Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

BobRyan · May 2, 2021

HB1701 House Vote - Arkansas State Legislature

Creationism bill passed in Arkansas House, headed to Senate

==== the result
Creationism bill narrowly defeated in Arkansas | National Center for Science Education

"Arkansas's House Bill 1701 (PDF), sponsored by Mary Bentley (R-District 73), was narrowly defeated, on a 3-3 vote, in the Senate Education Committee on April 21, 2021. If enacted, the bill would have allowed teachers in the state's public and open-enrollment charter schools to "teach creationism as a theory of how the earth came to exist."

"House Bill 1701 passed the House of Representatives on a 72-21 vote on April 7, 2021, after passing the House Education Committee on a voice vote on April 6, 2021"

====================== My POV as a creationist ============
Given that:

1. Creation has a particular doctrine on "origins" that explains how all life we see today got on Earth at all major levels from plants to humans.

Creation Science relates to "observations in nature" that evaluate intelligent design as well as studying short-term geochronometers found in nature.

2. Creationists know that Evolution (at the level of evolutionism) has its own competing doctrine on "origins" that includes a story about how all life we see today got on Earth at all major levels from plants to humans.

Evolution vs Evolutionism example from wikipedia

Evolution - Wikipedia

>> I call this "Evolution": -- as observed science fact

quote from wikipedia:

“Evolution: Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population”

>> I call this part "Evolutionism" – the doctrine on origins believed by atheists – in direct opposition to Creationism. A story that explains how all the diverse life on earth seen today - came about.

quote from wikipedia:

“It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules."

======================

My suggestion is that both of these religious views be left out of the science classroom - and just the actual science part should be taught.

==========

Some may ask for "observations in nature" that show "intelligent design" and young-earth geochronometers - so I provide some examples here - #278

Some may ask how the phrase "lifeless rock" comes into the discussion of abiogenesis. That is discussed here in the interview with Stanley Miller pertaining to aspects of the Urey-Miller experiment - #263

Some may ask if flaws in the argument for evolution are noticed by world class atheist evolutionists - I have a thought experiment to introduce discussion of the point here #226 and here - #272

Goonie · May 2, 2021

BobRyan said:
HB1701 House Vote - Arkansas State Legislature

Creationism bill passed in Arkansas House, headed to Senate

==== the result
Creationism bill narrowly defeated in Arkansas | National Center for Science Education
"Arkansas's House Bill 1701 (PDF), sponsored by Mary Bentley (R-District 73), was narrowly defeated, on a 3-3 vote, in the Senate Education Committee on April 21, 2021. If enacted, the bill would have allowed teachers in the state's public and open-enrollment charter schools to "teach creationism as a theory of how the earth came to exist."

"House Bill 1701 passed the House of Representatives on a 72-21 vote on April 7, 2021, after passing the House Education Committee on a voice vote on April 6, 2021"

====================== My POV as a creationist ============
Given that:

1. Creation has a particular doctrine on "origins" that explains how all life we see today got on Earth at all major levels from plants to humans. Creation Science relates to "observations in nature" that evaluate intelligent design as well as studying short-term geochronometers found in nature.

2. Creationists know that Evolution (at the level of evolutionism) has its own competing doctrine on "origins" that includes a story about how all life we see today got on Earth at all major levels from plants to humans.

Evolution vs Evolutionism example from wikipedia

Evolution - Wikipedia

>> I call this "Evolution": -- as observed science fact

quote from wikipedia:
“Evolution: Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population”

>> I call this part "Evolutionism" – the doctrine on origins believed by atheists – in direct opposition to Creationism. A story that explains how all the diverse life on earth seen today - came about.

quote from wikipedia:
“It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.

======================

My suggestion is that both of these religious views be left out of the science classroom - and just the actual science part should be taught.

The actual science is evolution by natural selection. Get over it.

Wolseley · May 2, 2021

Well, I'm not a geneticist, but I do know they've done millions of experiments with fruit flies. They've tinkered with the genes of fruit flies until they produced wingless fruit flies, blind fruit flies, headless fruit flies, fruit flies with various numbers of legs, fruit flies with two sets of wings, fruit flies that were all colors of the rainbow.....but at the end of the day, they were all still fruit flies.

Now, when they can change a fruit fly into a giraffe---or even a cicada, let me know. Until then, evolution is merely a 170 year-old story that's quite frankly beginning to show its age. The same thing can be said for Lyellian uniformitarianism; in the face of newer theories, Lyell's ideas are actually quite quaint.

essentialsaltes · May 2, 2021

Story is 3 weeks old. The bill has failed to get out of committee in the Senate.

BobRyan · May 2, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
Story is 3 weeks old. The bill has failed to get out of committee in the Senate.

That is in the OP

BobRyan · May 2, 2021

Wolseley said:
Well, I'm not a geneticist, but I do know they've done millions of experiments with fruit flies. They've tinkered with the genes of fruit flies until they produced wingless fruit flies, blind fruit flies, headless fruit flies, fruit flies with various numbers of legs, fruit flies with two sets of wings, fruit flies that were all colors of the rainbow.....but at the end of the day, they were all still fruit flies.

Good point. And in the "long term evolution experiment" they discovered that after 75,000 generations of "evolution" - observed in real time... bacteria remained .... wait for it... "bacteria".

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia.

Evolution in real time.

BobRyan · May 2, 2021

Goonie said:
The actual science is evolution by natural selection. Get over it.

You are of course welcomed to your opinion -- and "yes" I am "over that"

in fact I welcome it.

HARK! · May 2, 2021

Goonie said:
The actual science is evolution by natural selection. Get over it.

How does natural selection explain the creation of life?

variant · May 2, 2021

HARK! said:
How does natural selection explain the creation of life?

No. It doesn't. But, we don't reject theories for not explaining things beyond their intended scope.

Creationism on the other hand doesn't explain anything ever.

variant · May 2, 2021

BobRyan said:
Good point. And in the "long term evolution experiment" they discovered that after 75,000 generations of "evolution" - observed in real time... bacteria remained .... wait for it... "bacteria".

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia.

Evolution in real time.

Were they expecting them to do something else?

BobRyan · May 2, 2021

HARK! said:
How does natural selection explain the creation of life?

I don't think it comes into play at all when it comes to that - which is called abiogenesis. Multiple (somethings - call them prions if you will) have to suddenly acquire the capability of "self replication" without the need of a host - and have gene mutation of some sort fully active - get t to natural selection "bootstrapped" - and even then how does it "come up with a bacteria".

And as the long running evolution experiment shows after 75000 generations how does the bacteria ever come up with a eukaryote? Answer - "it does not" .

Even in the long running evolution experiment - the bacteria (prokaryotes) are still not turning into Eukaryotes.

BobRyan · May 2, 2021

variant said:
Were they expecting them to do something else?

Evolution defined as "doing nothing but leaving bacteria as... bacteria" would not "expect" a long term evolution experiment to do anything at all other than leave bacteria as just bacteria over 75000 generations of evolution.

But evolution defined as "evolutionism" where supposedly the human race itself evolved in much fewer generations than that - would expect the production of an entirely new species or two in 75000 generations. Wayyy beyond "a single celled eukaryote" level.

HARK! · May 2, 2021

variant said:
No. It doesn't.

I didn't think so.

variant said:
But, we don't reject theories for not explaining things beyond their intended scope.

You might want to study up on theory.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected.

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

HARK! · May 2, 2021

BobRyan said:
I don't think it comes into play at all when it comes to that - which is called abiogenesis. Multiple (somethings - call them prions if you will) have to suddenly acquire the capability of "self replication" without the need of a host - and have gene mutation of some sort fully active - get natural selection "bootstrapped" .

Even then - the bacteria (prokaryotes) are still not turning into Eukaryotes.

Is Abiogenesis testable? If so where are the test results? I haven't seen any. What practical application does it serve to spend valuable education resources, by promoting this "theory" to our children?

variant · May 2, 2021

BobRyan said:
Evolution defined as "doing nothing but leaving bacteria as... bacteria" would not "expect" a long term evolution experiment to do anything at all other than leave bacteria as just bacteria over 75000 generations of evolution.

But evolution defined as "evolutionism" where supposedly the human race itself evolved in much fewer generations than that - would expect the production of an entirely new species or two in 75000 generations. Wayyy beyond "a single celled eukaryote" level.

I don't think that's true.

75,000 generations for bacteria is a little over 40 years. (5 hrs per generation)

http://kitto.cm.utexas.edu/courses/ch395g/fall2009/MOL190/Eukaryotes27.pdf

Given the evidence in the natural world. The oldest evidence we have for prokaryotes is 3.8 billion years old and the oldest evidence we have for eukaryotes is 2.7 billion years old.

That would be the entire natural world and works out to 1.1 billion years meaning we would expect that level of evolution in 1,752,000,000,000 generations.

variant · May 2, 2021

HARK! said:
I didn't think so.

You might want to study up on theory.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected.

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

It's not incompatible with evolutionary theory, it's just not explained by it.

The theory explains how life changes, and isn't intended to explain how life began.

Gravitational theory for instance wouldn't be incorrect if it didn't explain cellular respiration.

HARK! · May 2, 2021

variant said:
It's not incompatible with evolutionary theory, it's just not explained by it.

The theory explains how life changes, and isn't intended to explain how life began.

Gravitational theory for instance wouldn't be incorrect if it didn't explain cellular respiration.

So why is Abiogenesis being taught in concert with Evolution in our public schools?

variant · May 2, 2021

HARK! said:
So why is Abiogenesis being taught in concert with Evolution in our public schools?

Because it is also a scientific theory.

HARK! · May 2, 2021

variant said:
Because it is also a scientific theory.

There is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are testable.

Is Abiogenesis testable? Where is the evidence?

variant · May 2, 2021

HARK! said:
There is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Scientific theories are testable.

Is Abiogenesis testable? Where is the evidence?

Scientific theories make testable predictions.

Abiogenesis makes testable predictions like: "There are conditions where self replicating chemicals will form life" Which we are currently testing.

Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

Junior Member

Not so Mystic Mog.

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Stranger in a Strange Land

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

שמע

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

Junior Member

Junior Member

שמע

שמע

Happy Cat

Happy Cat

שמע

Happy Cat

שמע

Happy Cat

Similar threads