Should creationism be taught in schools?

[Everett]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

God and the Astronomers, eh?  I'm not really up on my 80's bands, but I think they broke up a while ago.

I think it was a glam rock band.

[Gabu]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

I'll get the the flat-earth theologians on the line so you can let them know they were right all along.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We have more evidence for general relativity than we have that planes fly. We can therefore take relativity as a fact. We also have pretty good evidence that laws of physics are the same everywhere. In short, I make claims which are backed up by a scientific body of evidence.

I agree that redshift data shows universal expansion. It therefore follows that galaxies must have been closer together in the past.

Scientific theories are NEVER proven. They are only revised or discarded as new evidence comes to light. The big bang theory is consistent with the science we know (except the evidence you cited... I hadn't heard of that).

Now, about that new evidence... we modify the big bang theory with the caveat that perhaps some areas of the young universe were denser than others. This would cause more materials to be distributed in specific directions. We are then consistent again.

You are making a ton of assumptions there.  First of all, the big bang theory doesn't explain why we view galaxies coming towards us at various speeds instead of us speeding up to them.  Secondly, you cannot take the theory of relativity as fact.  We don't even take the theory of gravity as fact, since it is not a constant across the globe.  And as you said, theories are never proven, though I would say they are "rarely" proven.  But in either case, you cannot take a theory as fact without being able to recreate repeatedly.  And since we cannot recreate a big bang, it remains just a theory based on a series of observations and assumptions.  Again, we end up back with faith being involved, which is the same thing which creationists have when it comes to God.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nlm]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

I'll get the the flat-earth theologians on the line so you can let them know they were right all along.

Yes, when Galileo met the theologians there was a definitive right and wrong party. I can think of quite a few other meetings between theologians and astronomers, and none of them seem to back the claim made on page 116 of "God and the Astronomer". A little help here, anybody?

From Geography, to Astronomy, to Microbiology, to Geology, and on, the church has pronounced science that would ultimately be proven correct, incorrect. I wonder when the lack of credibility of the church will finally reach the point of catastrophic failure and people will just stop listening all together.

On a more serious note, the NYT has an interesting piece on Intelligent Design this morning.

____________________________________________________________

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 4, 2005

To read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design. At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world. President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project."

Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith. The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy.

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

....

more at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html

[MODU]

We do reproduce it in particle accelerators. I think we can get energy densities comparable to those seen in the universe when it was 10^-12 seconds old. This experimentation ensures that the big bang theory is consistent with experimental observations up to a certain point.

"comparable to those seen in the universe..." Again, under assumptions that their guesses of what occurred in the beginning.  And again, you are not responding to the point that we need tons of enternal energy in a particle collider, but the Big Bang theory assumes the energy was internal (and gives no real explanation of how it occurred).  We would have to find an element which can store up such energy in order to "reproduce" the event.  So no, going back to what you said initially, it's not a perfect science.  It will take us hundreds of more years to work out the math and prove some of these theories which are made up to answer the numerous questions the Big Bang theory itself creates.  While that is good for science, it still remains today just a theory, and requires faith to believe that one day the theory might be proven.  It's exactly the same as with religious creationism.  Takes the same amount of faith in something that cannot be seen nor rationalized.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

I'll get the flat-earth theologians on the line so you can let them know they were right all along.

Yeah, that would make a lot of sense IF the guy who wrote that statement was referring to the earth being flat.  But he wasn’t. 

You’re becoming unreasonable in your discussions.  That’s how opedo started to spin out of control.  So be careful.

Let me introduce you to the person who penned the above statement: His name is Dr. Robert Jastrow. 

He is the director of Mount Wilson Observatory. 

He was also founder and director for twenty years of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

He is a world-renowned astrophysicist

He is also an admitted agnostic, so he has no reason to agree with theologians.

[Inverted Things]

We do reproduce it in particle accelerators. I think we can get energy densities comparable to those seen in the universe when it was 10^-12 seconds old. This experimentation ensures that the big bang theory is consistent with experimental observations up to a certain point.

"comparable to those seen in the universe..." Again, under assumptions that their guesses of what occurred in the beginning.  And again, you are not responding to the point that we need tons of enternal energy in a particle collider, but the Big Bang theory assumes the energy was internal (and gives no real explanation of how it occurred).  We would have to find an element which can store up such energy in order to "reproduce" the event.  So no, going back to what you said initially, it's not a perfect science.  It will take us hundreds of more years to work out the math and prove some of these theories which are made up to answer the numerous questions the Big Bang theory itself creates.  While that is good for science, it still remains today just a theory, and requires faith to believe that one day the theory might be proven.  It's exactly the same as with religious creationism.  Takes the same amount of faith in something that cannot be seen nor rationalized.

I keep telling you: you can't prove anything with science. As for the energy, a vast amount of energy is stored in a vacuum, according to quantum mechanics (another theory we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly). We also get that random fluctuations happen from quantum machanics. So, given a large expanse of vacuum, and enough time, there will be a fluctuation which will condense the energy stored into matter, thus beginning a universe.

I'm not arguing that the big bang theory is fact. I'm saying that the big bang theory is consistent with the known science, and it will be revised as necessary as new discoveries are made (or discarded if something major comes up).

[nlm]

I just read some pretty interesting stuff about quantum electrodynamics and zero-point energy that I wouldn't have otherwise been aware of. It's always good to learn something new, so, thanks Yaks Hairbrush for the info that lead me to look that way.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for the energy, a vast amount of energy is stored in a vacuum, according to quantum mechanics (another theory we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly).

And quantum mechanics abides by the Laws of Thermodynamics.  It does NOT violate them.

--

We also get that random fluctuations happen from quantum machanics. So, given a large expanse of vacuum, and enough time, there will be a fluctuation which will condense the energy stored into matter, thus beginning a universe.

1st) “Condensing” vacuum energy into matter is STILL a conservation of energy.  It still stays within the Laws of Thermodynamics.   You’ve simply converted energy into matter.  You have created nothing.

2nd)  Your initial state of a large expanse of vacuum and time, means that you began with energy.  Space can not exist with the presence of energy.

[KillerPollo]

It is also my firm opinion that we should teach that the Earth is on top of a giant duck! Hey! It hasn't be disproven yet! has it?

[nlm]

So Yaks, I'm trying to figure a few things out and get a few things straight in my head.

The natural state of a vacuum is to be filled with zero point energy?

If that is correct, then I'm assuming the current posit is that the zero point energy some how gathered to form the singularity which caused the creation of the universe. Is that correct?

Is there a theory as to how the zero point energy gathered as of now?

Are there any good books (written for laymen) that explain zero point energy that you know of? Are there any that use quantum electrodynamics to help us better understand the big bang theory?

Sorry if I'm asking the wrong person, but you seem to at least have a better understanding of recent advances in physics than I do (which isn't necessarily saying much).

[Inverted Things]

So Yaks, I'm trying to figure a few things out and get a few things straight in my head.

The natural state of a vacuum is to be filled with zero point energy?

If that is correct, then I'm assuming the current posit is that the zero point energy some how gathered to form the singularity which caused the creation of the universe. Is that correct?

Is there a theory as to how the zero point energy gathered as of now?

Are there any good books (written for laymen) that explain zero point energy that you know of? Are there any that use quantum electrodynamics to help us better understand the big bang theory?

Sorry if I'm asking the wrong person, but you seem to at least have a better understanding of recent advances in physics than I do (which isn't necessarily saying much).

Hmmm... the general idea of vacuum energy is that given any "empty" area of space, there are still subatomic particles which are constantly popping in and out of existence.

In terms of good literature to facilitate understanding, a subscription to Scientific American is probably the best place to start. If you're really interested, go to a Barnes & Noble and check out the science section. Just look for interesting titles and read the first few chapters of them while in the store. Buy them if you like what you see.

I'm not an expert by any means; I did get a physics major, and I do enjoy reading these sorts of things. I have no intention of picking up an advanced degree is this sort of stuff.

[Inverted Things]

As for the energy, a vast amount of energy is stored in a vacuum, according to quantum mechanics (another theory we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly).

And quantum mechanics abides by the Laws of Thermodynamics.  It does NOT violate them.

--

We also get that random fluctuations happen from quantum machanics. So, given a large expanse of vacuum, and enough time, there will be a fluctuation which will condense the energy stored into matter, thus beginning a universe.

1st) “Condensing” vacuum energy into matter is STILL a conservation of energy.  It still stays within the Laws of Thermodynamics.   You’ve simply converted energy into matter.  You have created nothing.

2nd)  Your initial state of a large expanse of vacuum and time, means that you began with energy.  Space can not exist with the presence of energy.

Fundamentally, you have a misunderstanding of the second law. The second law says that entropy will PROBABLY increase. It's not a definate thing at all.

Who said anything about an initial state? When the expansion of the universe runs its course, we'll be left again with a great expanse of vacuum and time. From which (eventually) a new universe will condense. This creates a cyclic universe, which needn't have had a beginning at all.

[Democratic Hawk]

What's the problem with it? Surely, ..... we must let our thoughts be free. Creationism and intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution

Dave

[nlm]

Should the hindu, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. origins of life also be taught along side evolutions?

[Democratic Hawk]

Should the hindu, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. origins of life also be taught along side evolutions?

Yes, in countries where the overwhelming majority subscribe to such faiths

Dave

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Fundamentally, you have a misunderstanding of the second law. The second law says that entropy will PROBABLY increase. It's not a definate thing at all.

We can discuss my “misunderstanding” in a moment, but first…

The 2nd Law allows for entropy to increase or stay the same, it NEVER allows it to decrease.  So, even if we take you definition that entropy will PROBABLY increase, the only other possibility is that entropy stays the same, but it can NEVER decrease. 

Are we in agreement on this point?

---

Who said anything about an initial state? When the expansion of the universe runs its course, we'll be left again with a great expanse of vacuum and time. From which (eventually) a new universe will condense. This creates a cyclic universe, which needn't have had a beginning at all.

What you are describing appears to be a DEcrease in entropy.   Is that what you are claiming?

[MODU]

Should the hindu, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. origins of life also be taught along side evolutions?

Yes, in countries where the overwhelming majority subscribe to such faiths

Dave

Yes.  I too agree.  However, like I have clarified in the past, these should be taught in English or History courses, and not in a science course.

[nlm]

Should the hindu, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. origins of life also be taught along side evolutions?

Yes, in countries where the overwhelming majority subscribe to such faiths

Dave

So you are saying that science should be taught to children based upon the majority belief of a society, not based on science?

Does popular belief make for good science?

Wouldn't that lead the US to lag behind countries that taught science based upon, well science, as opposed to popular belief? Is that really doing our children a favor? Or is it just sapping their ability to compete against the children of other nations that learn actual science?

[nlm]

Should the hindu, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. origins of life also be taught along side evolutions?

Yes, in countries where the overwhelming majority subscribe to such faiths

Dave

Yes.  I too agree.  However, like I have clarified in the past, these should be taught in English or History courses, and not in a science course.

Your clarification makes all the difference in the world.

[MODU]

Should the hindu, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. origins of life also be taught along side evolutions?

Yes, in countries where the overwhelming majority subscribe to such faiths

Dave

Yes.  I too agree.  However, like I have clarified in the past, these should be taught in English or History courses, and not in a science course.

Your clarification makes all the difference in the world.

I think most people here on the forum mean what I have stated.  They want the "other side" taught to balanace out the theory of evolution/big bang.  When they say have it taught side-by-side, I don't believe they mean in the same classroom, just at the same grade level.

[nlm]

Should the hindu, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. origins of life also be taught along side evolutions?

Yes, in countries where the overwhelming majority subscribe to such faiths

Dave

Yes.  I too agree.  However, like I have clarified in the past, these should be taught in English or History courses, and not in a science course.

Your clarification makes all the difference in the world.

I think most people here on the forum mean what I have stated.  They want the "other side" taught to balanace out the theory of evolution/big bang.  When they say have it taught side-by-side, I don't believe they mean in the same classroom, just at the same grade level.

I don't think they should be taught to "balance out" anything. Everything should either be taught or not taught based on their individual merits and the value they represent to the students. I do believe that having a base line understanding of the culturally dominate mystical beliefs has a value to children, and thus merit. My feeling is that sociology or, better yet, comparative religions would be a good spot to touch upon it. The idea of holding Sunday school type class sessions in public schools is nauseating to me. I know that isn’t what you are speaking of (at least I think I know that), but there are others that truly seem to want that.

I do appreciate your ability to communicate what you mean with a level of clarity.

[MODU]

I don't think they should be taught to "balance out" anything. Everything should either be taught or not taught based on their individual merits and the value they represent to the students. I do believe that having a base line understanding of the culturally dominate mystical beliefs has a value to children, and thus merit. My feeling is that sociology or, better yet, comparative religions would be a good spot to touch upon it. The idea of holding Sunday school type class sessions in public schools is nauseating to me. I know that isn’t what you are speaking of (at least I think I know that), but there are others that truly seem to want that.

I do appreciate your ability to communicate what you mean with a level of clarity.

No, it shouldn't be taught as a balancing agent, though that's their argument.  Mine is that it's historical information with the same amount of weight as the Greek/Roman/Egyptian religions and bliefs which are already taught over multiple grade levels without conflict, though anything dealing with Christianity is considered taboo (though it's the dominant religion in the US). 

(Much similiar to your response.)

[Cubby]

Did anyone else hear about this? I'm worried now that the ID/Creationist extremists are going to get violent like this since no one with a brain takes them seriously:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/06/creationism.class.ap/index.html

Liberals fight with words and ideas. Conservatives fight with violence and beatings.

[MODU]

Did anyone else hear about this? I'm worried now that the ID/Creationist extremists are going to get violent like this since no one with a brain takes them seriously:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/06/creationism.class.ap/index.html

Liberals fight with words and ideas. Conservatives fight with violence and beatings.

Yes, we have a whole thread on the topic.