Creationism in schools?

[jarofthoughts]

Oh, I got it. Evolutionists have no answers for how life began, the very foundation of their theory is missing, so they claim: "It doesn't matter how life began." The mythical evolutionary tree has no rootstock. How different is the Bible's clear, unambiguous answer: "For with you [Jehovah] is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9)

Apparently you didn't get it.

Let's try this a different way;
Let's say for the sake of argument that the first forms of life was created by a god,
who then sat back and let life evolve, leading to several single-celled forms, leading to multicellular forms,
leading to plants and fish, fish leading to reptiles, reptiles leading to mammals, leading to primates, leading to us*.

The Theory of Evolution would still be correct if this was the case, would it not?


*Yes, this is a gross simplification, but you get the picture.

 

[RisingKnowledge]

That's why they have private schools.

 

[Mathematician]

Should we not teach any of the sciences because we don't fully understand the fundamental nature of particles, space-time, and molecular chemistry?

Evolution is at least observable; the same can't be said of electromagnetism where we only see the effects. Do you think a reliable alternative to current theories like microscopic trolls should also be taught for the sake of fairness?

 

[FanaticStudy]

Should we not teach any of the sciences because we don't fully understand the fundamental nature of particles, space-time, and molecular chemistry?

Evolution is at least observable; the same can't be said of electromagnetism where we only see the effects. Do you think a reliable alternative to current theories like microscopic trolls should also be taught for the sake of fairness?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

There's methods and means to observe and explain science.

We can't teach creationism in school because there's no evidence for this, the only evidence is "but god".

I know people usually say that creationists use "intelligent design" as a way to circumvent the heat. But I personally do believe in evolution, but I also believe that someone, or something set things into motion, all the scientific laws in fact. It's not mutually exclusive to believe in some higher being and believing in science.

But again, creationism have no place in school, for that matter I don't even think religion should be taught in schools (unless you pick and chose the courses yourself obviously), outside of the cultural context. Young people should be able to make up their own mind what to believe, and not get force fed whatever religion is the local flavor.

 

[Valjean]

The origin of life is not the foundation of the ToE. The observed fact of change over time is the foundation.

We know that living things change. The ToE explains mechanisms that account for the change.
While the origin of life is a legitimate area of study, it just isn't what the ToE studies.

If you're interested in the origins of life there's a lot of research in this field.

 

[rusra02]

Apparently you didn't get it.

Let's try this a different way;
Let's say for the sake of argument that the first forms of life was created by a god,
who then sat back and let life evolve, leading to several single-celled forms, leading to multicellular forms,
leading to plants and fish, fish leading to reptiles, reptiles leading to mammals, leading to primates, leading to us*.

The Theory of Evolution would still be correct if this was the case, would it not?


*Yes, this is a gross simplification, but you get the picture.

In the mythical scenario you describe, it would be relevant (at least to some) that a god created life and ordained its evolution from fish to reptile to mammal, etc. More relevant is that the evidence does not support this myth. "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." The Neck of the Giraffe by Francis Hitching.

 

[Noaidi]

In the mythical scenario you describe, it would be relevant (at least to some) that a god created life and ordained its evolution from fish to reptile to mammal, etc. More relevant is that the evidence does not support this myth. "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." The Neck of the Giraffe by Francis Hitching.

Ah, good old Francis.
Are you aware of these links, rusra:
Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists
Francis Hitching - EvoWiki

 

[rusra02]

The origin of life is not the foundation of the ToE. The observed fact of change over time is the foundation.

We know that living things change. The ToE explains mechanisms that account for the change.
While the origin of life is a legitimate area of study, it just isn't what the ToE studies.

If you're interested in the origins of life there's a lot of research in this field.

As mentioned many times, the ToE as commonly understood, is not that living things change. The ToE claims living things evolve into entirely new living things. I disagree that how life began has no relevance to whether evolution occurred or not. Evolutionists cannot say how life began and pretend the answer is not relevant. A study of how life changes without understanding life's origins is groping in the dark.

 

[rusra02]

Ah, good old Francis.
Are you aware of these links, rusra:
Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists
Francis Hitching - EvoWiki

Cmon, I put his quote out there for all to see. Posting links is not a convincing counter-argument.

 

[darkendless]

As mentioned many times, the ToE as commonly understood, is not that living things change. The ToE claims living things evolve into entirely new living things. I disagree that how life began has no relevance to whether evolution occurred or not. Evolutionists cannot say how life began and pretend the answer is not relevant. A study of how life changes without understanding life's origins is groping in the dark.

No its not, its evaluating what we can instead of making stupid and irrational assumptions involving mystical superior beings which is rather juvenile in both intellect and inspiration.

 

[Noaidi]

Cmon, I put his quote out there for all to see. Posting links is not a convincing counter-argument.

I wasn't necessarily providing a counter-argument. I was simply alerting you to the validity of the claims made by someone you quoted.

 

[mycorrhiza]

As mentioned many times, the ToE as commonly understood, is not that living things change. The ToE claims living things evolve into entirely new living things. I disagree that how life began has no relevance to whether evolution occurred or not. Evolutionists cannot say how life began and pretend the answer is not relevant. A study of how life changes without understanding life's origins is groping in the dark.

Should we put the whole field of biology on hold until we have solved abiogenesis?
How life began has nothing to do with the theory of evolution! It's a different field! It doesn't matter if we can answer how life first began or not. .

 

[rusra02]

Should we put the whole field of biology on hold until we have solved abiogenesis?
How life began has nothing to do with the theory of evolution! It's a different field! It doesn't matter if we can answer how life first began or not. .

Science should have the courage to "follow the evidence, wherever it leads." That is what Antony Flew, an avowed atheist for 50 years did. At 81, he expressed a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. What convinced him? A study of DNA. When asked about the possible adverse reaction of scientists to his new thinking, Flew responded: "That's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle...follow the evidence wherever it leads."
Follow the evidence... but "The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 10:4)

 

[otokage007]

Science should have the courage to "follow the evidence, wherever it leads." That is what Antony Flew, an avowed atheist for 50 years did. At 81, he expressed a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. What convinced him? A study of DNA. When asked about the possible adverse reaction of scientists to his new thinking, Flew responded: "That's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle...follow the evidence wherever it leads."
Follow the evidence... but "The wicked one according to his superciliousness makes no search; all his ideas are: 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 10:4)

Could be an alien, not a God. Also there's nothing in the DNA that makes clear it was designed. Mr. Flew probably overinterpreted whatever he saw, which is not a bad thing to do, but it makes his statement just one more hypothesis lacking evidences.

 

[rusra02]

Could be an alien, not a God. Also there's nothing in the DNA that makes clear it was designed. Mr. Flew probably overinterpreted whatever he saw, which is not a bad thing to do, but it makes his statement just one more hypothesis lacking evidences.

You are either missing the point or misdirecting the discussion. The point is to have the courage to follow the evidence. And your saying that there is "nothing in the DNA that makes it clear it was designed" in my mind is simply ignoring the evidence. A person who states that "there's nothing in a DVD disc that makes clear it was designed" would be dismissed as either grossly ignorant or dishonest. Yet, DNA, infinitely more complex and elegant than any DVD disc, containing far more intelligent data than any DVD, is claimed to have "nothing.. that makes clear it was designed." How true the words at Romans 1:20: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [persons who deny God as Creator] are inexcusable."

​

​

 

[otokage007]

You are either missing the point or misdirecting the discussion. The point is to have the courage to follow the evidence. And your saying that there is "nothing in the DNA that makes it clear it was designed" in my mind is simply ignoring the evidence. A person who states that "there's nothing in a DVD disc that makes clear it was designed" would be dismissed as either grossly ignorant or dishonest. Yet, DNA, infinitely more complex and elegant than any DVD disc, containing far more intelligent data than any DVD, is claimed to have "nothing.. that makes clear it was designed." How true the words at Romans 1:20: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [persons who deny God as Creator] are inexcusable."

​

​

Your problem is that you take for granted that humans are best designers than nature. Which is arrogant and false. Of course nature will design things much much better than a DVD. You don't need a God.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You are either missing the point or misdirecting the discussion. The point is to have the courage to follow the evidence. And your saying that there is "nothing in the DNA that makes it clear it was designed" in my mind is simply ignoring the evidence. A person who states that "there's nothing in a DVD disc that makes clear it was designed" would be dismissed as either grossly ignorant or dishonest. Yet, DNA, infinitely more complex and elegant than any DVD disc, containing far more intelligent data than any DVD, is claimed to have "nothing.. that makes clear it was designed." How true the words at Romans 1:20: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [persons who deny God as Creator] are inexcusable."

The difference between a DVD and DNA is that DNA is self-replicating and natural. "I don't understand how it got there, therefore God" is not a good argument. Yes, DNA is complex, but complexity isn't necessarily evidence of design. We see complexity in animals, but yet we know that they evolved, they weren't designed. We see complexity in snowflakes, but we don't assume that they are designed. And as Otokage said, humans aren't better designers than all of Nature. The world doesn't end where human knowledge does.

You have yet to answer how the theory of evolution deals with an entirely different field, namely abiogenesis. What difference would it make if the first simple life-form was designed? How would that affect evolution?

I am following the evidence where it leads me, and it isn't exactly in the direction of Intelligent Design.

 

[jarofthoughts]

In the mythical scenario you describe, it would be relevant (at least to some) that a god created life and ordained its evolution from fish to reptile to mammal, etc.

It would be irrelevant to whether the Theory of Evolution is correct or not.
Do you agree with that statement?

More relevant is that the evidence does not support this myth.

That is not the subject we're discussing right now, so no changing the goal posts.
Do you agree that the origin of the first forms of life is irrelevant to whether ToE is correct or not?

I'll be more than happy to deal with Francis Hitching once you've acknowledged that point.

 

[rusra02]

It would be irrelevant to whether the Theory of Evolution is correct or not.
Do you agree with that statement?



That is not the subject we're discussing right now, so no changing the goal posts.
Do you agree that the origin of the first forms of life is irrelevant to whether ToE is correct or not?

I'll be more than happy to deal with Francis Hitching once you've acknowledged that point.

No, I do not agree that the origin of the first forms of life is irrelevant to whether the ToE is correct or not. I thought I made that clear.

 

[jarofthoughts]

No, I do not agree that the origin of the first forms of life is irrelevant to whether the ToE is correct or not. I thought I made that clear.

Then do me a favor and explain how it is relevant seeing as ToE does not concern itself with the origin of life.