Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

I was going to bring plate techtonics up as an example; however it has already been noted that this is NOT on topic.If you really want to put forward: Then you might try a PNT. It is a nice small topic and you should be able to make a good PNT.My position is that the theory of continental drift WAS BUNK and still is.

You're doing just what I said scientists do. You're going from a point that is known and expanding on it way past the known or the possibly known.The oil situation, for example. If oil is found in some parts of the world and there are other parts of the world that hasn't been explored, why would scientists make a statement that wasn't tentative, but absolute about the oil supply?The plate theory is the same. Jumping to conclusions beyond knowledge just because of the accepted theories... the present status.Until a situation is solved, 'scientific statements' should be considered tentative, just as I stated in an early post. I've seen too many 'facts' and 'truths' turned on their head by later information.Q. What's the difference between a scientist and God?
A. God doesn't think He's a scientist!(>;

Oh, my... you're one of those???!!!!

quote:

---

I remember about 10 to 15 years ago many, if not most, scientists were warning us about a coming ice age, that the earth was cooling.

---

That's funny, because 10-15 years ago I remember hearing from scientists that we were actually at the end of the last ice age.Which scientists said that we were coming into a new ice age, again?

Ya gotta be a rare bird... haven't seen many scientists in the wheat fields in Kansas!If you're into this... when was the last time you saw real evidence, not conjecture, of one species turning into a different species?

quote:

---

But if you fudge the data you learn nothing.

---

And you also run a very real risk of ending your career in academia completely.If you are know to have fudged data, no other scientists will want to ever collaborate with you again, and no one will ever want to be your graduate student because of not wanting their own work to be tainted by your reputation for fudging.And, most importantly, no university science department will ever hire you once you have been shown to be a fraud. Why give good money to a researcher who's work ends up to be useless?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-20-2006 07:23 PM

"That's funny, because 10-15 years ago I remember hearing from scientists that we were actually at the end of the last ice age.Which scientists said that we were coming into a new ice age, again?"My scientists must have been louder than yours. I remember articles in several magazines on "The Coming Ice Age". It may have been 20 years, but it was the accepted 'truth' of the day. They were talking about how the temps had been rising for about 50 years and that they were about at the end of the cycle and would start cooling again.The scientific community changed almost overnight from cooling to warming.

There is a wonderful amount of resources for speciation out there.
Try this one.

quote:

---

The oil situation, for example. If oil is found in some parts of the world and there are other parts of the world that hasn't been explored, why would scientists make a statement that wasn't tentative, but absolute about the oil supply?

---

Please do not confuse the reporting of science for what scientists actually claim.They are often very different.Take a guess at which one usually oversimplifies and gets things blatantly wrong a lot of the time?

You may want to check this out...Top News, Latest headlines, Latest News, World News & U.S News - UPI.com

If you've been following the research related to global warming, a mini or even major Ice Age is one of the most likely outcomes.But that has nothing to do with whether the topic except it shows we really don't do a good enough job of teaching or reporting science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sure that this is exciting to a scientist and probably is some sort of a different species by scientific definition. I see it more as an adaptation than an evolvment into something new... like what happens when a larva turns into an adult. If an earthworm were to become a winged or legged creature, with all the intermediate creatures exhibiting the changes in development, then I think scientists could state positively that evolution is no longer a theory.

That's not adaptation; that's metamorphosis, a programmed body development in the organism. Insects metamorph no matter what environment you place them in; adaptation is inherently environment-dependant. Somehow I doubt it would be enough to satisfy your kind. Were we able to show you what you ask for, I doubt you would do anything but describe it as "adaptation", and complain that the worm did not evolve intelligence alongside.Would it satisfy you to see observed evolution of multicelluarlity from single-celled organisms?

A species is commonly defined as a population of organisms that only breed with themselves. If one group of functional organisms cannot succesfully reproduce with another, they are different species. They wouldn't. They would still have a theory that describes how it has happened. What would happen is that creationists would move the goalposts and say that that still isn't macroevolution.

We were talking about speciation, Murphey. Your worm to flying creature would be a change far above what would be used to distinguish species. It would be somewhere around order or class and is not what was being discussed.Theory is as good as it gets Murphey. If we double, triple the supporting evidence it remains a theory. A theory is an explanation. A very, very well supported explanation has bestowed upon it the exhalted title of theory. (though the word is bandied about a bit carelessly too). The theory of gravity (known as GR), the atomic theory and the theory of evolution are examples of the best explanations we have. They are so good that we can expect that if modiefied to encompass new evidence will still maintiain a lot of their current form.That evolution has occured is pretty obvious isn't it? Once upon a time there were no multicellular creatures on the planet, no fish, no reptiles, no birds and no mammals.Later there were multicellular creatures but no fish, no reptiles and no birds or mammals. Later still, there were fish but none of the others. Later there were reptiles and fish but no birds or mammals. Then there were some odd fellows who were clearly reptiles but also had defining features of birds (feathers for example).Still later there were fish, reptiles and birds and some curious animals that had specific characteristics of reptiles AND some features taken as part of the definition of being a mammal. Later still there were fish, reptiles, birds and mammals.Life on earth changed. The changes occured at various rates but the changes are in a very specfic order with a very specific sort of change following another. The changes are EXACTLY what one would expect to find if the evolutionary explanation and the idea of common descent were true. Life evolved and life sure does a good job of looking like the process used to do so was a match for the ToE.