baileym1

We do teach both sides of the coin in our school, but our fundamentalist Christians think one of two things--that we shouldn't teach evolution because it is false or that we are not qualified to teach creationism as public school teachers. You really can't win. Many of our extremely religious families have no interest in having their children "exposed" to both sides of any argument.

George

Which is pretty darn sad in my opinion.

__________________
What's that? You haven't Gone Green yet? What are you waiting for?
Got a question? Need help figuring out how something works here?
Send me a Private Message.

mplltt

I was told the very same thing, and all the way from 5th grade to my senior year I was made fun of which made me question, rather than go into depression, christianity and all of this "absolute religious truth." I believe that this is what lead me to the very origin of agnosticism, which is to question the belief of all "religious absolute truth." Christians say that if you are going to be in the church then you have to believe in absolute truth, and that God cannot be set in rule of laws set up by the universe. Essentially saying that God or "god" does not exist because his power to create is not calculable, in essense any form (visibile or invisible, animate or inanimate, real or imaginary, all that is preached) that God exists in is non-existant. His laws are not able to contain god and therefore god does not exist. This is all very mathematical since many theorems of geometry and differentials can describe ordinary or non-homogenous situations even down to winning a race on foot ( you will find that this will make christians feel very speachless) that christians whom believe that quantum physics is the answer it really is only potentially there, still god is non-existant because of the focus that is chosen to determine who god is. Realizing this, god is only, according to the egotistical view of the church which can never be changed in a million years, will always trip over the fact that mathematics is god implied not god determined. This is why christians will always loose, god's power is that the language of visible and invisible, animate or inanimate, real or imaginary is so correct that god can predict and therefore create anything. I like being human and just calculating for my small project. I think linearly. One thing at a time. If everyone thought like me then I would then be able to determine everything and that would make me all religious. I question things that are religious absolute truth. We can kid about the President being the "leader" of the free world (all powerful) but then what is free? I would be able to watch this turn to zero. a non-thing, non-existant, non-free, nothing. I laugh, haha, because people like my ideas and follow the ruler but his god is zero.

__________________
Thank you, I am impressed that you are forgiving enough to approach this line of reasoning.

Ronin

LOL I think I would have liked your teacher

But he demonstrates nicely why you can't teach ID as a scientific theory - once you introduce God, it's "The End," there's just nothing more to say. Here's an ID theory for you: God created the entire universe, including us, 10 minutes ago, complete with fabricated memories of a past which never, in fact, happened. I can't prove it, you can't disprove it. Once you introduce the concept of God, anything is possible and things like logical deduction based on empirical evidence (i.e., science) go out the window.

I can, however, sympathize with creationists' fears that their children are being "indoctrinated" with evolutionary theory as if it were holy writ. But the solution isn't to teach ID, its to ensure that evolution is taught in a fair and balanced way, i.e., teachers should mention the controversies and weaknesses of the theory as well as the evidence for it. Admitting that no theory is airtight is good science, introducing a deus ex machina to fill in the gaps in our knowledge isn't.

__________________
"The world is my country; to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine

Faydwyn

If evolution has been disproved, where are all the scientists-the biologist, geneticists, anthropologists- who agree? Why is that only those that are Christian or who support ID are the ones claiming this? If it were really true, the vast majority of scientists would agree.

Faydwyn

Here’s something I wrote for my Physical Anthropology class…


Colloquial Use of the Word “Theory” Versus the Scientific Use

Every one has the right to believe what one desires. But belief and science are not necessarily one and the same. Proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design claim that their “theory” is as valid as the “theory” of Evolution. Perhaps this comes from a misunderstanding of what “theory” means in the context of science.

Stephen J. Gould says that “in the American vernacular, ‘theory’ often means ‘imperfect fact’--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.”(1) In science, however, a Theory is a hypothesis or explanation that is verifiable by repeated testing and data collection. It is “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."(2) In this sense the Theory of Evolution is a valid Theory (and is even considered to be fact by the vast majority of scientists). There is abundant evidence for it that stands up to the Scientific Method. However, Intelligent Design is based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. This interpretation is not verifiable by the Scientific Method. Thus, the theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory in the scientific sense of the word.

Additionally, further misconceptions might occur when debate about evolution ensues between scientists. But the debate is not about whether or not evolution is true, but about its mechanisms. R. C. Lewontin in "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth” writes that “what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution” not evolution itself. (3) In the National Geographic News article “Does ‘Intelligent Design’ Threaten the Definition of Science?” John Roach writes, “According to [Eugenie] Scott, anybody who surveys the peer-reviewed scientific literature will uncover articles documenting disagreements over the pattern and process of evolution, ‘but they won't find arguments over whether living things have common ancestors.’"(4)

If we were to not use the scientific definition of a “theory” when determining what is taught as science curriculum, the creation stories of a wide variety of cultures, from the Ancient Greeks to the Navajo, would also be taught. However, like Intelligent Design, these explanations are not verifiable by the Scientific Method.

Because Intelligent Design is not verifiable by science, its place in a science classroom is questionable. As individuals are free to believe what they will, they are also free to teach that belief to their children. However, within the context of a science classroom, only those explanations that are verifiable by science and the Scientific Method should be taught.

(1), (2), (3) Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
(4) Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?

Ronin

Very good points, especially the one about distinguishing between the fact that evolution has obviously occured, and the various theories that are put forward to explain how, exactly. I remember begin taught three theories of evolution when I was in school: gradualism (gradual change mostly through natural selection - closest to Darwin's original theory), punctuated equilibrium (long periods of stasis puncuated by occasional rapid "bursts" of change brought on by some change in the environment) and one other I can't remember any more. I believe punctuated equilibrium was the favored theory at the time. Are there any biologists out there that know what the current consensus (if any) is?

On the other hand, there's something to be said for the "teach the controversy" point of view; though, of course, I support it for the exact opposite reason the creationists do - I think that it will weaken ID. I mean, we can't just ignore all the junk science that's out there: real scientists may think it too laughable to dignify with a response, but lay people aren't likely to have ready answers to things like faulty probability calculations like we've already dealt with here on this forum. But if these sorts of things are dealt with in the science classroom right from the begining, then creationists will have a much harder time selling their half-baked ideas to an ill-informed public. It wouldn't even be necesary to mention creationism or ID by name; teachers could call it something like "common misconceptions about evolution." Of course, if creationists insist on the teacher explicitly telling her students that these outdated and easily corrected "misconceptions" are actually tenents of their ID "theory," that's fine by me.

__________________
"The world is my country; to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine

SithLord

Until evangelical ID nuts can explain how dinosaurs existed before man was even thought of they will remain the butt of my jokes during any discussion on creation.

Ronin

Didn't you know? Humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time! There are footprints in Texas that prove it, but of course the scientific elites claim that they were faked b/c they can't stand to admit that the Bible was right and they were wrong. THen they'd have to give up their immoral, goddless lifestyle (you know what fast livers those scientists are )

Sorry, I try to be fair and balanced and all but sometimes I just have these occasional outbursts of sarcasm. I know all Christians aren't like that, so please don't take it personally. BTW, where are our resident Christians? I'm still waiting to see if Grant has a rebuttal to our analysis of his probability article, and I'm consumed with curiosity as to }SOC{Sumguy's religious affiliation - he call's himself a Christian but so far he's denied the authority of the KJV Bible, that God knows the future, and that God participates in the world, all of which are contrary to what I know of Christianity.

__________________
"The world is my country; to do good is my religion." ~ Thomas Paine

SithLord

... or they really are faked and the scientists are right?

OK I like sarcasm too