2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Public opinion be damned. This is about science, not democracy.The survey you based this thread on simply shows that 2/3ds of the population is either ignorant or stupid, not that we should actually teach Creationism in schools. And honestly, finding out that the majoirty of people are idiots is no surprise. Another recent poll showed that 1 in 5 American adults think the sun revolves around the Earth!It could be said that calling everyone who believes Creationism should be taught in schools stupid is a bit too far, but it's true. Anyone who supports teaching religious doctrines in public, secular schools as if they were somehow based on evidence instead of an old book is a fool.Honestly. Lack of education/intelligence or religious dogma should never determine what is taught in schools. Education must be based on facts and theories backed by evidence, not on religious flim-flam. Unless of course you want to revert to the freaking Dark Ages.The parents who want their kids to be indoctrinated with religion and taught Creationism should simply let it be taught in Sunday school, in church, where religious doctrine belongs. The public school system is for teaching about reality, not dogma.I'm a religious guy, and I support people's right to believe however they wish, but the public school system is not a place for belief, it's a place for fact, evidence, and reality.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Randman, I have lately been lurking only at this forum because my patience had worn thin, but you have managed to drive me forth from self-imposed exile. Your utter disregard for fact and facile dodging tactics are more then I can bear.You were asked to produce sciencetests DOING WORK in creationism or ID. Let's see how you did...Dr. Van Dyke of NC State. His listed academic interests are mycology, plant-host interactions, and electron microscopy. The following is the list of his published scholarly work from his section of the NC State website... As even a layman can tell, none of those have anything to do with creationism. So, Dr. Van Dyke fails to fulfill the standards asked for, in spite of your claims that he does.On to Dr. Behe at Lehigh. Using his publication list from both the Discovery Institute and Lehigh University webpages, it is plain that since 1999, Behe has done almost exclusively popular, not scientific, publication. He has a long list of articles, consisting mostly of replies to critics in addition to his books. The one exception is a collaboration with a D. W. Snoke in 2004 for an article "Simulating the evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" which is listed as being "in press" at Protein Sci. I can find no evidence that it was actually published. While Behe is an active advocate of ID, is he doing actual science using it? No.Both your examples fail. Try again.Since I am jumping in so late, I will also briefly reply to the OP. I agree that presenting the facts about science is good. It will stand on it's own, with the exception of those who like their faith more then knowledge. No amount of evidence will change those people's minds. As for "showing problems" with it, that to is fine. Teaching that all science is tentative and there are always horizons of knowledge where there will be disagreement among experts is important.The case for ID and YEC could even be presented. I would suggest doing so right after the basics of the scientific method are taught. Both of those ideologies would be excellent for showing how something does not comply with science. The teacher would simply say "Both ID and YEC require a creator entity about whom information cannot be found and on whom testing cannot be done, so neither are science. Now, let us move on..."

When there is independant replication and peer review you might get an acknowledgement but to call most of those scientific is simply laughable.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What an idiotic post. No southerner I have ever known wants history to teach the South won. Many do want to characterize the war as an invasion and plunder by Yankee armies, which incidentally is a fairly accurate description of the war.

The problem you and others are making is assuming that there is such a thing as evolution science or creationist science. All research and data is used in both examples.In fact, the vast majority of research by evolutionists is not research to validate ToE since they assume it as a given, but they research various areas and apply the ToE assumption to the research.The truth is you guys are just wrong. Clearly there is a host of scientists doing a lot of research, work, etc,...in creationism and ID.

You call that rag a "peer-reviewed" journal - Peer review refers to fellow experts in the field, not your chums who have all the conclusions already worked out.And before you make the obvious response check out the "Statement of Belief":

quote:

---

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

​

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

​

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

​

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

​

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

---

What a joke - how can that magazine be engaged in science, when you have to agree to the conclusions before you submit the research!

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? | Answers in Genesis

Creationism should be taught in public schools but not in science class as it is not science. It should be taught in social studies or literature class as part of a curriculum that discusses various creation stories, not just the Genesis one. What 2/3 or even 9/10 of the populace thinks should be taught as science is irrelevant as what is science is not something to be decided by a vote by the general populace but rather by a concensus of scientists, through the peer review process. Creationism or ID fails as science because it cannot pass peer review muster. The fact that one botany professer at a university might be a YECer is not relevant either. He will not be able to publish a paper in a scientific journal advocating creationism. He may be able to publish a paper describing a new plant species or on some aspect of plant physiology as long as he doesn't try to promote unscientific creationist views in it. No one cares what his personal views might be as long as he does not try to promote them as science.

1st one: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)What part of this constites scientific research performed by qualified scientists? This paper claims no origional work. It is mearly a collection of data gathered from other articles, then derided, reinterpreted, and twisted to match certain pre-suppositions.Esentially it's a paper a saying "I know the earth is 6k years old, let me twist the data to fit it." I also find it telling that the bibliography cites ICR and the same magazine as primary sources. The "Scientists" involved are members of ICR.They don't give their credentials however.TalkOrigins has an article addressing this particular paper:
RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons 2nd) The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)Again, this article is mearly a reinterpretation of data. No body of origional research was done to compile it. The credentials of the scientist's involved don't seem to present them as credible geologists:From AIG: Why is Mr. Oard qualafied to speak about geology?Sorry, but your answer was not satisfactory. These works do not constitue scientfic research/experimintation. They are mearly fact twising romps down the road of presupositionalism.ABE: Would you like to see a research paper from Nature so you can see what a proper paper looks like? I can post one for you if you like.This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 02:57 PM

It's refreshing to hear an evolutionist just come out with it and be honest instead of pretending that overtly creationist articles could be accepted instead of dismissed a priori out of hand.

This is not a brilliant argument for design. It is an unresolved biological problem. Otherwise we are just back to the tired old "God of the Gaps" argument. So it is correct not to call this a "creationist paper." Just because a creationist may have written a scientific paper does not make it a "creationist paper" anymore than a paper written by a Roman Catholic is a "Roman Catholic" paper. It is a "creationist paper" if it promotes creationism.

Let's not play word games: theory of {X} is not a fact. There is no theory in all of science that is a fact.The Theory of Evolution is based on observed fact, actual validated instances of change in species over time, to the point that AiG and others accept evolution has occurred.This is quoted from AiG's "questions we think Creationsist should not use" webpage: In other words, they changed over time, they evolved. Accepted as fact by AiG.Now give me one thing about Creationism that is an equally recognized fact. I thought you corrected me for saying that you claimed there was some vast evo conspiracy ... and here you go again? Please provide evidence for this on-going {whatever you call it}. I'll concur with that statement as corrected. Of course this leaves out all of the creationist and IDist speculative concepts that have failed to pass a single falsification test (which is what defines "pseudo-science" eh?).The tested and validated scientific theories (plural) of evolution (and that combine with the actual factual evidence of evolution happening to make the Science of Evolution) pass this {bar\test\level}, speculative creationism and hypothetical ID do not.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why should that be "refreshing"? No evolutionist would pretend that creationist articles,overt OR covert, could be accepted in a scientific journal. And why should they? An article on the demon theory of friction would be dismissed a priori out of hand from acceptance in a physics journal, would it not?

Nice goal post move. Kudos.You put those two names forward, and when it was shown that they didn't work in the way you presented them, suddenly, all science is actually creation science.So, let's try again. You say... Who?

So when you guys argue as evidence for the non-scientific nature of creationism, the fact they are not published or not often published in evo journals, you don't see that as a making a circular argument?Moreover, you don't see that criticism as suggesting that creationist articles "could be accepted"?It amazes me you guys cannot see the self-contradictory and hypocritical nature of such stances and arguments? It really looks like some sort of brainwashing effect, imo.How could you insist no creationist article should be fairly considered, and then argue that the reason they should not be fairly considered is because they have not published in evo journals?The blindness in the evo argument here is astonishing.