to prove it.

[Unregistered]

Evolution/Creationism--Each is based upon antithetical foundations. The foundation for the creationist point of view is unswerving faith that the Bible is the infallible, authoritative Word of God. The foundation for the evolutionist point of view is built upon observations, testable hypotheses and is subject to refutation. The view on evolution, as it is for all of science, is that it is constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence emerges. This is not a weakness of uncertainty but a strength of self-correctability. The major differences between the two points of view is that one is based on faith and not subject to scientific test and refutation and the other one relies on scientific testing and is always subject to refutation. Therefore, creationism should not be taught in a science classroom.

Evolution is science. Science involves asking questions and not accepting anything at first glimpse or on faith. Science is based on observations set in a testable framework of ideas. Scientific inquiry into origins is guided by theory, which is a logical construct of facts that attempts to explain observations.

The premises of creationism which require one to accept them on faith goes against the nature of scientists, who by nature are always asking questions. Creationists ignore 200 years of scientific work in genetics, geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and comparative physiology. I guess I can sum up my reaction to creationism in the words of Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera, when in "The Music of The Night" he says:

Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth.
And the truth isn't what you want to see.
In the dark it is easy to pretend
That the truth is what it ought to be.

[Liane]

My take on the whole debate is simple. No, creationism should not be taught in school. Why? because as a science evolution falls under a basic rule of thumb. You can disprove it. You dig up a T-Rex and find a iPhone in it's claws.... Houston we have a problem! Basically it goes this way. Evolution can be 'proven' or 'dis-proven' unlike creationism. Yes there are holes in the Theory, yes we have tons of questions, but when we find a new piece to the puzzle it fits. Some theories are not 'neat' and 'clean' and evolution is one of them. So is Gravity. Still haven't found that Graviton have we? Gravity is a 'theory' yet not too many people out there trying to disprove it. Creationism is too closely related to faith. You can not prove or disprove God. You have to have Faith. Intelligent Design isn't so intelligent. All it says it "Well it's complicated... so it must have a creator". Yet if we were designed why was it done so sloppy? I wear glasses, I'm a diabetic, I'm bald! Why design a bald blind diabetic??? I could use ultra violet vision. Insects have it, why don't we? Four arms would be better than my two, why did I get short changed? Evolution does not disprove God. Nothing can, nor will. But the best argument against creationism is "4 pm last Thursday", that is when the Earth was created. Crazy? Disprove it. Oh but you remember before last Thursday? God gave you those memories. You see where this is going? It's Faith, don't cheapen it by trying to prove it.
I love your answer. What it comes down to, in my opinion, is this: people on both sides of this argument can ALWAYS find proof that agrees with them. Unfortunately, it doesn't always seem to agree with the side they're contesting...;)

[Unregistered]

read my blog about evolution-myspace.com/fortwaynesux -enjoy

[Unregistered]

I think Evolution is crazy and should be talked about in school.

God created heaven and earth and he created man in his image so if we evolved from an animal how can god of created us in his image unless he looked like a monkey himself?

Goodness if I look in the mirror at my outer image I rather hope he looks like the one within me. The things he has created within me and the changes to my thoughts and ways have been both creation and evolution. He is almighty and can create, make pattern and evolve whatever he wishes, however he wishes without your, or my approval, wishes ar belief systems. Believe what you wish at your leisure and leave the rest to him. why on earth we cannot tolerate one another for the ways our thoughts and belief systems defies the very principle of love. If we are discussing these things patiently and with Godly care and consideration with the view to gaining or sharing greater understanding so that our minds can become enlightened then it is certainly worthwhile. When we as educators set the example so that learners can follow us a more perfect path of love and tolerance for our differences then perhaps God can use us to create and evolve a more tolerable environment for all. For those that are creationists, teach love, tolerance and understanding, for those that are evolutionists or both teach the same thing and label it differently if you wish. We are educators and learners often follow our hidden cirriculum whether we like it or not.
If God created evolution or not, he could have if he so wished our religious fearful fundamentalist or faith filled tolerance levels won't change that. Why not shed light on the subject or do we fear it and prefer darkness. Is the whole truth not better than some truth?
The bottom line is I strongly agree that God is capable of creating in whatever manner he wishes including evolution or patterning. Think of the intricate dna structures that he created out of the dust and breathed life into it to form man. Pretty awesome. He breathed into my ear and I became a new man...mmm...an inner being formed in the light of the glorious gospel seems to be pretty feasible if you are willing to follow that train of thought.
Inner, outer, surely he has no limits except my own hardened hearts...perhaps he could soften all of our hearts if he so wished.

Lovely topic.

Steven Parkes

[Unregistered]

No argument there, but I don't claim to speak for a religion, just for myself. I hope you don't speak for a religion, because your "I know you are but what am I?" response is unworthy of even the most backwards religion. I don't claim humility but I am broad-minded. Being broad-minded does not mean giving credence to hackneyed doctrines. The arguments in favor of scrapping reason for doctrine stated here need not be tolerated by thoughtful people. Tolerance means I allow you to go to church and believe whatever you want without persecuting you. It does not mean I sit still while you enforce your silly thoughts on our education system. If you find me arrogant and insulting, that's fine with me. I find your ilk dangerous to freedom of thought and a threat to the pursuit of knowledge.

Your response gratifies all those who find your preaching the essence of hypocrisy by proving once again that "love your enemy" is just lip service because your "faith" is really about oppression and a return to Dark Ages theocracy that can only flourish in the midst of massive ignorance.

Perhaps one could consider that there are some doctrines who scrap reason, an enlightened mind and tolerance. At the same time this may not be true for all doctrine. Perhaps thes doctines are twisted or segmented versions of a more perfect one that may be unpallatible to some and not suit the purpose of others. Hence those whose light is darkness and how great is that darkness. Give them time, some of them come around and follow the true light that encompasses all wisdom and knowledge. Perhaps you and I and some others may know and understand all things at some stage but untill than lets no longer oppress one another. If God is patient with us, perhaps we can be patient with one another.
"Love your enemy," my only enemies are the thoughts in my mind that deny me of that which God wants for me. "Principalities and powers of darkness" in the highest places of my mind.
Isn't it strange that we profess hate and intolerance in the name of Love? Is that not using the Lords name in vain?
It seems that young religious fanatics (excuse the term) have their ears fall off and they grow new ones that in time hear only the things that they wish to hear. Fortunately some of us begin to slowly become less hard of hearing every time we bump our heads. Perhaps that is why wisdom comes from suffering.
Don't give up on religion or doctine for the sake of those that twist it or tear suitable pieces off it, not all doctrine is all bad and if you wish to look hard enough you may find that some doctrine/s is/are good and perhaps even put there in the minds of some men/women by God. you might even find that the very idea of opening matters up for proper investigation is also driven by some form of indoctrination in the name of not being indoctrinated.
Nevertheless, light comes from light and you can shine light upon a subject but try as you will you cannot shine darkness upon anything. Wouldn't that be an interesting science experiment? Make a darkness torch...mmm...Nah! I don't think so. Darkness runs from light and hides under the furniture Hah hah.
Lots of Love.
Steven Parkes

[Unregistered]

I read somewhere in the New Testament that a lot of people will one day stand and condemn the Bible as false and would do so with complete conviction...and it was also written that to "others" the message of Christ is foolishness, but to the saved it is what gives life...I just hope that after all your arguments...you'll be able to try having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...I tell you...all the science in the world cannot take away from me the fact that I have experienced His goodness and love in my life. American society is falling apart as we all know because we have gone away from the truths of the Bible...I hope you will give it a try to truly know Christ!

[Unregistered]

I read somewhere in the New Testament that a lot of people will one day stand and condemn the Bible as false and would do so with complete conviction...and it was also written that to "others" the message of Christ is foolishness, but to the saved it is what gives life...I just hope that after all your arguments...you'll be able to try having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...I tell you...all the science in the world cannot take away from me the fact that I have experienced His goodness and love in my life. American society is falling apart as we all know because we have gone away from the truths of the Bible...I hope you will give it a try to truly know Christ!

Oh, that's a great rationale -- so essentially if I write down that someday someone will disbelieve me, but really, I really am invisible -- then if people later do doubt my statement, does that make my invisibility true because I was right about people doubting me?