Both or neither.

Neither can be proven! So if you critize Creationism for no proof. Proof is irrefrutable evidence. If there were absolute proof, no-one would be here in the first place. OK, evolutionists out there, just look at the Bible, read it with an open mind. You might want to even, I don't know pray, seek Him. If He is (which He IS), then you will see the light (unless you have 'hardened your heart') I considered evolution seriously, I have to all the time, every day at school, when the press it in upon us. Yet you have to go out of your way to get Biblical (truthful) evidence. That's just not right.

k.kslick, Where did I criticise anything for lack of proof? The post you responded to has nothing to do with what you have written.Nothing in science is proven. I feel I have to write this so often to creationists that I'm going to write a .doc & just cut & paste the same line.Nothing in science is proven. NOTHING. Correct, but science doesn't require proof. It requires evidence that logically would be expected if any given hypothesis were true, & no evidence must be present that would contradict it. Creationism walks around with shelf miles of evidence contradicting it. Not a good place to be.You seem to be under the misunderstanding that creationism & evolution are somehow evidentially equal, so simply picking one & running with it is OK. Creationism is contradicted by evidence, evolution is supported by it, it's that simple. If you pick creationism you are doing so in spite of the evidence & not because of it.It is possible to pluck scientific factoids out of their contexts & throw them together as part of some larger synthesis & pretend it is science. But that synthesis has to be consistent with the entire body of available facts, & creationism simply isn't. The bible is a religious text, there is absolutely no empirical reason why I should accept it as being indicative of reality. None. Evolution is science, it should be taught in a science classroom. It has LOTS of evidence in it's favour, & no falsifying data exists. This is exactly the same as everything else you are taught in a science class. Why single out evolution? Because of a religious text you believe but have no scientifically valid evidence for? A bit of tortured way to think, wouldn't you say? The most polite thing you could say was that it is an inconsistent point of view. I am afraid it is very, very right.The problem with teaching evolution as part of a secondary education ie < 18 year olds, is that to properly be able to assess the evidences for evolution requires a relatively in-depth knowledge of geology, palaeontology, genetics, biology, chemistry, etc. that < 18 year olds don't have. As a result it is rarely taught & synthesised in the classroom in the way it deserves to be. Even at degree level, evolutionary theory modules tend to be among the more advanced units available.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

quote:

---

OK, evolutionists out there, just look at the Bible, read it with an open mind...then you will see the light (unless you have 'hardened your heart')

---

Isn't it just mind-boggling that anybody could say something like that and not notice how ridiculous it is? By this logic, I can just as easily say that all Christians who have ever read the Koran with an open mind have immediatly seen The Truth(tm) and converted to Islam, and those that didn't convert did not do so because they did not have an open mind.
Does anyone know what the proper name would be for this type of logical fallacy?

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Welcome k.kslick: But the major tenets of one of them have been disproven over and over again. You should really try reading some other threads on this wedsite. Thousands have...what's your point? And you now this to be a fact how exactly? You have to go much further than you can imagine.

The fallacy is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and it's basically a way of begging the question, or using a circular argument. It generally takes the form:No true Scotsman puts sugar on his cereal.
MacGregor puts sugar on his cereal.
Therefore MacGregor is not a true Scotsman.The conclusion only follows because it assumes the truth of the first premise, which actually seems to be rendered false by the counter-example in the second line.

[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004][This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004]

TruthDetectorThat would be fine and dandy except where do you draw the line? If we open the door to one in a democratic nation we must allow for all viewpoints to be taught.

This message could have gone into quite a few different topics. I'll put it here

quote:

---

That would be fine and dandy except where do you draw the line? If we open the door to one in a democratic nation we must allow for all viewpoints to be taught.

---

I say we open the door only to those viewpoints that are begging to have their hypothesis/theory given a prominent and widespread public demolition.Let the science educators say "We're tired of the various Christian fundamentalist creationists weakening our science programs, and trying to insert their religious beliefs into science. Let's give this creationism the exposure it craves, and show it to be the baseless to downright ignorant thought process it is."So, young earth creationism gets into the public schools. The young earth, the flood and Noah's ark, the created kinds, etc. As a result it all will also get widespread exposure in the various news/information media. There will be widespread heated debate over it all.Young earth creationism will come out of this, looking totally stupid. The more mainstream Christian churches will publicly denounce creationism, to separate themselves from the fundamentalist nonsense. Evolution might end up being taught in the churches and Sunday schools.Creationists, watch out for what you want. You might just get it.Moose[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-17-2004]

As a religious theory? Why would you put a religious "theory" in science class. If you want a comparative religion class that makes sense.If you want it as a scientific theory that is another matter. For it to be that it needs some work. So far it is nothing but untestable conjecture. There are a number of threads on the issues regarding it. As a matter of science history it can be useful, if time permits to show how old ideas (geocentrism etc.) are overturned by evidence. In this way the flood hypothosis was overturned a couple of centuries ago and a short discussion of that might be useful.The big problem is, of course, that there isn't nearly enough time in class to cover the real core of what needs to be covered.

---

Common sense isn't

Ok, first of all I didn't say every religous view in the world. I said the world's major religous views. As for putting it in a separate class, that would be like implying that 'the following views are all incorrect.' If we just mentioned them in science classes there would be no need for the begging that is taking place. There are already some states allowing it. The children deserve a more well rounded education and including a few religous theories and taking ONE or TWO days teaching it would not damage the classroom.
I believe teaching it in the classrooms would also be benificial to the students in the room who believe the 'religous theories'.
Why not?

quote:

---

I said the world's major religous views.

---

Then I'm afraid that creationism would lose out. It's not even held by a majority of Christians, and so surely doesn't count as a "major world religious view".

But it is the one pursing being in public education the most.
Don't get me on technicalities - you know what I'm saying.

I know. I'm just being a trouble maker.

Yeah, unfortunately, we know what you're saying."The one true religion ... mine!"The Founding Fathers were wise enough to know where that leads.

AFAIK in every state in which that's been attempted it has failed (turned down by the electorate or the courts or the committees or whomever). What states allow it? The Supreme Court has already decided that any time teaching religous theories in public school science classrooms is unconstintutional and illegal in the U.S.And it's unconstitutional becau8se the authors of the Constitution knew what government support of religion leads to.