Government in the US is Promoting Anti-Creationist Dogma Evolution

Exactly where is this 'anti-creationist dogma' to be found in science curricula? Wouldn't it be unlikely to be taught when science is supposed to be neutral to the existance or non-existance of a supreme being?Also, what exactly is the meaning of the word "Creationist"? Normally we take this to mean anti-evolutionist, however there are many theistic evolutionists, those people who believe in divine creation by gradual evolution. If these are to be included under Creationists, how can simply teaching evolution be labeled as 'anti-Creationist'?[This message has been edited by gene90 (edited 01-01-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by corey:
The average student in a high school/junior high biology class doesn't have the background to make the distinction between good and bad science.

---

For one who has seen a highschool senior confront a teacher for teaching something as outlandish as plate tectonics, that comment has particular weight. In fact, I think a substantial number of people, including adults, in the general population never make that distinction. The popularity of even obviously commercial pseudosciences
today demonstrates that vividly.By the way, earlier I tried to reply to this string but got a DNS error. One benefit of this format is that after hitting the 'back' button, the browser usually remembers what was typed.

Same with ID "theory". What does it explain that evolution cannot?Also, ID theory has no mechanism! It only gives us "God did it!" and leaves no encouragement to find out how. Nevermind that God itself is non-falsifiable.For thousands of years, people have resorted to the supernatural to explain things. Where did that get them? Nowhere--because the supernatural is a "quick fix" that can "explain" anything from weather to the phases of the Moon, but cannot be tested or understood and so is of absolutely no value.We are lucky that the processes operating in our world are naturalistic and that we can understand them. We are also lucky that the "ID camp" broke its hold on culture long enough for science to develop at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eva:
Evolution v Creation

​

I'd just like people who frequent this board to know that there are teenagers out there who aren't as ignorant as we are usually portrayed.

---

I hope this is not an issue with the Yahoo! transplantees.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Just as the current theory of evolution doesn't care about abiogenesis or where that first population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate, came from, the same goes for the Creation version concerning the "Created Kinds".

---

The difference is that abiogenesis itself has some evidence going for it. There is nothing, in principle, that prevents advanced organic compounds, including replicators, from forming from abiological compounds. Likewise there is no known cellular phenomenon that is not reducible to chemistry. Finally, we have experiments like Miller's that demonstrate that, under a wide variety of conditions, simpler compounds will form into amino acids, thus removing 2LOT based objections: as is well known, 2LOT allows "information" or "complexity" to increase in a system as long as energy is made unusable. The rest is a mix of the laws of chemistry, a lot of time, a lot of space with the reactions occuring in, and maybe a little luck. It seems probable that if you have the right compounds around, reacting for long enough, life is going to happen, IDer or not.Now, about ID. We start with a pre-supposed God, and some elements God has already made.How does God reach down from Heaven and make the molecules align to generate a living thing? Does He cast a spell? Surely not, that is sorcery, not science. How are you going to find the mechanism, and how are we going to test it empirically? Are we going to learn how to cast spells before all is done? You see...if the naturalistic version can use abiological processes to make amino acids, shouldn't the supernatural camp be asked to speak amino acids into existance, if we are going to give them equal time? Or get God to do it?I contend that ID "theories" cannot be science.

I disagree. I feel that teaching must be standardized to make sure that students are being taught properly. I also feel that teachers should be held more accountable to whether students are learning. And I think that evolution should be well represented in the standardized test standards, which would be upheld by Federal law and be uniform throughout all the states, and that the science portion of which should be written up by the NAS.Sadly, the legislature does not seem to be scientifically literate and is working against the country's best interests in science education.

Incidentally, I feel that private schools should be required to submit to such testing procedures as well, and be penalized for failure to meet the standards, just as agriculture has to submit to USDA quality testing.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90 (edited 08-14-2001).]

Good points. I suppose my problem is that I don't trust either the legislature (state or national) or schoolboards with science education.It's true. A national standard would poorly fit regional needs and would open the door to Creationism through political means. If only nine states teach evolution unabashedly, then evolution supporters are best off trying to resist Creationism on a state-by-state basis.Too bad the Creationists get to pick the battles, they should be fighting in the journals, not in political arenas.

I hope you're right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
gene90:
John Paul:
Yeah, evidence shows it is as close to impossible as you can get. But I guess that is the only way you guys can say any Creationist version of biological evolution is not science because it starts from an "unnatural" beginning. Of course no one mentions abiogenesis is a big fairy tale.

---

I wonder if I could trouble you to back any of those statements up. Namely a peer-review journal cite that find abiogenesis impossible
and/or one that discovers abiogenesis is a fairy tale.Also, I would like to see you speak amino acids into existance. [QUOTE][b]
John Paul:
ID does not start with a pre-supposed God. God is a possibility but not a necessity. [/QUOTE][/B]In that case, justify the need to invoke religion in the first place.

quote:

---

John Paul:
That is what we are trying to find out.

---

Good. When will you catch up with the naturalists?

quote:

---

John Paul:
I will put it this way, IF God did cast a spell to Create life, than any science that tries to attempt a different answer is worthless because it is not indicative of reality.

​

---

And if God didn't cast a spell, ID is worthless.Suddenly, it seems that we aren't only "inferring" an IDer.

quote:

---

Read Spetner's book. But now I have to ask you, how do you test that procaryotes can/ did evolve into eucaryotes?

---

Sequence their DNA and find the links.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Under controlled laboratory experiments, which is hardly natural.

---

I would hardly call pouring some simple compounds into a flask and running a spark gap "controlled conditions" because there was no chemist turning knobs any any controlboard nearby. When it began there was no more control other than deciding when to turn it off.Also, there is no way that the molecules inside would know whether the experiment was in a laboratory or not, and they are subject to the same laws of chemistry that they would be on early Earth. So the claim that the molecules in the flask were different from those probably involved in abiogenesis has no basis in fact. [QUOTE][b]Not to mention the fact that the experiments also created many toxins such as tar or that the presence of water or oxygen would spell peril for any alleged early chemical reactions.[/QUOTE][/b]Curious, it didn't stop the reaction in the flask, why would it stop the reaction in the open ocean? Also, was oxygen common on the early Earth?

quote:

---

Back to the point- leaving out origins the Creation model of biological evolution is just as scientifically valid as any theory that states common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.

---

In that case, what is the Scientific Theory of Creation, how does it function without any supernatural influences at any point, and what are the falsifications?

quote:

---

What Creationists need to do, is to better define what a "Kind" is.

---

I agree.