Creationism VS Public schools

...?

Vene said:

No, back up that evolutionary theory is a cult.

Click to expand...

And you back up your ridiculous quote picture. Mind shrinking it down for the rest of us there? Sense of humor?

Aceofspades77 said:

Once again creationsim, inteligent design ect...is an outlook and a belief structure, a way to look at science. I take the same information that science has provided of which we all have access too and make my own conclusions.

Click to expand...

Okay, great. Now what? Are you applying those conclusions to solve real-world problems (i.e. studying disease, improving crops, etc)?

And it does not matter what hundreds of P.H.D scientists think?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they think. What matters is what they do. This is where evolutionary biology > creationism/ID. The former is applied in the real world. The latter is not. The former is a science. The latter is a religious belief.

Religious preference or not I have high respect for many scientist wheather I know there deep personel belief structure or not. Why should I care what you think with these type of responses?

Click to expand...

I don't care if you care what I think. Er... I think.

MoonLancer said:

if Science is a God though, then my God is real while yours is most certainly not. My God has a corporal form that I can see and experience.

Click to expand...

More important than being real, science is actually useful -- putting it one up on AV's "God."

Aceofspades77 said:

And you back up your ridiculous quote picture. Mind shrinking it down for the rest of us there? Sense of humor?

Click to expand...

Back up your statement that evolutionary theory is a cult. My signature is not a part of this discussion.

Aceofspades77 said:

How is a template different from a code or a system used to organize information?

Click to expand...

I thought I was quite explicit on that point. A code is an abstract representation of a thing. The symbols are arbitrary. DNA does not represent anything. It is the thing. Genes do not represent proteins, they are physical objects used in the manufacture of proteins.

And are these genetic errors useful for promoting new adaptable forms of life?

Click to expand...

As I said, most are neutral. Many are deleterious and yes, many are useful in creating new adaptations and functions. The evolution of nylonase is a canonical example, as is the recent evolution of citrate metabolism in E. Coli. In humans, one of the more recent examples is the evolution of adult lactose tolerance.

Lastly is it observed that genetic errors benefit organisms today or the oppossite or have no effect whatsoever? BTW thx for the replies.

Click to expand...

As I said, there are plenty of examples of all three, but neutral mutations are most common.

Aceofspades77 said:

There are self organizing systems that are obvious and then those in the case of biology that I have a hard time understanding. But even then systems work within a certain set of laws that govern the universe. Even grains of sand that organize themselves into clusters in the weightlessness of space from their own gravity is a system that abides by the 2nd law that makes sense to me. How did the first organisms along with their DNA organize themsleves. I liken DNA to computer code as to where the perfect sequence must be in place for the system to work as a whole.

Click to expand...

Molecules also self-organize. That is how the first imperfect organic replicators came into existence. From these, came the first true "life." Also, you are wrong when you claim that the DNA must form a "perfect" sequence for the system (organism) to function. Case in point: Your DNA sequence is different from mine, yet we both function fine. Case in Point #2: Protein sequences coded by DNA (genes) are different between different species, despite the fact that they all function similarly, and can even replace each other without affecting the function of the organism.

Aceofspades77 said:

How is a template different from a code or a system used to organize information? And are these genetic errors useful for promoting new adaptable forms of life? Lastly is it observed that genetic errors benefit organisms today or the oppossite or have no effect whatsoever? BTW thx for the replies.

Click to expand...

There are a number of examples of "beneficial" mutations (I beleive that is what you are asking for). My favorite is glyphosate resistance in a population of goosegrass that was due to a single substitution mutation. Others are a frame-shift mutation that allowed a bacterium to digest nylonase, and the evolution of anti-freeze proteins in artic fish from a digestive enzyme.

Aceofspades77 said:

And your signature quote, creationism is not a science but a framework for looking at science. And there are hundreds of scientist who believe in the biblical account of creation who have contributed to their specific area of expertise. I do like your fraggle rock picture though. Yes evolutionary theory has come along way it's more of a cult more now than ever.

Click to expand...

Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. Period. It is not a "cult," just because you do not like its implications.

Aceofspades77 said:

Just like Judaism, Hinduism, and lets say...Bushido has nothing to contribute to science. Where is your reasoning and facts Pete? Once again creationsim, inteligent design ect...is an outlook and a belief structure, a way to look at science.

Click to expand...

Wrong. I.D. is a deceitful effort to try and make "creation science" capable of evading the constitutional separation of church and state. Specifically, it was created to allow creationism to pass the so-called "Lemon Test."

Wikipedia said:

The Court's decision in this case (Lemon v. Kurtzman) established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Click to expand...

This was made obvious in the Dover Trial, where it was shown that I.D. was created right after "creation science" was crippled by court descisions and was no longer a viable political tool for the creationism movement. I.D. was then synically created to replace "creation sciecne" as a political tool to get creationism into the class room. In fact, the I.D. version of the text book "Of Pandas and People" was shown to be identical to a previous "scientific creationism" version with the exception of the words "creator" and "creation science," which were replaced by "Intelligent designer" and "intelligent design."

Ace, what gives creationism the right to be in classrooms, or any Government institution, considering Dover?

I think creationists should not advocate that Biblical creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible. I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me. I came to lose faith in evolution at a young age even though at the time all I knew was evolution. I started to question how supposedly it was responsible for every living thing that exists and I just have not been given enough evidence of this in the classroom and out. I think science should be taught unbiased with the origins of life presented as a theory for which of course we have the evolutionary model and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.

Aceofspades77 said:

I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me.

Click to expand...

To remove evolutionary theory from the classroom makes no sense. After all, a major component of modern biology is evolutionary theory and as I already said, it has real world application particularly in emerging biological fields (i.e. bioinformatics, genomics, etc).

Furthermore, you have loads of money both public (i.e. government) and private (VC funding) being put into biotech, some of which invariably makes its way to evolutionary based science (via applied research or whatever). A case in point was Florida pumping hundreds of millions into biotech over the last several years.

The bottom line is you need skilled labour in those fields and evolution is part of that skillset. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but that's the way it is. About the only thing striking evolution from the classroom will do is negatively impact the economy at a local and possibly national level. And considering the economic threat from emerging markets like China and India, I don't think too many Americans are keen on that.

Aceofspades77 said:

I think creationists should not advocate that Biblical creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible.

Click to expand...

I think the former is more important than the latter, but OK.

Aceofspades77 said:

I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me.

Click to expand...

Why is it that creationists who claim to be "scientists" don't understand anything about science? In science a theory is a testable model based on confirmed hypotheses and observations that explains a set of natural phenomena, and is capable of making testable predictions and is verifiable through empirical observation.

Aceofspades77 said:

I came to lose faith in evolution at a young age even though at the time all I knew was evolution. I started to question how supposedly it was responsible for every living thing that exists and I just have not been given enough evidence of this in the classroom and out. I think science should be taught unbiased with the origins of life presented as a theory for which of course we have the evolutionary model and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.

Click to expand...

Why should the origins of life be treated differently from gravity, chemical interactions, or the diffraction of light? The "scientific creation" model is not scientific, it is based on a religious belief. Why should religious models be taught along side scientific models in a science class?

Aceofspades77 said:

I think creationists should not advocate that Biblical creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible.

Click to expand...

How about for the reason that these "judicial restrictions" exist in the first place: namely that it is morally wrong and harmful to society to force people to support a religion with their tax dollars that is not their own?

I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me.

Click to expand...

Our science books are full of theories: Newton's Theory of Gravity, the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, etc. etc. Like many creationists, you seem to misunderstand what exactly is meant by the word "theory" in the scientific sense. A theory is a unifying explanation that ties many disparate observations and empirical laws together into a cohesive whole with explanatory and predictive power. It is not an educated guess. Theories do not "graduate" into "facts" or "laws" once they accumulate enough evidence. They are the highest rank of explanation that exists in science.

I came to lose faith in evolution at a young age even though at the time all I knew was evolution. I started to question how supposedly it was responsible for every living thing that exists and I just have not been given enough evidence of this in the classroom and out.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if your scientific education was deficient. It's a common complaint that we concentrate too much on telling children what scientists know and too little on how they know it. However, rest assured that the evidence for evolution is quite plentiful and rock solid. It is virtually impossible nowadays to find anyone who rejects evolution without some underlying religious motivation.

I think science should be taught unbiased with the origins of life presented as a theory for which of course we have the evolutionary model and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.

Click to expand...

1. We do not currently have a complete scientific model for the origin of life itself, and certainly nothing comprehensive enough to present at the high school level.

2. When I say "we" above, I am including creationists along with the mainstream scientific community. Of course, the scientific community does have a coherent and well-evidenced model for how the first life forms diversified into the species we see today. Creationists do not. Creationism in all its myriad forms is neither well-evidenced, nor falsifiable, nor does it provide predictive power. The research output of Creation Science is almost nil. Its tally of applications has been stalled at zero for... well for thousands of years.

and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.

Click to expand...

There is no scientific creationism model that meet any kind of standards.

because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible.

Click to expand...

Or worse to explain the Bible in a way not acceptable to creationists. What is the teacher is Catholic or a liberal protestant and interprent many thinks in the Bible symbolicaly? And starts talking about P, Y, E, D, when explaining Genesis? The fundamentalist literalis will be up in arms.

Aceofspades77 said:

I think creationists should not advocate that Biblical creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible.

Click to expand...

As a teacher who no doubt by your standards doesn't "believe" the Bible -- and what do you mean by "believe" the Bible, anyway? -- I think it would be a great idea to get an unbiased perspective on the history, context, and nuances of the Bible from someone who doesn't believe that God will smite thee for not interpreting it a certain (notice how I don't say "correct") way.

Speaking for myself, as a teacher with a background in ancient literature and mythology, I'll bet my blessings I could teach you a thing or two about the Bible your local pastor doesn't know -- or would refuse to even consider for fear of upsetting church doctrine -- doctrine which existed for centuries to promote the church, not necessarily the Bible.

I am also against the evolutionary doctrine that has been crammed into our school books for the past century when in fact it is still just a theory to me.

Click to expand...

Everything in science is "just a theory" -- gravity, electricity, germs -- are all "just theories" which happen to be supported by the facts.

I came to lose faith in evolution at a young age even though at the time all I knew was evolution. I started to question how supposedly it was responsible for every living thing that exists and I just have not been given enough evidence of this in the classroom and out.

Click to expand...

If you stick around, perhaps that will change.

I think science should be taught unbiased with the origins of life presented as a theory for which of course we have the evolutionary model and the scientific creation model along with the multitude of other models that exists.

Click to expand...

First of all, evoultion does not address the origin of life, only its diversity. Second, no such "scientific creation" model exists.

Aceofspades77 said:

Have not “Intelligent” men been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you have a point...as in, you're going somewhere with this?

Cut to the chase.

Aceofspades77 said:

Have not “Intelligent” men been working on producing life in test tubes for years,

Click to expand...

Not that I know of. Have they? As far as I know, they have been exploring different pathways towards life, not trying to create life itself. There is a big difference between those two. In the first, people are trying to get a specific, small reaction going, like forming the basic molecules necessary for life. In the latter, they are trying to produce a new life-like thing from scratch.

and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them.

Click to expand...

It takes more than just knowing the ingredients to bake a cake.

From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.

Click to expand...

Without wanting to be insulting, and apologizing in advance, but this remark is just plain stupid.

Aceofspades77 said:

Have not “Intelligent” men been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.

Click to expand...

forget it. Its over. your "just a theory" argument shows your ignorance. your mouth is speaking the words of the ignorant. They are clearly not your words but an echo. You don't have the knowledge to understand evolution or even the very basics of science, and without understanding it, you cant really reject it. Your fighting a straw man. You might not even have known it yourself until this moment. of course you could change that and learn about what science actually says, instead of getting your info from scrupulous sites or your church leaders.

Aceofspades77 said:

Have not “Intelligent” men been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them.

Click to expand...

Does poliovirus count? Yes, researchers have assembled synthetic poliovirus from mail-order nucleotide sequences.

Also, I might point out that religious explanations of origins dominated human thought for thousands of years prior to the advent of modern biology and in all that time have provided us with not a single application nor a shred of predictive ability.

From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.

Click to expand...

I am unaware of any proviso in the Theory of Evolution that measures the intelligence of two things by one's ability to synthesize the other. In other words, you're talking nonsense.

Aceofspades77 said:

Have not “Intelligent” men been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life available to them. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than man.

Click to expand...

Who says that's what evolution is about?