|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: should creationism be taught in schools? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ceationism in general is the same idea, Intelligent Design. I think that ID should be taught in schools. Great: what is the theory involved, what is the supporting evidence that leads to the theory, what is the prediction of the theory that results in some different result from evolution so that it can be tested (falsified)? And if ID should be taught, then shouldn't we teach both sides of the design controversy? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
I haven't been educated deeply in the supporting evidence of either, sorry. However, I think that schools should teach both sides.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I haven't been educated deeply in the supporting evidence of either, sorry. So you are advocating teaching something without any CLUE to whether there even IS any supporting evidence? What's your feeling about teaching astrology? Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5626 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
I do hope that you agree that if it the evidence tuned out not to support creationism that it should not be taught in schools. There are billions of 'where are they all' missing links that falsify the theory of evolution. No problem, make up a new plan called 'punctuated equilibrium' to take care of the lack of evidence.So this is a theory that can't be falsified - in that case it can't count as a theory .So if it's not a theory (can't be falsified) -should it be taught in school then? The evidence supports creation better than evolution and creation as a possibility has not been falsified so which one should we teach? Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete answer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are billions of 'where are they all' missing links that falsify the theory of evolution. No problem, make up a new plan called 'punctuated equilibrium' to take care of the lack of evidence. So this is a theory that can't be falsified - in that case it can't count as a theory at all. This is a prime example of the sort of fatuous ignorant lie that we can't expect science teachers to teach to children. You will notice also that it is not an argument in favor of teaching the fairy-story about the talking snake. If what you said had a grain of truth in it, that would be a reason for not teaching evolution, not an argument for teaching the pitiful fantasies of religious zealots.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I haven't been educated deeply in the supporting evidence of either, sorry. However, I think that schools should teach both sides. If you know that you don't know anything about the subject, why do you have an opinion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think this is wrong. Sure, it's a scientific theory, but it isn't a fact. It isn't a fact until it is set in stone. Choose your words more carefully.
Sure, micro evolution happens, but I can't think of a single example of macro evolution. As you have just pointed out, you don't actually know about the evidence for evolution. So your inability to think of such evidence is rather irrelevant, isn't it? Perhaps ... in fact, indubitably ... the Paleontological Society know something you don't. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Evolution isn't a fact, although it has lots of evidence supporting it. However, creationism also has lots of evidence. I haven't been educated deeply in the supporting evidence of either, sorry. * sighs *
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hi Beretta, Since you hold this position, I would like to invite you to address the OP in my thread, How can Biologists believe in the ToE?. I am very interested in reading your response. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Beretta writes: There are billions of 'where are they all' missing links that falsify the theory of evolution. One thing that should be taught in schools is basic logic. Missing links don't falsify a chain. It's the existing links that verify the chain. Suppose you're digging in your garden and you dig up two rusty iron rings, linked together. A few feet away, you dig up another single ring. A few feet farther, you dig up two more linked rings. Do you conclude that the three finds are completely unrelated? Or do you conclude that they were once all linked together and some of the links have gone missing? Creationism denies the clear-thinking solution in favour of the fuzzy-thinking solution. That isn't teaching, it's un-teaching. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
However, creationism also has lots of evidence. OK, show some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. --- The Paleontological Society"
I think this is wrong. Sure, it's a scientific theory, but it isn't a fact. Sorry, it is a fact as well as a theory. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This is observed every day. Speciation has also been observed. AiG even admits this.
Sure, micro evolution happens, but I can't think of a single example of macro evolution. Do you know what "macroevolution" is? Really? Did you see Message 107? Or the earlier post addressed to you at Message 71? Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5626 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
One thing that should be taught in schools is basic logic. Missing links don't falsify a chain. It's the existing links that verify the chain. The chain that evolutionists have already decided exists.Logic??? I would certainly be of the position that those iron rings are connected -you're right that would be logical. However, if you find a human body in your back yard and another deeper down in the rock layers a few miles away and then the skeleton of an orangutan at an even deeper level in the same approximate region -what does this tell you? If you're a creationist you'd only conclude that all 3 died and were buried at different levels for different possible reasons -perhaps their bodies were washed there from somewhere else altogether and deposited at different levels but unlike the evolutionist you would certainly not conclude any kind of relationship between the humans and the orangutan. This is simplistic but illustrates the basic logic problem -only evolutionists would potentially conclude some sort of genetic relationship between an ape like creature and humans in general. The same basic lack of logic is seen where evolutionists assume a priori that the earth is billions of years old (to support the concept of evolution, you naturally have to have at least 100's of millions of years). So what do they do? They attach abnormal importance to the radiometric dating methods that (despite many assumptions)support their contention that the earth is billions of years old and ignore so many many other dating methods that support a young earth. Where's the logic? How about presenting the evidence for a young earth as well as that for an old earth and deciding which ones have more presuppositions attached to the basic method. For these sorts of reasons, I say both sides of the debate should be allowed to present the evidence for and against their positions and people should be inspired to continue to search for the truth since the truth is historical and cannot be experimentally repeated and proven.If evolution happened, I have nothing to lose.If creation is true, people should know that it is a scientific possibility and that evolution is by no means proven. If creation is true and they choose evolution given both sides of the story, they have a lot to lose but at least they get to choose. Teaching evolution only is like teaching communism only behind the iron curtain -no other possibility is acceptable to the powers that be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How about presenting the evidence for a young earth as well as that for an old earth and deciding which ones have more presuppositions attached to the basic method. How about we did that 150 years ago, and settled the debate? Creationism was already proven wrong. Why should we teach it in schools, when the debate is over?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is simplistic ... Yup.
They attach abnormal importance to the radiometric dating methods ... No, scientists have lots of dating methods.
... and ignore so many many other dating methods that support a young earth. There aren't any.
How about presenting the evidence for a young earth ... How about it? Start a thread.
If creation is true, people should know that it is a scientific possibility and that evolution is by no means proven. But creationism isn't true, it is not a scientific possibility, and evolution is proven.
Teaching evolution only is like ... ... teaching that 2 + 2 = 4. --- Could I remind you once again that whining about evolution is not evidence for creationism. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024