should creationism be taught in schools?

That's as may be, but we were discussing the theory of evolution and the teaching of same in schools --- did you not see the sign as you came in?

I'm afraid that someone has been lying to you. That is not what theory means.Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. --- US National Academy of Sciences"Theory" means a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts. --- National Center for Science Education, USAScientific theories, like evolution and relativity and plate tectonics, are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. Scientific theories are therefore the best-substantiated statements that scientists can make to explain the organization and operation of the natural world. Thus, a scientific theory is not equal to a belief, a hunch, or an untested hypothesis. Our understanding of Earth's development over its 4.5 billion-year history and of life's gradual evolution has achieved the status of scientific theory. --- American Geophysical UnionA theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. --- American Intitute of Biological ScienceEvolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. --- The Paleontological Society You're not kidding. Nor is it a scientific theory. It's a falsified hypothesis. This is like saying we should teach 'em that the stork brings babies in sex education classes so that they learn "every aspect of human reproduction".

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.

If you know that you don't know anything about the subject, why do you have an opinion?

Choose your words more carefully. 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.

* sighs *

Yup. No, scientists have lots of dating methods. There aren't any. How about it? Start a thread. But creationism isn't true, it is not a scientific possibility, and evolution is proven. ... 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.

Scientists. Because there are still religious cranks who are ignorant of science. Scientists. Because there are still religious cranks who are ignorant of science. Oh, stuff like racemization, dendrochronology, fluoride dating (the method used to prove that Piltdown man was a hoax) ... various things. Someone posted a list recently, and there was stuff that even I hadn't heard of.But I asked first. You claim to have "dating methods" that prove the Earth young. Please start a thread. Or at least have the guts to name them. Like radiometric dating, they are based firmly on the observable facts, rather than on the imaginary "assumptions" that you assume (without proof) must exist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yeah, but it's the only one they've got.Imagine if we tried to prove evolution like that."Snakes can't talk, therefore evolution is correct."But of course we don't need to.

This isn't true, and, which you may think rather worse, the audience you're preaching to knows that it isn't true. Which for some reason you refuse to talk about.What are these "aging methods" of which you speak?Start a thread. Start a thread. Start a thread. Ooh, love the apocalyptic sermon. A wannabe preacher, eh?But can you name one of these "aging methods"?Put up or shut up.

While we await, with bated breath, details of at least one method that proves that the Earth is young, here's a list of real dating methods that actually exist.

I agree. But there isn't any.If you think there is, start a thread. Put up or shut up. That would be evolution. * sniggers gently *Even if this was true, each specialist would notice if evolution contradicted anything in his particular field.Meanwhile creationism flourishes in the fertile soil of complete ignorance and misinformation. But none of them is. Nor is any of these thing an "assumption", 'cos they can be verified.What happened to those "young earth dating methods" you believe in? Can you name one of them yet?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There isn't any. This is why creationists are compelled to make up such a lot of silly lies as a substitute. The biggest lie of creationism.Evolution is a theory predicting the facts, which confirm it.Creationists don't even look at the facts, since facts are of no use in propping up a hypothesis that is known to be false. Instead hey look at silly lies made up by other creationists. Then how do you teach creationism?Let me put that another way. How do science teachers who know science, and are aware that creationist lies are lies, teach creationism?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Actually, we've seen what he would teach.He'd teach that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes"; that the eruption of Mount St Helens produced "hydrological sorting" (which is a conflation of two unrelated creationist arguments); that the modern cultivated banana is not a product of artificial selection; that the "starting point" of evolution is disbelief in a transcendent creator; that evolution is "the world religion"; that the nineteenth century geologists who rejected "flood geology" were "atheist or materialistic"; that "there are lots of geologists living right now that see the rocks all the time and refute evolution"; that the Cambrian Explosion was "sudden".But how is a science teacher to teach this mumbo-jumbo?Especially if creationist rubbish is to be put side by side with the facts?One day, she's teaching that "all earth's creatures have 2 eyes", the next day she teaches real biology --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day Mount St Helens produces "hydrological sorting", the next day the children learn what "hydrological" means --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day she teaches them that the banana was made by God by magic, the next day she teaches them that its a cultivar and describes the known history of its cultivation --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day she raves about atheism and materialism, the next day she teaches them what the theory of evolution actually is --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day, she lies about geologists, the next day she tells the truth --- and the children find out that she was lying. One day, she tells them the Cambrian Explosion was "sudden", the next day she tells them that it took 35 million years --- and the children find out that she was lying.Even if she could swallow her integrity and teach what she knows to be lies to children, she would still face the problem that if she also teaches them the facts, she will be exposed as a liar.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How else do you teach creationism?If you're going to teach that "all earth's creatures have two eyes", you can't follow it up with evidence for this, 'cos its not true, and you can't follow it up with a conspectus of how many eyes various creatures have, because then you wouldn't be teaching creationism any more, you'd be teaching the facts, which, according to the doctrine of "equal time", has to wait 'til the next lesson.---It occurs to me that the whole concept of "equal time" is going to cause trouble. It takes seconds to tell a creationist lie, it takes much longer to review the facts.For example, it only takes five seconds to recite that "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics". By contrast, learning thermodynamics would take weeks. The creationist lie is seven words long. My textbook of thermodynamics runs to over a thousand pages. How are we to give them "equal time"?