Liberal Hypocrisy Against Teaching Creationism in Public Schools?

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
FadingWhispers3 said:
Why is there so much hostility from the liberal community regarding the teaching of creationism in our public school system?

There is no problem with teaching about creationism such as in a history class. There is a problem with endorsing creationism.

Can any one scientist PROVE that evolution took place?

Science is not about proof, it is about a process of inquiry. In this respect science and creationism are incompatible.
Au contraire, science is ALL ABOUT PROOF. It's called the Scientific Method. Its focus is on determining provability via a set methodology whereby, in the end, the theory is proven and made law.

Evolution, by the way, is only at the theory stage and will remain so because it remains unproven. It is not law because it can never be proven through the scientific method. The second law of thermodynamics, however, IS law, and it disproves the evolutionary theory altogether (entropy: order to disorder in a closed system rather than the other way around which evolution claims).

:idea:
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
SackLunch said:
Evolution, by the way, is only at the theory stage and will remain so because it remains unproven. It is not law because it can never be proven through the scientific method. The second law of thermodynamics, however, IS law, and it disproves the evolutionary theory altogether (entropy: order to disorder in a closed system rather than the other way around which evolution claims).
:idea:

Personally, I blame pokemon. Pikachu might become rikachu, but theories do not become laws.

Are you aware that the law of gravity fails under special conditions? How does this affect your thinking of the meaning of laws now?
 
Upvote 0

SackLunch

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2005
1,385
58
51
BBQ Heaven: Texas, USA
✟1,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Caphi said:
But neither is evolution. Can you PROVE evolution? Can any one scientist PROVE that evolution took place? Nobody can go back in time to see what REALLY happened.

Can you PROVE that a ball will always fall down when you drop it? No, you can't. All you can say is that every ball you've ever seen fits in with the theory that balls go towards the ground when you stop suspending them. It's the same way with all of science. A theory is a way of explaining why the things we directly observe happen. And I'm sorry to say, Darwin's theories have far, far more evidence pointing to their correctness than the Bible's account.

As a Christian, I take the Bible for its word that God created the earth and all that's in it. Non-Christians and others choose to belive that we evolved from whatever, they really don't know what or where it came from, or where the intelligence in that first organism came from.

The burden is on you to define intelligence as you've used it. The first organism, as far as is known, was a bit of RNA inside a bag of lipid proteins. Intelligence isn't necessary for such an object to create another copy of itself. I don't see why you've decided to require that the "first organism" has intelligence.

Both belief systems take a great amount of faith to believe. Neither belief systrem is scientific, and neither can be absolutely proven.

Correct, neither can be proven. However, the one has more supporting it than the other, and really, science is 99% supporting evidence and not that much of direct eyewitness observation.
Any scientist will tell you that DNA contains intelligence. Within DNA is the code of life; it defines what we look like, our chemical makeup, etc. What I am saying is, where did this intelligence come from save an intelligent Creator? Did it originate out of the rocks?

A living organism with DNA intelligence had to have gotten that intelligence from SOMEWHERE. That's what I'm saying. You believe that intelligence came from nowhere, which is mathematically, scientifically, and all other ways impossible. How then do you account for human intelligence?

Yes, neither belief system can be PROVEN. But you have to admit, because of the lack of substantial evidence, both take a great amount of FAITH to believe. :)
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Toboe said:
Will not everyone is a christian. And not everyone believes in a Creator god. Anyway the last time i checked it was illegal to teach religion in public schools.

Actually, as far as I am aware, even in the US, it is not illegal to teach about religion in public schools, as long as the various religions covered in the religious education class are treated objectively and even-handedly. What is illegal is to promote religion or to favour one religion over another.

Personally, I am all in favour of teaching children about religions--the more the better.
 
Upvote 0
G

GoSeminoles!

Guest
SackLunch said:
Evolution, by the way, is only at the theory stage and will remain so because it remains unproven.

Okay, here's a free science lesson for you.

No idea in science can be proven -- not evolution, not gravity, not Last Tuesdayism. All conclusions and theories in science are provisional. An idea does not graduate from hypothesis to theory to fact.

Facts are observables that are off to one side. Hypotheses and theories are constructs separate from facts which attempt to explain the facts we have and to predict what we will see in the future.

Moreover, "theory" does not mean "guess" in science. A theory is a hypothesis that is well supported by empirical data, confirmed by many independent scientists. So, to say evolution by natural selection with common descent is a theory is to pay it a very high compliment.
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
28
35
✟16,259.00
Faith
Hindu
Any scientist will tell you that DNA contains intelligence. Within DNA is the code of life; it defines what we look like, our chemical makeup, etc. What I am saying is, where did this intelligence come from save an intelligent Creator? Did it oritinate out of the rocks?

Information is not the same thing as intelligence. Just because there is some amount of information somewhere does not imply an intelligent being as a cause. I could go out right now, look at the rocks in my garden, use some algorithm to convert the pattern of rocks into binary, then obtain a decimal number from the binary number. I FOUND A NUMBER! IT MUST BE CREATED BY AN INTELLIGENCE!

A living organism with DNA intelligence had to have gotten that intelligence from SOMEWHERE. That's what I'm saying.

What in the world is "DNA intelligence"? DNA's an acidic polymer which, combined with some handy RNA and protein machinery, contains information which, over millions of years, has been streamlined by natural selection to hold information that makes proteins.

You believe that intelligence came from nowhere, which is mathematically, scientifically, and all other ways impossible. How then do you account for human intelligence?

With a brain. Intelligence and consciousness are simply functions of a sufficiently developed brain, which in itself is simply a sufficiently complicated ganglion (bundle of nerve cells). And the brain is a result of natural evolution which turned up a cell, eukaryotes, neural cells, ganglia, the forebrain... until eventually I was born with information suitable for making, among other things, a brain. That's called intelligence.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
SackLunch said:
Any scientist will tell you that DNA contains intelligence. Within DNA is the code of life; it defines what we look like, our chemical makeup, etc. What I am saying is, where did this intelligence come from save an intelligent Creator? Did it originate out of the rocks?

I'm a scientist-to-be (start grad school this fall) and I don't think DNA contains intelligence. I've worked with NASA people and JPL people and I also know they don't believe DNA contains intelligence. I think you're confusing information with intelligence.

A living organism with DNA intelligence had to have gotten that intelligence from SOMEWHERE. That's what I'm saying. You believe that intelligence came from nowhere, which is mathematically, scientifically, and all other ways impossible. How then do you account for human intelligence?
FYI, come here to learn about what it means to be mathematically impossible. Did you know that something with 0% chance of occurring can occur?

Yes, neither belief system can be PROVEN. But you have to admit, because of the lack of substantial evidence, both take a great amount of FAITH to believe. :)

Neither can be proven, but I don't need to believe in evolution nor have faith in evolution. I accept evolution because it's the best theory to explain the biodiversity of life. Take a moment to look at the QT to see all the scientific evidence there is supporting Old Earth/Evolution. While written by members, they all have sources and links backing it up.
 
Upvote 0

Caphi

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2005
959
28
35
✟16,259.00
Faith
Hindu
Au contraire, science is ALL ABOUT PROOF. It's called the Scientific Method. Its focus is on determining provability via a set methodology whereby, in the end, the theory is proven and made law.

A theory is something TOTALLY DIFFERENT from a law. A theory is a plausible explanation supported by data like "we dropped 2000 balls and they all fell down, so I guess there's something that makes all things fall down." A law is a mathematical statement quantifying a theory, like G = -9.8 (the law of gravitational acceleration on Earth).

Evolution, by the way, is only at the theory stage and will remain so because it remains unproven.

Someone doesn't know his proper science, and it's not me.

It is not law because it can never be proven through the scientific method.

It has extremely large amounts of evidence behind it. That makes it a valid theory, and not in the misused sense you're taking it as.

The second law of thermodynamics, however, IS law, and it disproves the evolutionary theory altogether (entropy: order to disorder in a closed system rather than the other way around which evolution claims).

There are two fallacies in this. First, the second law is also a theory, and if we take the word "theory" to mean "poppycock," something you're erroneously doing, then you fail at that too. Second, the second law only applies to closed systems. Earth is not a close system - indeed, it has a constant supply of energy (the Sun) which keeps any object ordered so long as that object has the means to import energy and export disorder - in other words, so long as that object is alive.

Know what you're talking about before you make assertions.
 
Upvote 0
G

GoSeminoles!

Guest
SackLunch said:
A living organism with DNA intelligence had to have gotten that intelligence from SOMEWHERE. That's what I'm saying.

Lots of evolutionists believe that ultimately the universe was created by a god of some sort. Evolutionary biologist Ken Miller (a Catholic) has a great book, "Finding Darwin's God," which describes how evolution is perfectly compatible with a belief in God.

In these sorts of worldview discussions science and theology often get tangled unnecessarily. This leads to confusion and disagreement. The key is to separate conclusions based on science and those based on theology. For example, many religious people also accept evolutionary theory because they understand the scientific data which leads to this conclusion. However, they are also careful not to say that their belief in a Creator is supported by scientific evidence. They understand the difference between a theological belief and scientific evidence. This is why atheists like me and religious folks like Considerthelilly can both accept evolutionary theory but have otherwise very different theological views. Evolution is compatable with both approaches because the question of God is totally outside the ability of science to address.

People who get these two concepts tangled often fall subject to the fallacy that acceptance of evolution means one must reject God. Religious folks certainly don't want to give up their belief in God, so when presented with this false choice they invariably reject evolutionary theory, no matter how much sense it makes to them. They simply don't know how to make the two ideas fit together because they don't understand that one idea is based on scientific evidence and the other on faith and that these two approaches to knowledge occupy entirely separate realms.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dal M.

...more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...
Jan 28, 2004
1,144
177
42
Ohio
✟9,758.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
SackLunch said:
Au contraire, science is ALL ABOUT PROOF. It's called the Scientific Method. Its focus is on determining provability via a set methodology whereby, in the end, the theory is proven and made law.

Science is all about evidence. "Proof" is for mathematicians, philosophers, and distillers. And no, theories don't, butterfly-like, metamorphosize into laws. A law is simply a codified way of describing a consistent observation-- unlike a theory, a law has no explanatory power.

Evolution, by the way, is only at the theory stage and will remain so because it remains unproven. It is not law because it can never be proven through the scientific method. The second law of thermodynamics, however, IS law, and it disproves the evolutionary theory altogether (entropy: order to disorder in a closed system rather than the other way around which evolution claims).

:idea:

I guess that's why physicists are leading the charge against evolutionary theory, eh?

Wait a second... they aren't! Conspiracy!

No, the 2LoT doesn't disprove evolution. If it prohibited complexity from forming, you'd still be a zygote. And your ice cube maker would've been a waste of money.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
SackLunch said:
A living organism with DNA intelligence had to have gotten that intelligence from SOMEWHERE. That's what I'm saying.

It got it from it's parents, just as you did.

You believe that intelligence came from nowhere, which is mathematically, scientifically, and all other ways impossible.

Since when is it impossible? Are you saying that someone had to create God, and that the God creator had to have a creator, that had to have a creator, . . . well, you get my point.

How then do you account for human intelligence?

Looking around I am starting to think it doesn't exist.;)

Kidding aside, where does your intelligence come from? Your brain. Where did your brain come from? Interactions of genes found in your DNA. Where did your DNA come from? Your parents. Where did their DNA come from? Their parents. It's really not that hard to figure out where intelligence came from.

Yes, neither belief system can be PROVEN. But you have to admit, because of the lack of substantial evidence, both take a great amount of FAITH to believe. :)

Why do you need faith if a theory has evidence that supports it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
SackLunch said:
Yes, we should! It is all part of the human experience, and who are we to deny this critical aspect of the human experience to our children?

Creation myths are fascinating. They are part of our uniqueness as human beings and should be taught in the public schools.

Actually you are right. We should teach them all in public schools, but not as science.

Ed
 
Upvote 0

MartinM

GondolierAce
Feb 9, 2003
4,215
258
42
Visit site
✟5,655.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
SackLunch said:
Au contraire, science is ALL ABOUT PROOF.
No, it's about inference.
It's called the Scientific Method. Its focus is on determining provability via a set methodology whereby, in the end, the theory is proven and made law.
And yet Newton's law of gravity has been superceded by the theory of general relativity.

The second law of thermodynamics, however, IS law, and it disproves the evolutionary theory altogether (entropy: order to disorder in a closed system rather than the other way around which evolution claims).

So how exactly is it that the entire scientific community has utterly failed to notice something which you, who I'm guessing can't even state the second law of thermodynamics without looking it up somewhere, understands perfectly?
 
Upvote 0

Illuminatus

Draft the chickenhawks
Nov 28, 2004
4,505
364
✟14,062.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
SackLunch said:
I might also add that anthropologically speaking, atheism is a very rare and contemporary belief system. Throughout history, virtually every society has had some form of belief. It is only modern man who considers himself superior intellectually and scientifically who has embraced atheism as a valid belief system.

Hardly. The first recorded atheistic school of thought originated long before Christianity.

Any scientist will tell you that DNA contains intelligence.

No, they won't, unless they got their degree from Patriot U. By that theory, CDs, floppy disks, and my grocery list also "contain intelligence".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
SackLunch said:
Au contraire, science is ALL ABOUT PROOF.

No, it's not. Proof, strictly speaking, is not possible, as science works via inductive logic. Science is all about evidence and logically derived explanations for all available evidence.

It's called the Scientific Method. Its focus is on determining provability via a set methodology whereby, in the end, the theory is proven and made law.

Sorry, but your understanding of the scientific method is completely wrong. It is a popular misconception that scientific theories become laws, but it's still a misconception.

Theories, in science, are the pinnacle of scientific investigation. Laws are not, and typically they are components of scientific theories. They are mathematical descriptions of observations: laws of thermodynamics, Newton's law of gravity, Stokes' Law, etc. Theories do not ever become laws, rather, laws are some of the bases for theories.

Evolution, by the way, is only at the theory stage and will remain so because it remains unproven.

No, it will remain a theory because all scientific theories remain theories. Gravity is still at the "theory stage" as well (Relativity). Both are also FACTS. That evolution occurs is a fact, just like the existence of gravity is a fact. The explanations behind these facts are the purpose behind theories.

It is not law because it can never be proven through the scientific method. The second law of thermodynamics, however, IS law, and it disproves the evolutionary theory altogether (entropy: order to disorder in a closed system rather than the other way around which evolution claims).

:idea:

Evidently you don't know what you are talking about, yet you speak authoritatively on these subjects anway.

By your own logic, a zygote would never develop because such a process would violate the second law of thermodynamics, because you are apparently not able to differentiate the circumstances in which the law applies as a necessity.

The earth is an open system, so entropy can decrease and the second law of thermodynamics does not apply as a necessity. The sun provides life on earth with useful energy available to do work. We all derive our energy from the sun, directly or indirectly. Plants, for example, use the sun's energy directly through photosynthesis. Animals, as another example, eat plants or other animals that eat plants and use the sun's energy indirectly. That energy allows for entropy to decrease in the earth's system.

Please correct your misconceptions about evolution, scientific concepts like thermodynamics, and how science works even at the most basic level. It's quite clear that you are wrong and a basic education in the sciences could correct it.

If evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics, don't you think scientists would have realized this already? I mean you're talking about a very basic concept here. That should be very telling about the veracity of your statements.
 
Upvote 0