Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

given that decision, all creationists have to do is get enough people to agree with them ...

Specifically, scientists.

Sure. If creationists could show that they were right, their position should be taught and evolution shouldn't. It would certainly pass the Lemon Test, since there would obviously be a secular purpose in teaching something which had been proved to be true.

for me, evolution should not be in the science classroom for it is not really science ...

Again, let's leave that one up to scientists, shall we?

in other words, predictions do not exclude other sources from producing the same results.

And if someone could produce another theory with the same predictions it would be worthy of consideration.

---

I shall overlook your mere errors of fact for now because the thousandth time one hears them they are not particularly interesting.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

we are right

If unsupported assertion was a substitute for evidence creationists would have carried their point a long time ago.

no. i am not a elitist and scientists do not have a monopoly on origins. scientists are not the final authority and do not provide any answers instead they are the blind leading the blind.

On the whole when it comes to science I prefer that peculiar form of "blindness" which consists of knowing about science over the more conventional form of "blindness" which involves knowing damn-all about it.

predictions mean nothing and are not part of the equation so your comment is moot.

Predictions ... mean nothing?

Once more I am happy that science is in the hands of scientists and not those of your good self.

creation doesn't run by secular scientific models

Well, quite.

preditions are merely a tool of the blind to deceive the blind.

This is most amusing. But how else are we to test a hypothesis?

all you have to do to see that creation is true is visit a human, animal, plant nursery and you have your evidence ...

I've done that. No evidence.

Having read your posts on other threads I too am coming round to the idea that you are a prankster (a "Poe", as we call it). No-one can be so thoroughly stupid about all the subjects that you're wrong about. I think you're just winding us up.

Much of our departure from the Dark Ages was the result of Creationist scientists like Louis Pasteur and Isaac Newton. Pasteur was strongly opposed to Darwinian Evolution at the time.

Also, Newton didn't believe in the planet Neptune. But he had no occasion to do so.

I can't find any quotes from Pasteur against evolution even looking at creationist apologetics resources. If you can, please produce them.

Evolution is actually the more recent theory. Same with the Big Bang theory. Same with Uniformitarianism. All are more recent theories, and the Creationist theories are the older ones.

A distinction they share with the "theory" that Thor causes lightning rather than electricity, and that witches cause disease rather than germs, and that there are four elements rather than the larger array set out in the periodic table, and that the Earth is stationary rather than in motion, and that earthquakes are caused by the periodic twitching of the gigantic frog that carries the Earth on its back rather than plate tectonics.

And you think this doesn't happen in Evolution? How do you explain the rush to judgment in assuming a linear transition to apes, and belief Lucy walked on all fours?

Um ... you made that up, remember? Along with similar nonsense about Peking Man?

How do you explain falling for hoaxes like Piltdown Man for decades by the scientific establishment? They had their conclusion and did not consider other alternatives.

This is clearly not the case, because it was the "scientific establishment" that considered, and then proved, the alternative that Piltdown Man was a hoax.

But yes, we concede that scientists sometimes make mistakes. But the thing is, creationists never do anything else.

Source? According to the University of California, Berkeley, Catastrophism was abandoned only after Lyell invented his theory of Uniformitarianism out of dislike for the Bible

(1) They do not say that "Lyell invented his theory of Uniformitarianism" because he didn't.

(2) Lyell was a theist when he published his Principles of Geology.

(3) Christian scientists did in fact debunk catastrophism --- even if you don't count Lyell as Christian, one man does not a scientific movement make. Indeed, Christian geologists are still jumping up and down on catastrophism's twitching corpse.

(4) This controversy was indeed largely resolved before Darwin published.

How do you explain sterility in interspeciary breeding?

Because after sufficient genetic divergence, organisms are unable to interbreed.

This was a major issue for Darwin and he spent a whole chapter in "On the Origin of Species" trying to explain it away.

What utter garbage. Try actually reading chapter IX of the Origin of Species.

How do you explain the lack of transitions and stasis in the fossil record inconsistent with Gradualistic Evolution?

The lack of transitions is something creationists made up; and the stasis is entirely compatible with the theory, as Darwin was the first to point out.

All of those could arguably be considered of the same core created parent species and thus Microevolution compatible with the Bible rather than Macroevolution indicative of a common ancestor.

You can also arguably consider the Earth to be flat. Your ability to consider things is of remarkably little relevance.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Let's define religion: re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\ : the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group Let's focus on the last definition. Teaching evolution is, in my opinion, teaching religion.

But using that same definition, teaching math is also a religion. Its an interest which is very important to mathematicians. Teaching people how to speak Spanish is a religious activity, that's an activity that is very important to people who are monolingual in Spanish. The law of conservation of energy is very important to the group known as "physicists". American history is important to Americans. And so on ...

As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins ...

It doesn't, I checked.

Common sense question: Which is the safer teaching? 1. You are a chemical/biological accident. Upon death you will decompose and cease to exist as an individual. 2. You are a created for a purpose, held accountable for everything you do, etc.

No religious opinions should be taught in public schools. This is why biology textbooks don't actually contain the claim that there is no afterlife.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What the heck is "observational science"?

Oh, it's a creationist device for avoiding reality. Basically, if you've actually seen something happen, it's "observational science". If you haven't seen it happen, then one opinion about whether it happened is just as good as another, no matter what the evidence is, 'cos that's not "observational science".

This way, creationists don't have to be wrong about the significance of all the evidence for evolution bit by bit, but instead at a single stroke they can be wrong about whether it has any significance at all. This relieves them of having to actually look at the evidence, which would involve effort and which might end in them realizing that creationism is bollocks.

You will note that this epistemological view, if applied consistently, would make the people who held it incompetent to function in the real world. Fortunately for them, intellectual consistency is not one of their virtues.

"They"?? Observation is a basis of the scientific method. I am not sure why the vitriol for my comment. Our relationship is that of the fox and the hound I would enjoy your constructive comments, but feel free to keep the negative stereotyping to yourself.

I am reporting on the maneuvers I've seen creationists actually carry out when prating about "observational science". It's difficult to describe their practices accurately without sounding a little negative. If I wanted to be positive about their antics, I could have written "Creationists are such wise clever people with some really excellent ideas about epistemology" ... but that wouldn't actually be true.

True science accepts all inquiries for testing, than sorts from there. I hope you will understand new evidence every day is being found by scientists that might change the way we understand the earth, origins, etc. A great example is the human genome project. The 70s brought the idea we were 99% similar to chimpanzees. Now, it is far less and we actually see the 600 million base pair difference along with the chromosomal difference. Junk DNA is no longer junk Amazing what we learn in time.

Yes, scientists have found out such a lot of interesting things. Some of this knowledge has even trickled down to creationists eventually. But daydreaming about what new evidence they "might" find is somewhat removed from anything that deserves the name "observational".

Offended that is takes faith to get life from elements???

If you can get life from elements with faith, I should like to see a demonstration.

Offended that the human genome project has shown us to be very far from chimpanzees, etc??

No-one is offended by stuff you've made up. Amused, yes.

Offended that I would dare question the secular science community, when simple observation puts much of it into question?? Maybe they should be in a different line of work, if they cannot handle the rigors of science and questioning theories as technology increases.

Considering which, it's really unfair that they get the Nobel Prizes, while your genius goes unrecognized. What with them being unfit for the rigors of science, and you knowing so much better than them, you deserve more credit for your wonderful discoveries. Can you remind us what they were?

Occom's razor could agree that a Creator or ID force created or aided in our origin It does, after all, have the fewest assumptions. Creation .... creator.

This is barely written in English and has no apparent meaning.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As would I, my friend You somehow think that a cell was formed by pure accident, by elements that just so happened to show up from a singularity.

How about I tell you what I think, and you concentrate on telling us what you think. That way you'll lie less often.

I would point you to the human genome project for information on the above. Please see for yourself and research the number of dna bases for humans and for chimps or orangatuns. I would hate to "make up" anything

Then I have some bad news for you ...

I would hope you could see past my quick typing and see the message behind But, that obviously goes against your agenda. It is obvious you are a brainwashed individual that is not interested in science. You are more interested in making irrational comments.

Again I would urge you not to lie to me about what I'm thinking. If moral considerations don't dissuade you from doing so, consider the fact that you are certain to get caught.

Complexity in any engineering area generally requires a complex design.

Whereas complexity in biology apparently doesn't. For example, a sycamore tree is complex, and is produced by two other sycamore trees reproducing: no design takes place, no intelligence is applied.

To see a simple organism and knowing what it required for it to "live" would point to more than a "miracle."

This is another of those sentences you might want to have another run at.

Well, this, for example. It happens on a short enough scale for us to observe, and involves the production of a new metabolic function by the evolution of a new operon.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

My above question was asking about the chromosome difference as well as the 600 million base pair difference. The difference in base pairs is the big one.

Different species have different genes. Otherwise they'd be the same species. This is caused by a process called "mutation" which you would doubtless have heard of if you had been paying attention in science class.

I am very interested to hear how that discrepancy has been accounted for.

You might want to stop using the word "discrepancy" until you find out what it means.

There is no comparison with any other works of mankind. No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+), nor have any been written over such a long span of time (1,600 years). Yet it is profoundly cohesive in all of its contents.

Er, no.

It's not even written in the same language throughout. It's not written in the same style. It doesn't use the same names for God. It's full of inconsistencies. Cohesive? It's barely coherent.

Yes! Absolutely! You know those two don't have to be conflicted right? It's enough to find a smart teacher who can present both without conflict? And even if we assume that alright those two don't match. Then again - a smart educator - can present both, describe them and let you chose what's more plausible for you.

But creationist arguments are flatly opposed to scientific knowledge. How is a teacher meant to teach both sides "without conflict"?

For example, consider the creationist claim that there are no beneficial mutations. But there are. So the teacher says ... what? "There are no beneficial mutations, yes there are". Then a kid raises his hand ... "Please, Miss, which of those mutually contradictory statements is true?" And the teacher has to say "The second one".

Or "The second law of thermodynamics says that evolution is impossible no it doesn't." ... "Archaeopteryx is a completely modern bird no it isn't" ... "The theory of evolution says everything happened by random chance no it doesn't" ... and so forth. And each time the students are going to ask which is true and learn that the creationists are talking nonsense.

So how is creationism to be taught? What does the "smart educator" teach?

Creationists, eh?

We don't expect them to have degrees in biology. Or anything else. Our standards are not high. We ask for so little. But we always get even less.