Evolution versus Creation

[favaks 0]

Quote

I do think that Creationism should at least be mentioned, though, in order for the student to keep what he/she will learn in perspective.

So should we start including creation stories from other religions? Hinduism, Wiccan, Buddhism, and etc..

favaks

[pajarito 0]

Quote

So should we start including creation stories from other religions? Hinduism, Wiccan, Buddhism, and etc..

I think I was stating a few posts ago that Creationism should not be taught alongside Evolution in science class because one has basis in the best “scientific” information that we have to date and the other isn’t based in science. I, however, have no problem with a sticker or disclaimer being put on or in the book stating the following:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

So should we start including creation stories from other religions? Hinduism, Wiccan, Buddhism, and etc..

I think I was stating a few posts ago that Creationism should not be taught alongside Evolution in science class because one has basis in the best “scientific” information that we have to date and the other isn’t based in science. I, however, have no problem with a sticker or disclaimer being put on or in the book stating the following:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

But you shouldn't just stop there, either. Almost all of physics is theoretical; it works when done within a defined set of boundaries (for example, a vacuum).

So, wny not change the warning sticker to:
Most of the items presented in textbook are theories, not facts. They have been tested to best science's current abilities, but may be incorrect. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

The thing is, the people who want that sticker on, aren't doing it to educate the public and make them think with open minds, they want to subtlely denounce evolution ... i wouldn't be surprised at all, if not long after, this was admitted they started pushing for the next step.

This ad space for sale.

[mardigrasbob 0]

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

[billvon 2,425]

>There is no proof, "scientific" or otherwise, that the evolution theory is
>true. Much of the "evidence" has long been discredited.

I can prove to you that evolution exists with a jar of fruit flies. The experiment has been repeated thousands of times, and every time they get the same result - the organisms best adapted to their environment survive more often than more poorly adapted organisms, and these traits are passed on to their offspring. And that's evolution in a nutshell.

>We're left with two competing theories, neither of which can be proven.

That's like saying that either your parents or Santa Claus brought you presents when you were a kid. They're both possible, right?

>In a classroom setting, why would you NOT want your kids exposed to
>both?

Because one is based in science and the other in religion. Teach the science in a science class, teach the religion in a religion class.

[unformed 0]

I like that ... I've heard the story version before, but never that version .....

i guess i'm just preaching to the choir .... this is why i normally don't get into conversations about religion or politics ...

This ad space for sale.

[Airman1270 0]

I can prove to you that evolution exists with a jar of fruit flies...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Nobody is claiming that some form of evolution has never occurred. At issue is the claim that one species of life evolved into another type.



That's like saying that either your parents or Santa Claus brought you presents when you were a kid. They're both possible, right?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

No.


Because one is based in science and the other in religion. Teach the science in a science class, teach the religion in a religion class.

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

Nobody is claiming that some form of evolution has never occurred. At issue is the claim that one species of life evolved into another type.

Without reading all the posts again, who said this? The statement that a dog can evolve into a chicken for example is not really understanding how evolution works. They MAY have a common ancestor however, or they may not. Life didn't necessarily evolve all from one single organism, but it may have done. In the same way, noone is saying that we used to be gorillas. The likelihood is that we went through a primate style stage, but that is maybe where the ideas on niche development and speciation start coming in.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[bobsled92 0]

I think CREATION evolved. If we came from CHimps (1 chromosome away) yet there still are chimps around as we stand as mankind. why do primates NOT have that "missing link" or any spiecies that is between us and them. I used to argue this in Pre-Med classes for 4 years.

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[skreamer 1]

The biggest ass-holes often convince themselves to believe that they are the victims. Sometimes ass-holes try to be nice and sometimes nice people can't help being ass-holes.

You've got to be your own best friend (especially if you are an overweight green Canadian with an outrageous accent and wear lycra leggings on the dropzone... ).

Will

PS apologies for the hijack, I didn't create it it kinda just evolved.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I keep hearing this, but suppose we agreed to this compromise. The same people who make this suggestion would suddenly start bitching about their kids being exposed to a religion class.

unlikely.. as long as ALL religions are covered equally no one would have any room to bitch... i know FAR more christians who would object to their kids being exposed to the the 'heathen' religions than atheists who object to any mention of religion at all...

Quote

I have a better idea: Just remove the discussion from the curriculum. Students can study information which HAS been established as scientific fact without getting distracted by how life did or didn't begin all those years ago. Parents who want their children to know about evolution can teach it at home.

Again, I don't object to my kids being exposed to the subject. I object to the intolerant, biased, one-sided view being rammed down our throats by the government, using my tax dollars to do so.

By the way, both sides can be described as "religious." One is consistent with a variety of non-atheistic religions, the other is consistent with the religion of secular humanism.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I object to the intolerant, biased, one-sided view being rammed down our throats by the government, using my tax dollars to do so.

The solution to this is easy. Send your children to a private religious school where all that is taught is reading, writting, athrimetic and religious study. If you don't like your children being educated in the sciences, don't send them where science is taught. But to force public schools to teach non-christian students christian studies is wrong.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The solution to this is easy. Send your children to a private religious school where all that is taught is reading, writting, athrimetic and religious study. If you don't like your children being educated in the sciences, don't send them where science is taught. But to force public schools to teach non-christian students christian studies is wrong.

My kids go to a private Christian school. They're also taught science. One does not trump the other.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

My kids go to a private Christian school. They're also taught science. One does not trump the other.

Airman seems to think they do. He seems upset that his children are being taught something that he obviously doesn't believe in. So the solution seems simple. But I don't understand why he wants public schools to teach what should only be taught in private religious schools.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Falko 0]

I don't think the terms "Evolution" and "Creation" necessarily oppose each other.

Seems to me that some people who so fiercely bash the Theory of Evolution and defend "Creation" have no picture in mind about how that creation took place. God snapping his fingers and suddenly men appeared on the face of the earth out of a big bubble in space or what?

If I was a christian, I would probably believe that creation took place through Evolution, as it is "God's plan".

All Life and beings are still in the process of being created. Those "7 days" are not over yet.

Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse.
(Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

God snapping his fingers and suddenly men appeared on the face of the earth out of a big bubble in space

Yes good point. How do the hardcore religious people think that Adam and Eve (two people I don't believe in) appeared on earth?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,425]

>why do primates NOT have that "missing link" or any spiecies that is
>between us and them. I used to argue this in Pre-Med classes for 4 years.

We didn't evolve from chimps. We evolved from Ardipithicus, which in turn had ape-like ancestors. We didn't split off from the line of primates that produced chimps any time recently (recently in geologic terms, that is.) Our lineage is approximately:

Ardipithicus - 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus - 4.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus - 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic - 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens - Present

BTW we recently found a variant of Homo Sapiens that lived on a remote island less than 10,000 years ago. They were about 3 feet tall and apparently were visited by modern (Cro-Magnon) man at some point; might just be where some of our most persistent legends (dwarves, hobbits) come from.

[billvon 2,425]

>At issue is the claim that one species of life evolved into another type.

That's pretty clear in the fossil records. Whales have vestigial hips; we have fossils that show the intermediate stage where mammals returned to the sea.

>I keep hearing this, but suppose we agreed to this compromise. The
> same people who make this suggestion would suddenly start bitching
> about their kids being exposed to a religion class.

I think that would be great! There are a lot of misconceptions about religions out there; people think Muslims are bent on killing, Wiccans are all screwed up, and Jews are all greedy. It would be great to have a modern-religion course that spends some time on each one.

>I have a better idea: Just remove the discussion from the curriculum.
> Students can study information which HAS been established as
> scientific fact without getting distracted by how life did or didn't begin
> all those years ago.

Are you seriously suggesting removing any mention of gravity, or biology, or quantumn mechanics, or the Bohr model of the atom, from science classes? (No one knows how gravity works, quantumn mechanics is being revised regularly etc.)

>Again, I don't object to my kids being exposed to the subject. I object
> to the intolerant, biased, one-sided view being rammed down our
> throats by the government, using my tax dollars to do so.

Do you object to having gravity rammed down your child's throat?

>By the way, both sides can be described as "religious." One is
> consistent with a variety of non-atheistic religions, the other is
> consistent with the religion of secular humanism.

Uh, no. Religious things pertain to religion.

>Perhaps the real issue here is that so many people have been
> brainwashed into thinking that a particular piece of information should
> be censored simply because it can be identified as being consistent
> with a non-atheistic point of view.

I agree, but I think it's odd that you would mention this, given that you propose censoring science teachers.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

How do the hardcore religious people think that Adam and Eve (two people I don't believe in) appeared on earth?

Maybe her name was Lucy.
Scientist can throw all the techno-jargon they want, and the zealots can quote all the scriptures they want; the bottom line is: What's for dinner?
We are all blind 'men' gropeing the elephant while some poor homeless bastard freezes on our doorstep. Get off the computer and go down to 'Hardees' and grab a sandwich and feed somebody. It won't matter if the universe is expanding or if God is pulling the strings.

Gotta quit getting stoned first ting in the morning!

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

[Airman1270 0]

...I think it's odd that you would mention this, given that you propose censoring science teachers...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Wow. You've done a masterful job of twisting my words completely inside out.

My position on this issue is that students should be exposed to ALL information on the subject. You take the position that half of the debate should be withheld, and the only justification you can offer is that some of the material might be what you describe as "religious."

Does this mean that students should not be encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, or harm others? After all, to attempt to influence their behavior in this manner is to impose "religious" ideas.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution is itself based on a religious idea. By censoring the other side, you are imposing the religion of secular humanism.

My suggestion that compulsory attendance laws be repealed is a fair compromise. The schools can teach what they want, and parents can decide whether to submit their kids to their curriculum. This is the most "pro-choice" position one can take on the matter.

As to the suggestion that I send my kids to private school, fine. Stop forcing me to pay taxes to support a system that contradicts my values, and I'll be able to afford to do so. (In this scenario, though, I probably wouldn't have to, because if attendance was voluntary the schools would be forced to modify their curriculum to attract customers.)

Again, the issue is not that evolution is taught. The issue is the one-sided approach, coupled with the inordinate priority given the topic.

If we were talking about any other subject you'd likely agree with me.

A liberal is someone who is pro-choice about abortion and anti-choice about everything else.

Thanks,
Jon

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You trying to imply something here in reference to not helping out the people in need and WTF do your comments have to do with the original topic at hand, why some people in the state of Georgia connected to their education system, in trying to supress certain science topics in public schools.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,425]

>My position on this issue is that students should be exposed to ALL
>information on the subject.

I agree!

>You take the position that half of the debate should be withheld, and
> the only justification you can offer is that some of the material might
> be what you describe as "religious."

Not at all. Both sides _should_ be presented. We can present the science in a science class, and the religion in a religion class. If you think that Zeus created the world, then great - we can present that in a Greek mythology class.

>Does this mean that students should not be encouraged to lie, cheat,
> steal, or harm others?

Uh, no.

>Furthermore, the theory of evolution is itself based on a religious idea.

Again, no.

>My suggestion that compulsory attendance laws be repealed is a fair
> compromise. The schools can teach what they want, and parents can
> decide whether to submit their kids to their curriculum. This is the most
>"pro-choice" position one can take on the matter.

I agree here, provided there was some protection against abuse. (i.e. a parent can't claim that having their child work delivering papers for 12 hours a day is their version of education.)

>As to the suggestion that I send my kids to private school, fine.

That wasn't my suggestion. You can do whatever you want.

>Stop forcing me to pay taxes to support a system that contradicts my
> values, and I'll be able to afford to do so.

Sorry. You have to pay to support our military even if you don't support the war. You have to pay to support the CDC even if you don't believe in germ theory. You have to pay to support the EPA even if you think that pollution is a left-wing myth. You don't get to not pay for things that our government decides we need.

>A liberal is someone who is pro-choice about abortion and anti-choice
>about everything else.

Actually, a liberal is (per the dictionary)

- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

My suggestion that compulsory attendance laws be repealed is a fair compromise.

So why don't you bring this up with your local government representatives. I think it is a good idea and a much better idea than having bias religious warning labels placed on science text books (as some of your school superintedents seems to want to push on the public). While some students are in science class, your children can be in some other class. And if enough people in Georgia decide that science contradicts their religious beliefs, then so be it. Science will not be taught in Georgia.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

You trying to imply something here in reference to not helping out the people in need and WTF do your comments have to do with the original topic at hand, why some people in the state of Georgia connected to their education system, in trying to supress certain science topics in public schools.

Exactly my point!
What really matters in our lives is not where did I come from, but what do I do now. I consider myself God-fearing and read and try to understand the bible, but at the same time, I am a scientist with a good basic understanding of physics and paleontology. I can sit around and argue with the best on both sides but in the end: Does it matter 1 iota?
Crackers are going to want to protect their belief system, and WTF is a label any way. Others believe that God is about as real as the Easter Bunny and that believers are responible for all the pain in the world.
Sorry I touched a nerve but my point was: What do we do now?

[unformed 0]

Quote

Does this mean that students should not be encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, or harm others? After all, to attempt to influence their behavior in this manner is to impose "religious" ideas.

I think you mean discourage, not encourage. Regardless, that isn't a "religious" idea. That's a basic moral idea. You can have morality without religion.

Quote

Furthermore, the theory of evolution is itself based on a religious idea.

No, it's not. It's based on science. Science is not religion.

This ad space for sale.