Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas

[Nienna]

Oh, and Happy Mother's Day, Kathianne!

 

[Annie]

I will explain as much as I can. Again, I am not a scientist.

This is a very broad question. I guess the place to start would be... at the very beginning. Origin science is a different thing from operational/ mechanical science. One cannot go back in time and observe the beginning of the universe or do repeated tests on the development of history. One must make a priori assumptions. For the sake of brevity, I'll only mention two: 1)The universe is the product of random chance with no supernatural forces to create and guide. This is the foundation of evolution.
2) The universe is the special creation of a Supernatural Being who revealed His processes to a writer. This writer recorded these processes in the book of Genesis. I realize there are many "shades of gray" between these two poles.

Now, in order to decide what probably happened, we observe the world around us, study rock formations, measure the chemical make-up of items, put slides under the microscope, etc. This is the scientific data, and it is the same for evolutionists and creationists. The difference is the interpretation of the evidence, based on one's a priori assumptions and beliefs. This is the reason creation science deserves to be taught in the classroom. Students can then look at hard scientific data and decide objectively which origins model best explains what is in front of their eyes.

And Happy Mother's Day to you also!

Part of scientific means able to be disproven whether in whole or part. It's obvious from all the posts on this and other threads, that is why evolution has been considered a theory. Can it ever be 'proven?' Probably not, perhaps it's wrong.

My problem with Creationism in a scientific curriculum would be that lack of ability test in any form, one would just have to 'teach' it, which is basically teaching Genesis? That's my take.

 

[Nienna]

And Happy Mother's Day to you also!

Part of scientific means able to be disproven whether in whole or part. It's obvious from all the posts on this and other threads, that is why evolution has been considered a theory. Can it ever be 'proven?' Probably not, perhaps it's wrong.

My problem with Creationism in a scientific curriculum would be that lack of ability test in any form, one would just have to 'teach' it, which is basically teaching Genesis? That's my take.

Creation science is just as "provable" as evolution. Like evolution, it is a framework under which to study the world around us. Take the data, and see if it fits in the framework. In this social climate, I would not advocate teaching only creationism in schools. Both models should be taught side-by-side for the sake of objectivity.

It is true that parts of Genesis would have to be studied in order to teach creation science, since that is the foundation of the model. In this instance religion overlaps science, just as mathematics overlaps science, or history overlaps literature. Elements of one subject must be explained and touched upon to fully understand the other. This is not "indoctrinating" students in religion. It is giving them an additional viewpoint to study. Otherwise, the reverse would be true. In reality, students are being indoctrinated every day in the religion of atheism via the science curriculum. They are not shown another viewpoint. To teach creation science in a non-dogmatic, objective fashion is to restore objectivity.

 

[Annie]

Creation science is just as "provable" as evolution. Like evolution, it is a framework under which to study the world around us. Take the data, and see if it fits in the framework. In this social climate, I would not advocate teaching only creationism in schools. Both models should be taught side-by-side for the sake of objectivity.

It is true that parts of Genesis would have to be studied in order to teach creation science, since that is the foundation of the model. In this instance religion overlaps science, just as mathematics overlaps science, or history overlaps literature. Elements of one subject must be explained and touched upon to fully understand the other. This is not "indoctrinating" students in religion. It is giving them an additional viewpoint to study. Otherwise, the reverse would be true. In reality, students are being indoctrinated every day in the religion of atheism via the science curriculum. They are not shown another viewpoint. To teach creation science in a non-dogmatic, objective fashion is to restore objectivity.

The question is not so much how to 'prove' it, but how can creationism as a theory be 'disproved?' That is the question.

Main Entry: sci·ence
: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Again, there have been numerous examples of parts of evolution that cannot be explained within that theory, because it is open to testing. Other issues seem to be addressed by evolution, in whole or at least part.

While I respect the Bible, one's belief systems must be employed to consider it 'an authoratative source' for science.

That's why I originally was asking how this 'theory' can be studied without Geneis?

 

[Nienna]

The question is not so much how to 'prove' it, but how can creationism as a theory be 'disproved?' That is the question.



Again, there have been numerous examples of parts of evolution that cannot be explained within that theory, because it is open to testing. Other issues seem to be addressed by evolution, in whole or at least part.

While I respect the Bible, one's belief systems must be employed to consider it 'an authoratative source' for science.

That's why I originally was asking how this 'theory' can be studied without Geneis?

Creation science could be disproven the same way that evolution can be disproven. Study the evidence around us and see whether or not it fits the model. This is the way that it is open to testing. This is why I began with explaining the difference between operational science (for which you have provided a very nice definition ) and origins science. Neither evolution nor creation science can be studied solely within the sphere of operational science. Neither can be observed or repeated, as they involve a historical event.

Just as in creation science, one's belief systems must be employed, so with evolution must one's belief system be employed. Whether one believes in God-directed evolution or not, the theory is built upon the premise that natural explanations can suffice in determining the origin of the universe. This is the belief system of atheism. This is a religious belief, and it is taught unopposed in almost every classroom in America. In order to restore objectivity, other models should be taught.

 

[Said1]

Kathianne:
I think "The new earth creationists" believe that the earth and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago. There have only been very minor changes within different species since creation, with no new species evolving or been created. This belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe in the absolute truth of the Old Testament when interpreted literally. Would this follow your line of thinking Mom4?

 

[Nienna]

Kathianne:
I think "The new earth creationists" believe that the earth and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago. There have only been very minor changes within different species since creation, with no new species evolving or been created. This belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe in the absolute truth of the Old Testament when interpreted literally. Would this follow your line of thinking Mom4?

It's something like that. The term is actually "Young Earth Creationism." We hold with the assumption that God created the universe (including the earth) in six 24-hour days approximately 6,000 years ago. You are correct in stating we believe in the absolute truth of the Old Testament when interpreted hermeneutically literally (This means literally within the context).

In regard to the change of species, sometimes there has been very little change; sometimes drastic change has occurred. But no "kind" of animal has changed into another "kind" (ie, large reptiles into birds or monkeys into men). This is an example of a part of this framework which could be taught in schools. It could go something like this...

We can observe occurences of genetic mutation. It involves the loss or shuffling of genetic information. Does this observation better fit the model of evolution or the model of creationism? Discuss.

 

[Said1]

It's something like that. The term is actually "Young Earth Creationism." We hold with the assumption that God created the universe (including the earth) in six 24-hour days approximately 6,000 years ago. You are correct in stating we believe in the absolute truth of the Old Testament when interpreted hermeneutically literally (This means literally within the context).

In regard to the change of species, sometimes there has been very little change; sometimes drastic change has occurred. But no "kind" of animal has changed into another "kind" (ie, large reptiles into birds or monkeys into men). This is an example of a part of this framework which could be taught in schools. It could go something like this...

We can observe occurences of genetic mutation. It involves the loss or shuffling of genetic information. Does this observation better fit the model of evolution or the model of creationism? Discuss.

Discuss? Perhaps not. Just giving Kathianne a little something to go on if she decided to continue researching the topic. Don't need the "s'plainations".

 

[Arabian]

actually i dont believe in such theory
especially that the modern science proved its incorrectness,, and i think its against the religion ,, where it simulates the human who has been overcomed and gave more periorities by allah,, that he evolved from human,, and how come allah says that he gave us the animals and sun and ........ to work for him and he was an animals :| ,, and why didnt some aipes become humans now,,, and add to that,, that the difference isnt in the shape only but in thinking too ,, have u seen a dog invented an electrical bone for example.
and after that this theory still tought in schools


http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70national_geographic.php

 

[onedomino]

Bio-chemical evolution on earth is an incontrovertible fact. The evidence is overwhelming: the fossil record, radio-carbon dating, animal and plant morphology, the geographical distribution of related species, and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. None of that evidence will convince those who insist that the Bible is the literal word of God. So be it. Educate your children in a private school where religion trumps scientific evidence. Please do not insist that religion, disguised as unprovable pseudo-science, must be injected into public schools. I do not attend churches where the Bible is taught as the literal word of God to insist that they consider evolution. Why do they feel the need to inject their religion into public schools? Must everyone be taught their religion in public schools because evolution contradicts their beliefs? Nonsense. That is the same type of religious hysteria that confined Galileo to house arrest for the last years of his life. Religious conservatives, convinced that the Bible was the categorical word of God, locked up one of the brightest human beings to have ever lived. What was his crime? Galileo had the temerity to contradict the Bible by showing telescopic evidence that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

 

[archangel]

actually i dont believe in such theory
especially that the modern science proved its incorrectness,, and i think its against the religion ,, where it simulates the human who has been overcomed and gave more periorities by allah,, that he evolved from human,, and how come allah says that he gave us the animals and sun and ........ to work for him and he was an animals :| ,, and why didnt some aipes become humans now,,, and add to that,, that the difference isnt in the shape only but in thinking too ,, have u seen a dog invented an electrical bone for example.
and after that this theory still tought in schools


http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70national_geographic.php

Taking your comment in proper perspective you are saying that their is a creator in this example of evolution...but you feel that Allah is a false Phrophet..I think you are on the right track....correct me if I took you out of context....

 

[IControlThePast]

I'll be a Bio major at a well respected university and made it through the highest levels of high school biology offered, so I'll give this a crack.

ID is a reiteration of Paley's complexity argument which Darwin solved through natural selection. Yes, it even accounts for how these complex systems have arisen. The theory of evolution taught in schools is not one that deals with how the world started, at least not in Biology. It deals with speciation, convergence, divergence, microevolution, and how the theory has changed through history instead of how the world started. There was the strong emphasis that microevolution was verified, but macroevolution was just a theory. However, it is a theory better supported than many theories we use today, like Atomic Theory. Don't worry that the schools are trying to subvert your religious beliefs with Evolution.

ID on the otherhand makes an ideological leap to an axiomatic assumption that a creator must exist based on the complexity argument. This is not a conclusion that could be scientifically drawn, plain and simple, so it should be kept to Philosophy classes. You can't say "We don't know how Egyptians built the pyramids, so therefore Aliens must have helped them." ID violates Occams Razor, a founding principle of science, and violates the rule of falsifiability. Of course, if there was a rational proof of God, then that would detract from the whole Christian Faith tenement.

 

[archangel]

I'll be a Bio major at a well respected university and made it through the highest levels of high school biology offered, so I'll give this a crack.

ID is a reiteration of Paley's complexity argument which Darwin solved through natural selection. Yes, it even accounts for how these complex systems have arisen. The theory of evolution taught in schools is not one that deals with how the world started, at least not in Biology. It deals with speciation, convergence, divergence, microevolution, and how the theory has changed through history instead of how the world started. There was the strong emphasis that microevolution was verified, but macroevolution was just a theory. However, it is a theory better supported than many theories we use today, like Atomic Theory. Don't worry that the schools are trying to subvert your religious beliefs with Evolution.

ID on the otherhand makes an ideological leap to an axiomatic assumption that a creator must exist based on the complexity argument. This is not a conclusion that could be scientifically drawn, plain and simple, so it should be kept to Philosophy classes. You can't say "We don't know how Egyptians built the pyramids, so therefore Aliens must have helped them." ID violates Occams Razor, a founding principle of science, and violates the rule of falsifiability. Of course, if there was a rational proof of God, then that would detract from the whole Christian Faith tenement.

Well a very good analogy,however Einstein said..."The more I learn the more I believe in a divine creator" I will go with einstein for now!

 

[IControlThePast]

Well a very good analogy,however Einstein said..."The more I learn the more I believe in a divine creator" I will go with einstein for now!

Einstein was a very bright man, but you're mistaking his statement for an endorsement of ID, which it is not. I also doubt you fully embrace Einstein's beliefs, because I doubt you are a socialist or pascifist.

You can believe in a Creator while believing in Evolution, just like people who don't believe that those 7 days were 24 hour days can still believe God created the Earth. Evolution can simply be the study of how God has changed species over time through Biological mechanisms. In that vein, I'll conclude with another Einstein quote that sums up my position:

"What we strive for is to draw His lines after Him."

 

[archangel]

Einstein was a very bright man, but you're mistaking his statement for an endorsement of ID, which it is not. I also doubt you fully embrace Einstein's beliefs, because I doubt you are a socialist or pascifist.

You can believe in a Creator while believing in Evolution, just like people who don't believe that those 7 days were 24 hour days can still believe God created the Earth. Evolution can simply be the study of how God has changed species over time through Biological mechanisms. In that vein, I'll conclude with another Einstein quote that sums up my position:

"What we strive for is to draw His lines after Him."

I am neither a communist or pacifist...neither was Einstein...he was just a very gifted man who helped us win WWII...theories rock my man! Another quote that may help you is: "Theory without fact is hypothesis..fact without theory is chaos" Theory being just a educated guess....lol

 

[IControlThePast]

I am neither a communist or pacifist...neither was Einstein...he was just a very gifted man who helped us win WWII...theories rock my man! Another quote that may help you is: "Theory without fact is hypothesis..fact without theory is chaos" Theory being just a educated guess....lol

Einstein was Socialist, but not Communist. Here is another quote of his:

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion."

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/global/popups/socialism.php

And he was a pascifist:

"I believe Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men of our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence for fighting for our cause, but by non-participation of anything you believe is evil."

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace/index.php


Theories are fine, but keep them in Philosophy, like the Paley complexity argument, if they don't fit into Science.

 

[Annie]

I'll be a Bio major at a well respected university and made it through the highest levels of high school biology offered, so I'll give this a crack.

ID is a reiteration of Paley's complexity argument which Darwin solved through natural selection. Yes, it even accounts for how these complex systems have arisen. The theory of evolution taught in schools is not one that deals with how the world started, at least not in Biology. It deals with speciation, convergence, divergence, microevolution, and how the theory has changed through history instead of how the world started. There was the strong emphasis that microevolution was verified, but macroevolution was just a theory. However, it is a theory better supported than many theories we use today, like Atomic Theory. Don't worry that the schools are trying to subvert your religious beliefs with Evolution.

ID on the otherhand makes an ideological leap to an axiomatic assumption that a creator must exist based on the complexity argument. This is not a conclusion that could be scientifically drawn, plain and simple, so it should be kept to Philosophy classes. You can't say "We don't know how Egyptians built the pyramids, so therefore Aliens must have helped them." ID violates Occams Razor, a founding principle of science, and violates the rule of falsifiability. Of course, if there was a rational proof of God, then that would detract from the whole Christian Faith tenement.

Have to agree with you. I've said before, the Catholic schools, at least in my diocese are required to teach evolution-right along the lines you laid out-in science class. Creationism via Genesis is taught in religion classes, with the caveat that the Catholic church does not adhere to or teach a literal interpretation of the bible.

 

[archangel]

Einstein was Socialist, but not Communist. Here is another quote of his:

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion."

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/global/popups/socialism.php

And he was a pascifist:

"I believe Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men of our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence for fighting for our cause, but by non-participation of anything you believe is evil."

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace/index.php


Theories are fine, but keep them in Philosophy, like the Paley complexity argument, if they don't fit into Science.

"Liberalism is a mental disease" you just proved it...Einstein a pacifist and socialist...bah hum bug! E=mc(2) ring a bell..."Manhattan Project"Where else would you like to take this debate?You are grasping for the mysterious straw that is non existant!

 

[IControlThePast]

"Liberalism is a mental disease" you just proved it...Einstein a pacifist and socialist...bah hum bug! E=mc(2) ring a bell..."Manhattan Project"Where else would you like to take this debate?You are grasping for the mysterious straw that is non existant!

Nope, I don't feel like an off topic, drawn out debate, but if you can't tell Einstein's position from his quotes then maybe conservatism is an ocular disease :tng: . Let's not ruin this thread and take it to pms if you must.

 

[archangel]

Nope, I don't feel like an off topic, drawn out debate, but if you can't tell Einstein's position from his quotes then maybe conservatism is an ocular disease :tng: . Let's not ruin this thread and take it to pms if you must.

You lost your argument...back to debate 101 for you!