Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

OK. Let's keep abiogenesis out of the curriculum. I don't think it is taught in schools anywhere, is it? It is not part of evolutionary science, as has been explained.

BobRyan said:

It is just one example that shows "belief" in spite of science fact to the contrary.

Click to expand...

You have a problem with Naturalists? People who follow a philosophy of Naturalism?

In any case in the OP I point to the two opposing doctrines on origins in the case of evolution and creation -- and push for the idea of keeping doctrines on origins out of the science classroom.

Click to expand...

Evolution is only a doctrine for the aforementioned Naturalists. For the rest of us, it's just science.

I have updated the OP to help clarify the "belief" or "religion" part that could easily be avoided - and just stick with observable science.

Click to expand...

No, we're not going to stick to "observable" science. That would be silly. There's a great deal of science that we'd have to throw out. You want to apply a standard that manages to eliminate the one theory you dislike, but you need to be aware of how much other science your standard would affect.

We have had a long discussion about one half of the OP. It might be time to examine the other half - Creationism.

Perhaps we could start with some observations about what it is. In my view the Creation story is a myth, resembling other myths in that it is entertaining rather than instructive. Thus to 'teach creationism' to children is to tell them stories.

Or is there something I have missed? Some evidence in support of the Creation story that elevates it to a discipline for growing minds?

BobRyan said:

well then welcome to "religion" when you start doing that with origins and biology.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't grasp the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific theory only has to cover the known evidence. All the evidence that we've found has to fit into the theory. It doesn't matter if there are gaps. If we can find evidence someday to fill in gaps, great. If we find evidence that doesn't fit, we'll have to alter or replace the theory.

We're not going to wait to form a theory until we've filled in every gap. For one thing, every time you find something that goes in a gap, it creates two more gaps.

Trying to label it as "religion" is ludicrous.

Not in biology.

Click to expand...

You can't apply a standard arbitrarily to one science and not others. Your standard would wreck astrophysics and geology, at least.

BobRyan said:

Doing research - collecting the data, then doing the analysis

Click to expand...

They certainly got the funding to do the research, and utterly failed to produce any evidence of a young Earth. Their methodology was clearly shoddy and flawed and they ended up with a huge problem that can’t possibly be resolved without a) adding in miracles or b) admitting that the Earth is much older than they believe... guess which option they chose?

BobRyan said:

#7 of Our Top Ten Evolution Stories of 2014: Ciliate Organism Undergoes “Scrambled Genome” and “Massive…Rearrangement” | Evolution News

Click to expand...

The original paper is interesting, it serves to demonstrate the rigour and detail that the authors put into their research. Casey Luskin’s input less so... if you consider the vague, unsubstantiated, speculation he offers to have any scientific merit I don’t know what to say.... “it’s complex, it must be designed” seems to be the extent of ID, I’m not sure it’s worth dedicating much teaching time to that.

Creationism requires science to conform to “what we already know”.
Science ain’t having it.

'...well then welcome to "religion" when you start doing that with origins and biology.

It's like saying you have to agree with a lot of non-observable features when building a house. IT simply is not true.'

Er, not me, gov.

BobRyan said:

That is why I included this link in the OP -- #278

Click to expand...

That is all biassed stuff from an avowedly Christian publication whose articles all appear to be about how Intelligent Design somehow measures up to science. No actual papers about observations, inferences, testable hypotheses, peer reviews - nothing a scientific publication would contain.

So far there is nothing to teach children about creationism as science because it is what I believed it to be - religion.

Everybody has a right to their belief that a god Created everything. Let us call it what it is; faith. As such let it be in a religious instruction class.

HARK! said:

Observation is essential in science.

Click to expand...

Yes and you can observe the DNA, the fossils and everything else, you don't require direct observation of the event, this is a lie and nonsense creationists make up to try to pretend evolution isn't science. No one accepts your definition but other creationists. Most of physics wouldn't be science by your nonsense.

HARK! said:

How exactly were they isolated?

Click to expand...

There have been many cases of isolation of members of species. The famous cases were observed in the Nineteenth Century and are very fully catalogued in Darwin's 'Origin's of Species. Think of the finches found only on the Galapogos Islands. These are instances of direct observations leading to the hypothesis we now know as evolutionary science.

For ancestral apes refer to the geography of Africa. Changing climate caused insuperable barriers to be formed so that species which for many generations had interbred freely across very large populations were cut off.

But Hark! knew this already, surely. It is Evolution at the elementary level.

HARK! said:

To start off, you would do well to understand the difference between an argument and a question.

From there, if you had understood the concept; you might have been capable of answering the question.

Click to expand...

You'd already made an argument about one animal transforming into another that demonstrated a lack of understanding.

HARK! said:

To start off, you would do well to understand the difference between an argument and a question.

Click to expand...

Spare me. You are hear to argue against evolution. Your questions are not asked in order to learn.

HARK! said:

From there, if you had understood the concept; you might have been capable of answering the question.

Click to expand...

To what end HARK!? But you will notice your question has already been answered. Because creatures don't "transform" into other creatures. Nothing in the theory claims that because it would be silly and the theory of evolution is not a silly theory.


Now, let me ask you.

Are all the Biologists who have dealt with this theory in the past 150 years all stupid or deceived?

HARK! said:

Actually I didn't introduce the expression "direct observation" to this thread; and I don't believe that the person who did was a Creationist. You might want to check it out.

I introduced a definition of science. It did not qualify the word "observable."


Do you consider that a strawman argument might be a lie?

Click to expand...

It didn't, your the one the is insisting that observable MUST be direct observable of the event, not observing the data.

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Fair point, but remember proverbs 22:6.

Why do we bother to teach children at all (ie. literacy, numeracy etc.)

Let’s just pretend for a moment, crazy as this may seem, that evolution is a false representation.
Notwithstanding, evolution has been taught in education for as long as I can remember, and I’m in my fifties.

For the sake of fairness, Why shouldn’t we give the same time over to a literal creation teaching in the classroom for forty ish years?

Then let children make their own minds up...