Creationism VS Public schools

[AdversusSarcalogos]

I am a Canadian.
The creationists, or the "intelligent design theorists" have been pushing hard to get their beliefs taught in a public school setting, rather than keeping it to Xian schools, or Catholic ones.
I pay my taxes.
If one of my offspring is to attend a science class, I want them taught science.

And while we are on the subject of creation and kids.
I think that, like alcohol, and other controlled substances, or things of an adult nature..
That our children should only be allowed to attend a church, when they are old enough to make that decision on their own.
Your parents arent allowed to give you a beer, but they can drag you to a place, where a minister and such rages on about some scary things, that you probably shouldnt tell a six year old.
Double standards are amazing, which is why the theistic community receives so much criticism these days.

 

[keith99]

Personally I would not object to the topic of ID being addressed in Science classes. But ID proponents would not be happy with how. E.g. an explaination of what science is, how the scientific method works and why ID can not be science.

 

[InTheCloud]

They do not teach creationism in Catholic schools, they leave that to the fundies.
Get your facts right.

 

[keith99]

They do not teach creationism in Catholic schools, they leave that to the fundies.
Get your facts right.

There are several Christian, not Catholic, schools in the Los Angeles area and as far as I know none of them teach creationism in the fundie sense of the word. Oh and a few Catholic ones too. Many of the faith related schools prosper not primarily because of the faith element but rather because they provide an excellent education.

 

[RyanLeeParis]

Science is based on observation and experiments. Creation isn't science, it's spiritual. Creation doesn't belong in a science class, any more than math belongs in GYM class.

 

[Gawron]

"any more than math belongs in GYM class."

And if they play volleyball in gym class, how do you propose to keep score?

 

[Aceofspades77]

Science is based on observation and experiments. Creation isn't science, it's spiritual. Creation doesn't belong in a science class, any more than math belongs in GYM class.

True, creation is not a science however it can be a framework for looking at science. This holds true for evolution - not science but a framework for looking at the same observable science that everyone gets to see. I believe creationism should not be soley taught in the classroom but it can be another option for looking at the history of life. I don't believe science should be taught under the belief construct of evolution either but that is what has been snuck into our classroooms. Science is science apart from belief systems just like water is water apart from our belief system, it's what framework we look at science that determines how we see the orgins of life.

 

[Isambard]

True, creation is not a science however it can be a framework for looking at science. This holds true for evolution - not science but a framework for looking at the same observable science that everyone gets to see. I believe creationism should not be soley taught in the classroom but it can be another option for looking at the history of life. I don't believe science should be taught under the belief construct of evolution either but that is what has been snuck into our classroooms. Science is science apart from belief systems just like water is water apart from our belief system, it's what framework we look at science that determines how we see the orgins of life.

a. Evolution is not a belief system. It is demonstrable
b. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Thats abiogensis.

 

[Aceofspades77]

a. Evolution is not a belief system. It is demonstrable
b. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Thats abiogensis.

So you are saying that evolution is not a part of the origin of the universe? Are you a theistic evolutionist? Just curious. And yes I believe that evolution was a thought process for looking at science invented by Darwin himself. I think it's purpose is not only a lie but an alternative those who do not believe a creative loving God that created everthing. I do believe in macroevolution, however more complex species arising out of simple organisms is just insane. Where are the transitional species? And how does evolution fit into the second law of thermal dynamics? Explain to me how flowers and fruit evolved. I just do not see the evidence for evolution. I believe the evidence is highly in favor for creationsim. I believe the cool thing is that God created science and we get to explore what he has already done.

 

[Vene]

So you are saying that evolution is not a part of the origin of the universe?

That's right, it's not. Evolution is what explains why there are so many species.

And yes I believe that evolution was a thought process for looking at science invented by Darwin himself.

Evolution was an idea proposed before Darwin. It's called Lamarckian evolution (but was disproved). Darwin was the guy who thought up natural selection as a mechanism to explain diversity.

I do believe in macroevolution, however more complex species arising out of simple organisms is just insane.

Define complex.

Where are the transitional species?

Here

And how does evolution fit into the second law of thermal dynamics?

It doesn't. Thermodynamics only explains the movement of heat. And we've got this big old thing called the sun that provides plenty of it to the earth. By the way, that allows the total entropy on Earth to decrease, while the entropy of the universe can still increase.

Explain to me how flowers and fruit evolved.

As methods to allow for fertilization and dispersal of seeds.

I just do not see the evidence for evolution.

Look up endogenous retroviruses if you really want some. Start here.

I believe the evidence is highly in favor for creationsim.

Present it.

 

[InTheCloud]

Just curious. And yes I believe that evolution was a thought process for looking at science invented by Darwin himself. I think it's purpose is not only a lie but an alternative those who do not believe a creative loving God that created everthing.

For the record, Darwin belonged to the Calvinist branch of the Church of England when he did his landmark work on evolution. And he used the word Creator 9 times in The Origin of the Species.
He latter became an agnostic or deist when one of his daughters died from illness. But he was a Christian when he formulated his explanation of evolution.

 

[Aceofspades77]

For the record, Darwin belonged to the Calvinist branch of the Church of England when he did his landmark work on evolution. And he used the word Creator 9 times in The Origin of the Species.
He latter became an agnostic or deist when one of his daughters died from illness. But he was a Christian when he formulated his explanation of evolution.

For the record I'm not defending Darwin nor am I charging him. However I am charging his theories that have turned into dogmatic truth and and then in turned called science. As a scientist I respect him and his passion to find knowledge in nature and beyond. But now he has a long following cult(sarcasm) of scientists out there who are immediate to shut down anything from a creationsit perspective. I also believe these theories are becoming less and less reliable and stable. Resoto I don't mind debating these things but please don't use a straw man argument on me. I was not attacking Darwins beliefs or values but his theory.

 

[Naraoia]

So you are saying that evolution is not a part of the origin of the universe?

Well, biological evolution, as in theory of evolution, descent with modification, natural selection, isn't. Of course the word "evolution" is used in other scientific contexts (like stellar evolution), but the only similarity between these usages is that they all refer to systems changing over time.

Are you a theistic evolutionist? Just curious.

I'm very interested in the reasoning behind that question. Just because I'm an atheist and I still don't think the ToE has anything to do with the origin of the universe... (Which may be because that's the truth )

And yes I believe that evolution was a thought process for looking at science invented by Darwin himself.

What does "thought process" mean here? And how does evolution "look at science"? As far as I'm aware it's not exactly philosophy of science.

I think it's purpose...

What exactly is the purpose of evolution (or the ToE)? I mean, apart from explaining the diversity of life.

...is not only a lie...

I suspect you didn't mean "explaining the diversity of life", then. Or at least I don't think that could logically be a lie.

but an alternative those who do not believe a creative loving God that created everthing. I do believe in macroevolution, however more complex species arising out of simple organisms is just insane.

How about these digital organisms? The emergence of multicellularity in a lab?

Where are the transitional species?

See Vene's link. Or name two groups and see if I'm not too lazy to dig up a few transitionals (Provided they are supposed to exist, of course. You wouldn't want to look for bird-mammal transitionals because neither group is thought to have descended from the other, for example)

And how does evolution fit into the second law of thermal dynamics?

Thermodynamics, and thanks, perfectly. See Vene above.

Explain to me how flowers and fruit evolved.

Flowers, probably from tinkering with pre-existing developmental genes.

I just do not see the evidence for evolution.

Vene's mentioned ERVs. There's probably too much evidence (of many kinds) for me to even list it here. How familiar are you with the TalkOrigins FAQs? (Asking because one, they are among the best resources on this stuff for non-specialists, two, I'm not going to just link you to them if you have already read and dismissed them)

I believe the evidence is highly in favor for creationsim.

What evidence?

I believe the cool thing is that God created science and we get to explore what he has already done.

Good for you. *shrug*

 

[Naraoia]

For the record I'm not defending Darwin nor am I charging him. However I am charging his theories that have turned into dogmatic truth and and then in turned called science.

This sentence doesn't make sense, and evolutionary theory isn't dogmatic truth. Or have I only dreamed all that happened in genetics and evolutionary biology in the past century?

As a scientist I respect him and his passion to find knowledge in nature and beyond.

May I ask what your field is?

But now he has a long following cult(sarcasm) of scientists out there who are immediate to shut down anything from a creationsit perspective.

Has it occurred to you that they have a good scientific reason to reach for the fly swatter? Creationism (at least the bits I've seen of it) is not science, for a starter.

I also believe these theories are becoming less and less reliable and stable.

Which theories and why?

Resoto I don't mind debating these things but please don't use a straw man argument on me. I was not attacking Darwins beliefs or values but his theory.

Could you please quote the bits where you attack the theory of evolution? (And by "attack" I mean arguments rather than "it's a lie" or "it's godless" or "I don't believe it")

 

[Aceofspades77]

That's right, it's not. Evolution is what explains why there are so many species. Evolution was an idea proposed before Darwin. It's called Lamarckian evolution (but was disproved). Darwin was the guy who thought up natural selection as a mechanism to explain diversity. Define complex. Here It doesn't. Thermodynamics only explains the movement of heat. And we've got this big old thing called the sun that provides plenty of it to the earth. By the way, that allows the total entropy on Earth to decrease, while the entropy of the universe can still increase. As methods to allow for fertilization and dispersal of seeds. Look up endogenous retroviruses if you really want some. Start here. Present it.

Nice I like how these threads work. Answer one person and get attacked by many who do not see your perspective.

Ok Vene would you like links to all of my ideas or a thorough essay? Kidding.

I like all of the illustrations provided in your wikipedia transitional forms. Once again weak. More than half of those are actual species the rest are "supposed" transitional species. Really Vene. This thread could be a hardcore scientific journal but if your just for quickly trying to shoot me down think again.

Thermodynamics only heat? In part true but where did all of that heat and super high entropy initially come from in the first place? In fact where did all matter come from? Something cannot come from nothing. God created everthing. In short that idea alone Is evidence of God as the mighty creator.

Once again all of the evidence that you've shown is from a darwinst perspective.

But for your reading injoyment. Here you go. Here is a wonderful web site if you care to dabble but it's where I get a lot of my info. http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

Oh an Vean are you used to entering random debates and making eroneuous challenges to people you where not debating in the first place?

Provide me the proof of a transitional species for human(not the ape skulls), a seal, a grasshopper, a humming bird, a jackrabbit, an apple, a cactus, an eagle, a mouse, rather give me at least more than one transitinal species for any species. I'm rambling because we should find evindence of millions of transitional species for most species that exist from the creatures that they were to the creature that they are now. All of the fossils we find now(hundreds of thousands) are fully formed complete species.

Explain to me how new genetic information is created? I believe it's already been programmed by God.

 

[Vene]

Nice I like how these threads work. Answer one person and get attacked by many who do not see your perspective.

Public debate forum. That's how it works.

I like all of the illustrations provided in your wikipedia transitional forms. Once again weak. More than half of those are actual species the rest are "supposed" transitional species.

Transitional species ARE actual species. What did you expect to find, something with half a limb?

Thermodynamics only heat?

Yes, thermodynamics, the dynamics of heat. It only addresses how heat energy works and interacts. Tell me, what else does it supposedly do?

In part true but where did all of that heat and super high entropy initially come from in the first place?

Good question, in the big bang theory energy is what forms the singularity. It's one of those unknowns.

In fact where did all matter come from? Something cannot come from nothing. God created everthing. In short that idea alone Is evidence of God as the mighty creator.

Not this again. If something comes from something, then where did God come from?

Once again all of the evidence that you've shown is from a darwinst perspective.

And you have shown none.

But for your reading injoyment. Here you go. Here is a wonderful web site if you care to dabble but it's where I get a lot of my info. http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

Sure, let's see what they have to say.

"According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms."
Number 2 is wrong. Natural selection can easily select for simple organisms. Which is why the most successful form of life are bacterium like E. Coli. Why do you use a source that lies?

Oh an Vean are you used to entering random debates and making eroneuous challenges to people you where not debating in the first place?

Public forum.

Provide me the proof of a transitional species for human(not the ape skulls), a seal, a grasshopper, a humming bird, a jackrabbit, an apple, a cactus, an eagle, a mouse, rather give me at least more than one transitinal species for any species. I'm rambling because we should find evindence of millions of transitional species for most species that exist from the creatures that they were to the creature that they are now. All of the fossils we find now(hundreds of thousands) are fully formed complete species.

Ah, you have no idea what a transitional species means. A transitional species is between two different species, but it is still a functional organism. You're not going to find a single biologist who expects to literally find half a human, seal, grasshopper, etc.

Explain to me how new genetic information is created? I believe it's already been programmed by God.

Which of these has more information?
AUGACUUGA
or
ACUGACUUGA

 

[plindboe]

Aceofspades77,

I have some questions, that I think might help communication along;

1.What do you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics states, and why do you think it rules out evolution?
2.If evolution was true, what kind of transitional fossils should we expect to find?
3.How do you define information, and why don't you think that evolution can account for it?

Succinct answers are preferred.

Peter

 

[Aceofspades77]

Hi plindoe I like your style of debat succinct answers is more my key. I'm learning to keep things simple on these forums. Anyhoo--

The second law of thermodynamics is a profound principle of nature which affects the way energy can be used. There are several approaches to stating this principle qualitatively. Here are some approaches to giving the basic sense of the principle.

1. Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold object to a hot object.
2. Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.
3. You cannot create a heat engine which extracts heat and converts it all to useful work.
4. There is a thermal bottleneck which contrains devices which convert stored energy to heat and then use the heat to accomplish work. For a given mechanical efficiency of the devices, a machine which includes the conversion to heat as one of the steps will be inherently less efficient than one which is purely mechanical.

With this in mind(I'm focusing on point 2.) I highly believe with all of the highly complex organisms and structures the universe favors high entropy.

 

[plindboe]

Hi plindoe I like your style of debat succinct answers is more my key. I'm learning to keep things simple on these forums. Anyhoo--

Thanks. There's often so much word salad in these kinda debates, that renders communication impossible.

The second law of thermodynamics is a profound principle of nature which affects the way energy can be used. There are several approaches to stating this principle qualitatively. Here are some approaches to giving the basic sense of the principle.

2. Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.

With this in mind(I'm focusing on point 2.) I highly believe with all of the highly complex organisms and structures the universe favors high entropy.

Onto my next questions:

1.In your chosen formulation of the 2nd law it says "free of external influences". Do you believe the biosphere is free of external influences? Is sunlight not an external influence?
2.If you believe, on the basis of your understanding of the 2nd law, that order can't arise over time, do you deny that a seed can develop into a tree?

Peter

 

[Aceofspades77]

As far as free from external influences I'm referrieng to intelligible influence. For example a person gathering all of the carbon dioxide from an open coke bottle and phyiscally putting it back into the bottle or somebody stacking a deck of cards in perfect order instead of the cards stacking themsleves.

A seed has all of the genetic information contained in itself to become a fully formed tree. I believe all creatures are "programmed" with this genetic information since the creation. Now I believe within these "programmed" organisms there is absolutely room for variations but not in the since of a simple organism say a simple protein over millions of years( with entropy in mind) turning into the highly complex organism we see today. Even a simple protein by standard definitions is chalk full of complex "programming". For me to believe that all life today came from these huge genetic leaps and bounds just by statistics itself is very hard to believe.