Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

truthsearcher In this one sentence from the website you have given is this statement. The people actually type the words out and in the same sentence completely get it wrong.Let us take them by the hand shall we?"Evolution is scientific because it is testable and falsifiable,"They nailed it on the head. We can make models that explain what we see in Nature and use the model to determine what things nature should reveal to us as we go along. In short it allows us to test the model and eliminate possible scenarios as the information becaomes available. As we press on we refine the model to fill in details that were not known before.Now in the second half of the sentence we immediately recognize that they did not understand the implications of the first half."and has been tested and confirmed"Before I go along do you see what the contradiction is here? Read what the first half actually says and then read what the second half actually says and you will see for yourself the contradiction.This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-04-04 05:52 PM

Stop spamming us with links to your siteThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-09-2006 09:45 AM

Stop spamming us with links to your siteThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-09-2006 09:46 AM

quote:

---

A multiplicity of natural, biological systems exhibit complexity that could not have arisen through natural, evolutionary processes.

---

Says who? Some peabrain with a religious agenda and a lousy M.A. degree ?

quote:

---

...the Intelligent Design movement has begun to gain major footholds in academic circles.

---

Not in the 'academic circles' I travel in, that's for sure.

quote:

---

Biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes.

---

From whence this sweeping conclusion? Just because it has not yet been replicated experimentallly doesn't mean it cannot occur.

quote:

---

...intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project is a classic example..

---

Actually, their assumption is merely that an intelligent communication would be *recognizable* if they could detect it - and they haven't.

quote:

---

Another example of testing for intelligence would be that of the IQ (Intelligent Quotient) test designed to measure intelligence scientifically.

---

Oh yeah - there's a great example. This is not an example of 'testability' in the scientific sense. IQ testing is merely a rather primitive attempt at intelligence *quantification* - in very relative terms, I might add - nothing is being 'tested' in the sense of falsifying or supporting a hypothesis. What total bunk.

quote:

---

In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism.

---

It certainly withstands this pathetic attempt at criticism.
This article is just a load of missleading religious propaganda masquerading as some kind of science argument.

Are you going to put up any answer for the rebutals posted already?

Sorry. I didn't realize a link to my site (which I thought relevant to the debate) was SPAM. I will look again at your protocol.

This whole topic is very frustrating for people that are interested in having students well educated in science. Intelligent Design is not science because the only experimental data used to validate conjectures of Intelligent Design proponents is the supposed lack of evidence for evolution theory. If Intelligent Design was science, then people would publish there views in scientific peer reviewed journals and let the information disseminate from there to highschools. Instead proponents of intelligent design are high jacking the system by having frustrating battles with highschool science boards. The Kansas highschool science board members worked hard on writing science standards for not only biology but also chemistry and physics. Now since this 'controversy' hit no attention has been given to any of the work going on in fields besides evolution research.
I study mainly chemistry and physics, so I don't have a lot of the experimental data available to me that several posts have mentioned. But I do think that science is often severly misunderstood. Many people on this board talk about how evolution will never ba a scientific fact, how abiogenisis is a scientific fact, or about other things that are or are not scientific facts. Evolution, abiogenesis, and other scientific theories will never be facts. Scientific theories are always falsifiable by definition. A scientific theory and the assumptions that the theory makes are accepted if the theory is consistent with current scientific facts. Evolution and abiogenesis are consistent with current experimental data ( and lack of data is not inconsistent ). There should not be a controversy. Only science should be taught in science classrooms.I don't agree with some of the ridicule that is sent towards people of faith in higher powers. Science is often misconstrued as being composed of ultimate truths. That is simply not the case. Science is generating theories that are consistent with experimental data.

What's funny is that I work with a bunch of engineers in the software/computer industry and no one I know believes this junk either. AND WE AREN'T EVEN BIOLOGISTS or anything close to biologists for that matter.I'm still waiting to find someone who supports this garbage who actually knows anything about evolution (and it's not like I am any sort of expert on evolution).EZ, you should read an essay called "Welcome to Idiot America" by Charles Pierce. (you can google it). He addresses this modern phenomenon where everyone thinks they are an expert on everything. For example, look how many people on here think their opinion on geology is as valid as scientists with DSc and Phds in geology.

Thanks SNC, I will be sure to check for that article.
It sounds consistent with a lot of what we are seeing lately.AbE:I found that article and it was so good I came back to post a direct link to it. Greetings from Idiot Amercia Everyone interested in the topic of this thread should read this excellent article. It certainly puts the OP question in the context it deserves, one of contemplation by idiots only.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-11-2006 01:13 PM

Hi Lupin - welcome to EvC.
Kansas needs all the science defenders it can get...

quote:

---

Because we live in a nation where Christianity is the most practiced beleif, some of my teachers say they are not trying to bring religion into our lives when, in fact, that's exactly what they are doing. I never hear a teacher say a word about evolutionism where I listen to several teachers mention God and creationism. I write this article not to nag, but to make a point. Even though creationism nor evolutionism is not to be taught in the schools, it will always be brought up by the beleifs of certain people.

​

I believe that evolutionism and creationism should not be taught in public schools because, all people have different beleifs.

---

I agree to a degree. I think creation should be taught. That's one out of two.
People have different beliefs, and where knowledge is intertwined with belief, the majority belief should be represented.

That's not one out of two - its zero.
Pray tell what would you teach? "Goddidit" - that's it?
That's supposed to be some sort of explanation?You are constitutionally free to spout that pathetic tripe in Sunday School, but you are not constitutionally free to label it as SCIENCE.
Thankfully we still reserve that right for actual acredited scientists, although its questionable for how much longer that will remain the case in "Idiot America".
Creationism is a simple-minded myth for simple-minded people - its not an explanation of anything. It's an excuse for NOT thinking hard about anything, ergo it appeals to those who have difficulty thinking hard about anything...
They naturally gravitate to the simpleton's non-explanation.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-12-2006 08:52 PM

Just got Panda's Thumb for the library since it is what caused so much consternation. A quick perusal indicates some people should be embarassed, it is just a dumbed-down anti-science book, kind of like a bunch of Chick tracts strung together.{abe} spelingThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 10:17 PM

Surely you don't mean Gould's book?

Hopefully he's referring to Of Pandas and People, Davis and Kenyon's anti-science screed. Not Gould's book.