"Creationism Trumps Evolution"

[afleitch]

Again it must be a regional thing. If anyone tried to pass off creationism as science in a British school they would quite rightly be laughed at. I was educated at a private school by Jesuits and we were still taught that the universe is about 15 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago and that the 'homo' (maybe thats why the fundies object to it!) genus evolved out of a common ancestor about 2-3 million years ago. I mean come on. Just ignore fossil evidence shall we? What about the fossils of Homo Neanderthalsis or Homo Erectus? Were they also having a chit chat with Homo Sapiens, chomping on dino meat and hitching a ride of a pterodactyl till a big flood came along, created the Grand Canyon and the Atlantic and killed off hoardes of animals who Noah forgot to put on his ark (which managed to hold several milion species AND toilet facilities!) Come on this is silly. The USA is discourageing science (unless that science can create chic weaponry) with this rubbish. Sorry to be so scathing but it really disturbs me.

[angus]

Again it must be a regional thing. If anyone tried to pass off creationism as science in a British school they would quite rightly be laughed at. I was educated at a private school by Jesuits and we were still taught that the universe is about 15 billion years old, the earth is 4.5 billion, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago and that the 'homo' (maybe thats why the fundies object to it!) genus evolved out of a common ancestor about 2-3 million years ago. I mean come on. Just ignore fossil evidence shall we? What about the fossils of Homo Neanderthalsis or Homo Erectus? Were they also having a chit chat with Homo Sapiens, chomping on dino meat and hitching a ride of a pterodactyl till a big flood came along, created the Grand Canyon and the Atlantic and killed off hoardes of animals who Noah forgot to put on his ark (which managed to hold several milion species AND toilet facilities!) Come on this is silly. The USA is discourageing science (unless that science can create chic weaponry) with this rubbish. Sorry to be so scathing but it really disturbs me.

bizarre, isn't it?

I was educated, in part, at catholic schools as well.  And I got the same theories there about the origins of man that I got in the public schools.  So I can also attest to the fact that religious schools are not discouraging the teaching "evolution"  In fact I have stated that repeatedly in this forum.  I was beginning to think I was the only one on this board who received a proper classical education.  Thanks for the input.

also, neanderthal and cro-magnon homo sapiens probably did come into contact, repeatedly, between 200000 and 50000 years BC.  it is also likely that H. erectus and H. sapiens had some temporal overlap some 900 to 600 thousand years ago.  but let's not quibble about that.  I suspect neither of us are paleoantrhopoligoists.

I do think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the USA is discouraging science though.  I've been on the dole for a long time.  I have received one-hundred percent of my income from the government, in one form or another, since I graduated from college, some 14 years ago.  and I do not and have never done weapons research.  science yes.  weapons research no.  none of the civil servants I have ever met want to stop teaching evolution.  I'm not saying there aren't any out there who do, but I haven't met them, and you are stretching quite a bit here.

[Inverted Things]

Einstein's theory of relativity is also just a theory. This again happens to be a theory that we have more evidence for than we do that planes fly.

actually, I have seen some new work that shows that it may be slightly off.

Wrong. I'm studying for my masters in physics, and there is NO experimental evidence that Einstein's general theory is wrong on a macroscopic scale. On a microscopic scale, all bets are off because relativity is not a theory of the microscopic.

[opebo]

it is a bit different because creationism doesnt preach to kids to kill the infidels.

Killing the infidels makes a whole lot more sense than creationism.  But both are symptoms of the same sort of stupidity.  Can't blame the dumb apes though.

[Richard]

Yeah, because the constitution totally allows state sponsored religious education, right?

It does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The keyword here is Congress.  It says nothing about the States.

And evolution is just a theory, nothing more.  It can't be proven, and neither can Creation be proven.  I would let local school boards decide whether to teach evolution, Creation, or both in school.

Gravity is also a theory that can't be proven. Better strike that from the textbooks, too.

It is?  Since when?  Gravity is a CONCEPT.  See, in order to have a theory, you need a hypothesis.  What is the hypothesis "gravity?"

[muon2]

Yeah, because the constitution totally allows state sponsored religious education, right?

It does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The keyword here is Congress.  It says nothing about the States.

And evolution is just a theory, nothing more.  It can't be proven, and neither can Creation be proven.  I would let local school boards decide whether to teach evolution, Creation, or both in school.

Gravity is also a theory that can't be proven. Better strike that from the textbooks, too.

It is?  Since when?  Gravity is a CONCEPT.  See, in order to have a theory, you need a hypothesis.  What is the hypothesis "gravity?"

Gravity is as much a theory as any other discussed on this thread. Under one hypothesis gravity is a force exactly proportional to the product of two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the two masses. Under another hypothesis gravity is force that gives rise to an acceleration that is indistinguishable from the acceleration due to one's frame of reference. Both hypotheses have been rigorously tested, yet science continues to test them in more detail and in new situations.

[angus]

Einstein's theory of relativity is also just a theory. This again happens to be a theory that we have more evidence for than we do that planes fly.

actually, I have seen some new work that shows that it may be slightly off.

Wrong. I'm studying for my masters in physics, and there is NO experimental evidence that Einstein's general theory is wrong on a macroscopic scale. On a microscopic scale, all bets are off because relativity is not a theory of the microscopic.

you should definitely look at Science[/i] December 19, 2003, volume 302, page 2038, and references therein. 

[Confabulator]

I think the current evolution theory has mountains of evidence behind it.  People who are saying it is "just a theory" clearly don't have much scientific education (ironically...).  It is a theory, because things involving life forms obviously can't be laws, and it can't be definitively proven.  Newsflash: nothing can be definitively proven.  It does, however, have tons and tons of proof behind it.  I'd post it, but I've had this argument before and I'm sure you'll find some way to say it's questionable or wrong or some such.

[Inverted Things]

Regarding that Science article...

Dark matter is a hoax. There is a neater explanation which I'm looking into for my doctorial thesis. From what I understand about dark energy, this IS in Einstein's theory. It is a term that is usually ignored because it's unimportant in experiments.

[Storebought]

Interesting that discussions involving creation vs evolution become transmuted to discussions about physics.

Could it be that physics, with its foundations with the rigorous and quantitative efforts of Kepler, Galileo, Newton, is fundamentally more scientific (i.e., debatable) than murky macrobiology, founded as it was by frauds like Lamarck, Agassiz, Darwin?

[??????????]

If evolution is "proven" then where & what is the missing link? Darwins theory was not really evolution in so much as his book was about natural selection. Darwin was a very devout man with a deep faith in god. The church demonized him for bringing up the idea of "survival of the fittest". I happen to believe that God himself sparked the big bang (as no credible science can explain how it happened) and allowed the universe to commence from there. For some reason the church wants to seperate God from evolution as well as scientists. I, on the other hand, think they actually go hand and hand.

[bgwah]

We need a state by state breakdown.

[Ben.]

Darwin was a very religious man as well and did not believe in the theory as it stands today. Teach both in schools, its only fair.

After the Death of his daughter however Darwin renounced his faith and became an atheist, but it had nothing to do with his research or scientific beliefs as far as I am aware.

 
I agree that both evolution and the argument for design (creationism) should be taught, many forget both are just “theories”, in fact Darwin never argued for Evolution only his own theory of natural selection which lead later scientist to develop the theory of evolution.   

[bgwah]

Darwin was a very religious man as well and did not believe in the theory as it stands today. Teach both in schools, its only fair.

After the Death of his daughter however Darwin renounced his faith and became an atheist, but it had nothing to do with his research or scientific beliefs as far as I am aware.

 
I agree that both evolution and the argument for design (creationism) should be taught, many forget both are just “theories”, in fact Darwin never argued for Evolution only his own theory of natural selection which lead later scientist to develop the theory of evolution.   

Creationism shoudln't be taught in science. It belongs in literature with other fictional stories.

[A18]

The case against evolution is science.

[bgwah]

The case against evolution is science.

I don't quite buy the whole evolution thing, some things about it make sense but others, well...

...But it still makes more sense than Creationism.

[Alcon]

The case against evolution is science.

Find me a topic - any topic - and I'll find a hack with a Ph.D. to back me up. There is compelling evidence on both sides, more evolution at least in my mind, though.

And just because evolution is wrong in your mind does not make creationism right. That's like voting for a Democrat because the Republicans aren't conservative enough.

[A18]

"Creationism" as in Genesis shouldn't be taught in science, just the case against evolution.

[muon2]

Regarding that Science article...

Dark matter is a hoax. There is a neater explanation which I'm looking into for my doctorial thesis. From what I understand about dark energy, this IS in Einstein's theory. It is a term that is usually ignored because it's unimportant in experiments.

I think science is always looking for better explanations for the observed phenomena. It may be the case that there are better explanations for the observed behavior in galactic motion and microwave background than dark matter. But I would strongly refrain from calling dark matter a hoax. A hoax implies that there is intentional deception regarding the data presented, which is certainly not the case with the WMAP and other results. If you believe that there is a hoax, rather than a better explanation, you should be prepared to back up that accusation.

[Gustaf]

I think I'm seeing some religious idiocy here...all science is unproven, there is no way to strictly prove anything. At least from a philosophical perspective.

What we can do is to check whether we can disprove something. If through sicentific reaearch cannot disprove a theory and it fits with previous theories we usually regard it as scientific.

[??????????]

If evolution is so true "survival of the fittest" then why are human infants so helpless. I can not think of ANY animal (off the top of my head) that is more helpless then a human infant. Infants can not fend for themselves, barely mobile, and would die quickly if left on their own. Most baby animals like puppies, kittens, foals, etc could survive w/out a parent although it would be tough. What makes humans so different?

[John Dibble]

If evolution is so true "survival of the fittest" then why are human infants so helpless. I can not think of ANY animal (off the top of my head) that is more helpless then a human infant. Infants can not fend for themselves, barely mobile, and would die quickly if left on their own. Most baby animals like puppies, kittens, foals, etc could survive w/out a parent although it would be tough. What makes humans so different?

Well, puppies and kittens NEED their mother initially - they are essentially blind. In fact, you'll find that most creatures, especially more complex ones like mammals, are very vulnerable in their infant stages. However, many species instincually protect their young, ensuring the survival of the next generation until it can fend for itself. It is logical to say that the fittest is better able to protect it's young than the weakest. Of course, many other mammals also are more self-sustainable in shorter periods of time, though few require as much brain development as human babies and they generally have lower lifespans.

You must also take into account that the fittest is not always the physically strongest - we certainly can't physically compete with a tiger or elephant, but we have the highest mental capacity, allowing us to outwit any foes we have. In fact, our intellect has allowed us to reach the top of the food chain and adapt to virtually every environment on the planet.

Also, in the past, weaker babies usually did die out. The infant mortality rate was far greater than it is now. The healthier, stronger babies lived on - the fittest lived and the weakest died. That being said, I have to think that maybe the human race isn't evolving anymore, at least not in the 'natural selection' way. The lifespans of the weakest in all but a few cases is about as long as that of the fittest, because natural selection doesn't pick them off and the intellect of the fittest humans results in innovations allowing for the survival of the weaker among us. This may result in our race's evolutionary stagnation and possibly its evolutionary decline - man, eugenics looks good after this.

[Confabulator]

Babies don't procreate.  They have mothers to take care of them-see how it works?  I don't think you really do, Senator.

[??????????]

Babies don't procreate.  They have mothers to take care of them-see how it works?  I don't think you really do, Senator.

Trolling Trolling Trolling.

[afleitch]

That's not trolling. It's stating the obvious, which you missed, and now you're very embarrassed to admit it!