Turkey Will Stop Teaching Evolution in Secondary Schools

[SomeRandom]

I changed my post.

Turkey has elected to teach Creation theory as truth rather than teach evolution while in the US evolution is taught as truth while Creation theory isn't taught at all.

I prefer Turkey's way.

Creationism is not Creation "theory" it's creationism. You can't just call something anything you want. Especially as it's painfully transparent that you embarrassingly did not understand such a simple concept as Scientific Theory not being the same as the vernacular one. Which is fine, I guess. We all are still learning things. But then you used the word theory in conjunction with Creationism in an obvious attempt to add even a slight credibility to the idea. Like that's even worse than your original post! Because it belies your intellectual dishonesty and underhanded tactics.

 

[gnostic]

A lot of Theoretical Physics and String "Theory" in particular is pure speculation. They are using the word theory is a non-scientific sense and popularized their notions with books for the general public. It's actually sad what they've done.

Did you know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics started out being "theoretical physics"?

They became more than theoretical, once they have found some evidences to back it up and some applications.

Without General Relativity, they wouldn't understand modern astronomy, stars and galaxies, or the physical cosmology, like the Big Bang.

General Relativity have also given us better understanding of gravity.

While Newton's law on gravity and motion are useful for on Earth and with objects moving lot slower than the speed of light, his theory on gravity was incomplete, limited and not very accurate in space.

Albert Einstein didn't completely replace Newton's law on gravity and motion, he did extend beyond the old theory.

Quantum Mechanics (QM) have given us better understanding in the older electromagnetism, thermodynamics, field theory, nuclear physics and study of atoms.

In particle physics, we have managed to identify particles even smaller than protons, neutrons and electrons, like quarks, leptons, photons, Higgs boson, etc.

Without QM, we wouldn't understand nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion gave us a better understanding of how stars work, eg Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

Nucleosynthesis is the fusion of two (or more) lighter atoms into heavier atoms. For example, the sun would fuse two hydrogen atoms into one helium atom.

Another nucleosynthesis was written about by George Gamow in 1948 - the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) - wrote how matter first formed, by combining protons and neutrons within the nucleus of an atom.

BBN started not long after the Big Bang, about 3 minutes after the universe began expanding from its singularity. In the next 17 minutes, ionised hydrogen and helium atoms formed - ionised atoms are atoms without electrons.

Electrons did bond with atom nuclei until the Recombination epoch (started 377,000 years after the Big Bang), when the atoms became more stable and electrically neutral. We are only be able to observe at this period, the Recombination epoch.

Although BBN is still theoretical, it is accepted by every astrophysicists and astronomers, including cosmologists.

Theoretical physics can become experimental or empirical physics, once evidences and applications are found.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution didn't seem to be essential when I learned Biology. However, I'm not an expert in Biology. I'm open to the idea that Evolution is absolutely essential to understand Biology, but since I haven't been convinced of this, I don't see that it is essential.

I didn't learn anything about evolution in my Year 9 high school science. If I had chosen to learn more about biology in Year 10, 11 and 12, the teachers might have taught me evolution. But in Year 9, I was still learning basic biology, like anatomy and physiology.

Everything I have learned about evolution, was when I borrowed my cousin's university textbook, over 10 years ago, probably around 2003. I was a member of a different forum. I didn't join RF until 2006.

This other forum had a section on Religion, where evolution and creationism were debated. I knew about Genesis creation but didn't know much about creationism and creationists. I knew about evolution but didn't know the "details" because my biology was limited to Year 9 biology in high school, so I didn't know much about evolution, and so I borrowed my cousin's biology textbook.

Only then, did I begin to understand what they mean by evolution. And along the way, I have learn bit more about biology.

As you said, you are no expert in biology, and neither am I. But I don't see biologists have to convince you of anything. You want to understand biology, pick up a biology textbook, then read and learn, or take up a course in biology and study.

Do not rely on creationists to tell you what is or isn't biology, because from my experiences here and other forums, creationists are incapable of being honest and impartial, and they seemed incapable of understanding science.

 

[Valjean]

i find this interesting. Don't Islamists generally accept evolution and science in the broader sense?

As I understand "islamist," my initial response is no, they don't (see video, post #35). of course, I'd extend this to fundamentalist Christians, Navajos and Hindus, as well.

Fundamentalists tend to seek knowledge in scripture, rather than research.

Wasn't Islam was once progressive, but turned in on itself, rejected progress and sought to return to an earlier age?

 

[DavidFirth]

Creationism is not Creation "theory" it's creationism. You can't just call something anything you want. Especially as it's painfully transparent that you embarrassingly did not understand such a simple concept as Scientific Theory not being the same as the vernacular one. Which is fine, I guess. We all are still learning things. But then you used the word theory in conjunction with Creationism in an obvious attempt to add even a slight credibility to the idea. Like that's even worse than your original post! Because it belies your intellectual dishonesty and underhanded tactics.

Creation theory is quite valid. Wake up and smell the coffee before you go on a rant, you'll save face that way.

 

[Milton Platt]

As I understand "islamist," my initial response is no, they don't (see video, post #35). of course, I'd extend this to fundamentalist Christians, Navajos and Hindus, as well.

Fundamentalists tend to seek knowledge in scripture, rather than research.

Wasn't Islam was once progressive, but turned in on itself, rejected progress and sought to return to an earlier age?

Yes...and yet.....I have a friend who teaches at a very fundamentalist Islamic school (she is atheistic but they don't seem to know) and they have a very strong science curriculum which does teach evolution. It gets confusing, I guess......

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it belies your intellectual dishonesty and underhanded tactics.

I don't find him dishonest....just a tad challenged in science.
(But then...so am I.)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't find him dishonest....just a tad challenged in science.a
(But then...so am I.)

I'd second this, with me replacing @Revoltingest as the science-challenged (but ever so dashing) protagonist.

 

[Valjean]

Creation theory is quite valid. Wake up and smell the coffee before you go on a rant, you'll save face that way.

How is creationism a scientific theory? How is it 'valid'?
Please throw some evidence, or at least some clarification our way.

 

[DavidFirth]

How is creationism a scientific theory? How is it 'valid'?
Please throw some evidence, or at least some clarification our way.

Check the ICR website, google it and stop acting so smug.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't find him dishonest....just a tad challenged in science.a
(But then...so am I.)

The day-to-day creationists that we see in these forums is simply scientifically challenged. The ones that write the books and reside at the Discovery Institute are dishonest.

 

[DavidFirth]

The day-to-day creationists that we see in these forums is simply scientifically challenged. The ones that write the books and reside at the Discovery Institute are dishonest.

The only reason you say that is because we see through the assumptions of the scientific theories while you do not. You accept these theories as fact without proof. We simply do not. We accept God's word as fact without physical proof the same way you accept what you believe.

We put our faith in God while you put your faith in scientists. We are really not that much different in that respect.

 

[DavidFirth]

Here ya go:

Science Confirms Biblical Creation

Science Confirms Biblical Creation | The Institute for Creation Research

Written by a PhD. Enjoy.

 

[Polymath257]

Creation theory is quite valid. Wake up and smell the coffee before you go on a rant, you'll save face that way.

Name *one* prediction based on creationist 'theory' that was made before the discovery and was substantiated by observation.

 

[DavidFirth]

Name *one* prediction based on creationist 'theory' that was made before the discovery and was substantiated by observation.

Please review the series I linked to above.

In the meantime, name one prediction based on macro-evolution 'theory' that was made before the discovery and was substantiated by observation.

 

[Polymath257]

The only reason you say that is because we see through the assumptions of the scientific theories while you do not. You accept these theories as fact without proof. We simply do not. We accept God's word as fact without physical proof the same way you accept what you believe.

We put our faith in God while you put your faith in scientists. We are really not that much different in that respect.

No, you are blinded by your religion and do not accept the clear evidence provided that your 'holy texts' are wrong. I do not accept the scientific theories as valid 'without proof'. In fact, that is precisely the way of religion. Science requires evidence and proof and testing. If you think they have left something out, propose a *test* to show they are wrong.

Faith has nothing to do with science. Science is based on evidence and testing. Faith is based on acceptance and excuses.

So, what assumptions do you think the scientific theories make that are invalid? Why, specifically, do you think they are invalid?

 

[DavidFirth]

No, you are blinded by your religion and do not accept the clear evidence provided that your 'holy texts' are wrong. I do not accept the scientific theories as valid 'without proof'. In fact, that is precisely the way of religion. Science requires evidence and proof and testing. If you think they have left something out, propose a *test* to show they are wrong.

Faith has nothing to do with science. Science is based on evidence and testing. Faith is based on acceptance and excuses.

So, what assumptions do you think the scientific theories make that are invalid? Why, specifically, do you think they are invalid?

I am quite finished discussing this with you as you just hear what you want to hear, interpret things according to your own bias and try to baffle me with your own personal opinions, which I do not accept as valid.

Have a good day.

 

[Polymath257]

Here ya go:

Science Confirms Biblical Creation

Science Confirms Biblical Creation | The Institute for Creation Research

Written by a PhD. Enjoy.

Yes, those are very good examples of the lies that are made.

 

[Polymath257]

I am quite finished discussing this with you as you just hear what you want to hear, interpret things according to your own bias and try to baffle me with your own personal opinions, which I do not accept as valid.

Have a good day.

Run away when presented with contrary reasoning.

 

[Polymath257]

Please review the series I linked to above.

In the meantime, name one prediction based on macro-evolution 'theory' that was made before the discovery and was substantiated by observation.

Tikaalik. Predicted to appear in particular sediments because of evolutionary reasoning. Found in exactly those sediments. It is an intermediate between fish and amphibians.

Also, feathered dinosaurs. And creodonts. And the transitions between reptile and mammals.