Creationism in Schools?

[Rapture]

I know this isn't the topic at hand, but I just wanted to point out that there isn't actually a debate about this... What isn't allowed, however, is compulsory prayer led by a teacher or administrator. Because that implies a state-sanctioned religion at the exclusion of all others.

I'm not trying to get into a hizzy with you, TTT because I always respect what you have to say...the only reason I brought that up was because of this:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/g...c-family-against-texas-school-district-50670/

I heard about this on the news a lot the last couple of weeks. Because this student does not believe in prayer, they want to stop others who do from participating in a student-led prayer during their graduation. They aren't forcing him to participate...and this is student-led its not by the faculty or etc... so its not being sanctioned by the state or government... but they are still trying to prevent others from participating in a prayer. So this is a debate for the people who go to that school...for those who do want to have the prayer...and for those who do not.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Personally, being Christian...when I went to High School I didn't exactly think it was fair that Darwinism was shoved at me in history class....and that we were tested on the information that we were given.

"darwinism" (evolution?) is the best explanation we have that can be verified with evidence. history is based on facts and you cant really take anything useful out of "a higher being made everything in a week". there's no evidence for that, thats the nature of faith.

In my opinion it is a double-edged sword. Its okay for me to be taught something that I completely didn't believe but its not okay for my religion to be brought up at all.

if someone tells you that you have five fingers and can produce evidence to support that but your religion says otherwise that doesnt make the former any less true. i think the point in this is that you're supposed to make up your own mind - you're presented with stories and literature from your religion, but if that was all you were ever taught you'd think the world was flat.

However, I do understand that not everyone believes what I do...and I respect that. My point is that if we are all of different religions, why touch on that sensitive subject at all...which is what/who we are dervived from.

If we are of different religions I think the best way of going about studying it is to offer separate classes on the side in the colleges or high schools that way everyone can be as content as possible with what they choose/choose not to learn.

religious indoctrination is a bad thing. religion shouldnt be preached in school, it should be taught so that everyone (regardless of faith) has a basic understanding of other peoples' beliefs. if you think that by learning about other religions, you will somehow be converted (or that that's the mission) your weak mindedness is your problem. id gladly take an educated christian over an ignorant bible basher who is totally blinded by faith any day.

If you want all of your schooling to revolve around the relgion of your choice there are private schools for that...if you can afford them.

if you're silly enough to pay to limit your child's/own education then you deserve everything you get.

make no mistake, christianity 100 years from now will be different, just as it has "matured" over the last 100 years. western culture has outgrown it and diluted it because that is the only way we are willing to tolerate it - on our terms.

but on topic. creationism has no place in a science class, just as you wouldnt expect to analyse literature in chemistry, or paint a portrait in physics. if you choose not to believe the facts science presents you with, thats your perogative, just as it was my perogative in school to dismiss religious stories and myths in RE.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

Well, this makes up for some awkward moments: http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/05/30...atened-with-death-for-opposing-school-prayer/

Anyway, I don't advocate Atheists to be dicks about stuff and go around saying "lolguys, let's stop the Christians from praying, lololololol". As an Atheist, I call that a DICK MOVE.

Slightly off topic, I know, but felt that kind of interesting because I read a very similar article from the opposite perspective.

However, I feel that if public praying in schools is kind of forcing a religious view on someone. However, I also feel that forcing people to quit is the same exact thing. I'm just saying, it's a dick move either way.

 

[CassinoChips]

I'm not trying to get into a hizzy with you, TTT because I always respect what you have to say...the only reason I brought that up was because of this:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/g...c-family-against-texas-school-district-50670/

I heard about this on the news a lot the last couple of weeks. Because this student does not believe in prayer, they want to stop others who do from participating in a student-led prayer during their graduation. They aren't forcing him to participate...and this is student-led its not by the faculty or etc... so its not being sanctioned by the state or government... but they are still trying to prevent others from participating in a prayer. So this is a debate for the people who go to that school...for those who do want to have the prayer...and for those who do not.

And the parents of that student clearly do not understand how it works. They would have a point if, for example, the principal stood up at the mic and led the entire audience in prayer. That would be an arguable infringement on the first amendment. However, in this case, it seems each individual student speaker is opting to include a short prayer in their speech. So there shouldn't be an issue there. Which goes to my point: Student-led prayer is never illegal. But yes, there are cases where atheists/agnostics cloud the image. However, the vast majority of issues come from people saying "Well, if they had never removed prayer from school, blah blah blah." Or something similar.

 

[Rapture]

"darwinism" (evolution?) is the best explanation we have that can be verified with evidence. history is based on facts and you cant really take anything useful out of "a higher being made everything in a week". there's no evidence for that, thats the nature of faith.

Ohhh but there are people out there that question the falsified evidence of Darwinism:

Boning up on the facts

What about the fossil record? Does it document evolution? According to Darwinism, single-celled organisms eventually evolved into the first invertebrates (creatures with no backbones, such as jellyfish). But invertebrate fossils appear suddenly in the fossil record with no visible ancestors -- in the so-called "Cambrian explosion."

Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.
Insects, rodents, bats, pterodactyls and numerous other life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of fossils showing how they developed. As Gareth J. Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History pointed out, "It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil 'group' can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."

Likewise, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote, "Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Many other paleontologists have made equally strong affirmations. Of course, this certainly does not mean that there are no transitional forms claimed today by evolutionists. But in a number of cases -- such as the Piltdown Man, coelacanth, and most recently, the Archaeoraptor -- cited transitional forms have turned out to be errors or even hoaxes.

The main point: If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete -- not in developmental stages -- the very first time they are seen. And this is just what we would expect if the Bible is right and God created animals whole.


Read more: The case against Darwinhttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776#ixzz1PHVnFh00

religious indoctrination is a bad thing. religion shouldnt be preached in school, it should be taught so that everyone (regardless of faith) has a basic understanding of other peoples' beliefs. if you think that by learning about other religions, you will somehow be converted (or that that's the mission) your weak mindedness is your problem. id gladly take an educated christian over an ignorant bible basher who is totally blinded by faith any day.

Yes, but if you believe that then you must include the hundreds of religions there are out there in what you are teaching otherwise how would the teaching of any one or a handful of the religions of someone's choice be fair? ...and my last fear when learning about someone else's religion is being converted, Thanks :dave: ...and its not weak-minded to not have the drive to learn about what everyone else believes in

if you're silly enough to pay to limit your child's/own education then you deserve everything you get.

I'm assuming you mean that if you send your children to a private school that they are less academically sound than if you send them to a public school? Children who go to either public or private schools actually perform about the same: http://www.pba.org/programming/programs/focusoned/3232/ ...and I know where I live a lot of the private schools are either Lutheran or Catholic so really I don't see how their education is hampered at all by going to a private school

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Ohhh but there are people out there that question the falsified evidence of Darwinism:

Boning up on the facts

What about the fossil record? Does it document evolution? According to Darwinism, single-celled organisms eventually evolved into the first invertebrates (creatures with no backbones, such as jellyfish). But invertebrate fossils appear suddenly in the fossil record with no visible ancestors -- in the so-called "Cambrian explosion."

Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.
Insects, rodents, bats, pterodactyls and numerous other life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of fossils showing how they developed. As Gareth J. Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History pointed out, "It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil 'group' can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."

Likewise, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote, "Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Many other paleontologists have made equally strong affirmations. Of course, this certainly does not mean that there are no transitional forms claimed today by evolutionists. But in a number of cases -- such as the Piltdown Man, coelacanth, and most recently, the Archaeoraptor -- cited transitional forms have turned out to be errors or even hoaxes.

The main point: If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete -- not in developmental stages -- the very first time they are seen. And this is just what we would expect if the Bible is right and God created animals whole.


Read more: The case against Darwinhttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21776#ixzz1PHVnFh00


Yes, but if you believe that then you must include the hundreds of religions there are out there in what you are teaching otherwise how would the teaching of any one or a handful of the religions of someone's choice be fair? ...and my last fear when learning about someone else's religion is being converted, Thanks :dave: ...and its not weak-minded to not have the drive to learn about what everyone else believes in



I'm assuming you mean that if you send your children to a private school that they are less academically sound than if you send them to a public school? Children who go to either public or private schools actually perform about the same: http://www.pba.org/programming/programs/focusoned/3232/ ...and I know where I live a lot of the private schools are either Lutheran or Catholic so really I don't see how their education is hampered at all by going to a private school

i made no claim with regards to science having all the answers. it doesnt. but it has more than religion can ever give us because of its very nature. we can (perhaps?) assume that since science has found some answers it will find more. the quest for knowledge is never complete because we cant know anything because we cant know everything etc.

in my RE classes we learned about the main religions, i think thats a good place to start. again, we learned about them, they were never preached to us. we were given the chance to make up our own minds.

and no, i mean if you send your child to a private school to be indoctrinated then you are an idiot for limiting their education like that. it may not be hampered in the sense that they dont fail, but if certain things are left out because they contradict the faith - whether thats science or other religious beliefs - the student will be all the more ignorant for it. if youre happy with that, fair dos, but i know il be sending my children to school to learn as much as they can and make their own decision with regards to faith and all that lovely stuff. if god did give us free will then we should be allowed to make up our own minds and not be raised as x,y or z.

why is there no mention of dinosaurs in the bible?

your source has been described as an "american web site which publishes news from a U.S conservative perspective", it has bounced about multiple conspiracy theories...not to mention the obama birth certificate disaster. so youve linked me to a source (which happens to be in favour of christianity) that downplays the significance of certain scientific findings. its funny what you can find "evidence" for.

 

[Rapture]

i made no claim with regards to science having all the answers. it doesnt. but it has more than religion can ever give us because of its very nature. we can (perhaps?) assume that since science has found some answers it will find more. the quest for knowledge is never complete because we cant know anything because we cant know everything etc.

Evidence is relevant...the evidence leaning towards Darwinism is just as questionable for me (which is why I posted the source that I did in my previous post) as the evidence that Creationism points out is for you...which is the point I was trying to make in my original post...why teach anything about it at all since nothing is absolutely 100% justifiable to ANYONE?

in my RE classes we learned about the main religions, i think thats a good place to start. again, we learned about them, they were never preached to us. we were given the chance to make up our own minds.

Which would be an idea...but don't you agree that the exclusion of many religions would upset many? So who decides which one is more important to learn about than another?

and no, i mean if you send your child to a private school to be indoctrinated then you are an idiot for limiting their education like that. it may not be hampered in the sense that they dont fail, but if certain things are left out because they contradict the faith - whether thats science or other religious beliefs - the student will be all the more ignorant for it. if youre happy with that, fair dos, but i know il be sending my children to school to learn as much as they can and make their own decision with regards to faith and all that lovely stuff. if god did give us free will then we should be allowed to make up our own minds and not be raised as x,y or z.

...I had a friend who went to a private Catholic High School here in town and with the exception of a 1 hour class relating to Catholicism and them allowing prayer during class, the school wasn't any different than a public one with the obvious fact that the parents paid for their children to go there. If Darwinism were left out of a history class, then yes, that would make sense since it contradicts the religion....and it isn't parallel to the teachings of the school. If the child was brought up Catholic and is continued to be fostered in the Catholic ways in High School I don't see how not learning about Darwinism is detrimental to their views on society as a whole. As to why a child would be raised Catholic is another debate...and one I am not going to get into here because I don't want to completely derail the thread...but as we all know, there are those that view if their child is raised involving a particular religion that this is unjustifiable while Christians view it as giving their children a form of enlightenment and guiding them in the Christian way. ...As we come to be adults like you have already stated...we have the choice to believe what we want.

why is there no mention of dinosaurs in the bible?

Some think there was mention of dinosaurs in the bible:

"Many who have studied the Bible believe that it does mention dinosaurs in the text. Specifically, Genesis 1:21 says that God created "great sea monsters" on the fifth day. The Hebrew word tannîyn, can have several meanings, including "dragon," "serpent," "sea monster," or "venomous snake." An analysis of other Old Testament verses indicates that this word usually refers to contemporary aquatic animals or snakes.

So, although tannîyn could refer to a dinosaur in Genesis 1, in most other usage throughout the Old Testament, the word refers to species that existed at the time the Old Testament books were written.
The second instance where the Bible might refer to dinosaurs occurs first in the book of Job. The Leviathan is described as being an armored aquatic creature in the book of Job, the Psalms, and Isaiah. The descriptions claim that the creature was contemporary with the writers of the Bible, and are not inconsistent with large alligators or crocodiles. Although dinosaurs are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, the fossil deposits they produced are described as being used by early humans in the opening chapters of Genesis."

However, my belief more or less involves this:

There are some technical problems that God would have faced in including dinosaurs in the creation account. There is no word for "dinosaur" in the Hebrew language. Now, God could have invented a Hebrew word for dinosaur and explained what those animals were like and how they had died out. However, this is a one page description of the creation of the world and life in it. Trying to explain about an extinct group of creatures would have taken a lot of space and distracted from the rest of the creation account.

Obviously, there were a lot more creatures than just dinosaurs that were left out of the creation account. If God were to have included every creature in the creation account (well over one billion), such inclusion would have completely lost the spiritual significance of the passage (and would be much longer than the Bible itself). The purpose of the Genesis creation account is to give an account of how God created mankind and provided for him. The account, like the entire Bible, centers on God and His miraculous workings for mankind. Therefore, in the creation account, we find the supernatural creation of the universe by God, indicating that the universe wasn't always here, but created by God for man. Next, it talks about the creation of plants, which are important to humans, since we eat them, and also important to the animals that we rely upon, which also eat them. Then, it talks about the sea creatures and birds, which we also eat. It next talks about the beasts of the field, which we eat and use for labor. Then it talks about the creation of mankind and how he is to have dominion and manage the earth and its creatures.

The second chapter of Genesis gives a spiritual account of the creation of mankind and man's relationship to God. The entire account is centered on God and man. Therefore, one would expect the creation account to describe events that are important to mankind.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/dinosaurs.html

your source has been described as an "american web site which publishes news from a U.S conservative perspective", it has bounced about multiple conspiracy theories...not to mention the obama birth certificate disaster. so youve linked me to a source (which happens to be in favour of christianity) that downplays the significance of certain scientific findings. its funny what you can find "evidence" for.

Never did I say that it was 100% fact...all I did was demonstrate that there is a definite argument that there is question in the evidence found that Darwinism states is absolute proof...and whether or not the backgrounds are as such doesn't matter too much as the debate against the evidence makes sense, no?

I wouldn't expect any less from you, Jim.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

creationism doesnt point out any evidence.

it says that god made everything. there is no evidence of a god, if we cant prove that god exists then we cannot prove that he created everything, if we cannot prove or disprove something then it has no place in a science class.

well youd imagine that if genesis is a factual account of the creation of our world the first creations (that we know of anyway) arent specifically mentioned. its so vague we have to interpret "snake" and "crocodile" as "dinosaur", if such things did exist surely adam and eve would have been eaten?

if the "definite" argument comes from a poor source its not really an argument at all. i could find "evidence" on the internet that supports the existence of unicorns and then link it, the source (of course) would be poor. the argument exists but that doesnt make its content any less questionable.

the bible is man made, men wrote it, of course its going to describe events that are important to mankind for instance "huge, devastating creatures that will eat you" not "kind of like snake sort of things". thats too vague to even be helpful. you could also interpret that description as the creation of el devilo de satanicá (thats hispanic for "the devil"). they were extinct you say...so god created the world again? the first time round he made it for dinosaurs, this time round he made it for men? odd

 

[Rapture]

creationism doesnt point out any evidence.

My evidence is in the bible...which you do/don't believe exisits or do/don't believe/follow the teachings of. So you've already given yourself the upper hand, haven't you So since you likely won't believe anything from that and science is the only acceptible form of evidence for you:

-The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966

-However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation

Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:
•The Fossil Record
•Living "Fossils"
•The Cambrian Explosion
•New T.Rex Discoveries
•"Missing Links"


There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.
Angler Fish
Chicken Egg
Beaver
Giraffe
Black And Yellow Garden Spider
Incubator Bird
Bombardier Beetle

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

it says that god made everything. there is no evidence of a god, if we cant prove that god exists then we cannot prove that he created everything, if we cannot prove or disprove something then it has no place in a science class.

Again, I never said that it did. You were the one who said ""darwinism" (evolution?) is the best explanation we have that can be verified with evidence. ...history is based on facts" I said that I questioned the evidence that proves Darwinism is 100% truth and gave a reasonable debate to show that I am not the only one who questions the legitimacy of it. Like I've said before..."why teach anything about it (evolution/creationism) at all since nothing is absolutely 100% justifiable to ANYONE?"

well youd imagine that if genesis is a factual account of the creation of our world the first creations (that we know of anyway) arent specifically mentioned. its so vague we have to interpret "snake" and "crocodile" as "dinosaur", if such things did exist surely adam and eve would have been eaten?

Again: "There is no word for "dinosaur" in the Hebrew language. Now, God could have invented a Hebrew word for dinosaur and explained what those animals were like and how they had died out. However, this is a one page description of the creation of the world and life in it. Trying to explain about an extinct group of creatures would have taken a lot of space and distracted from the rest of the creation account." It's his book, not yours. So really, by the Creationism theory of Adam and Eve having children and us being here... There obviously was no issue of Adam and Eve being eaten...so it really is irrelevant, isn't it?

if the "definite" argument comes from a poor source its not really an argument at all. i could find "evidence" on the internet that supports the existence of unicorns and then link it, the source (of course) would be poor. the argument exists but that doesnt make its content any less questionable.

I've already stated you've given yourself the upper hand in the argument. Since Creationism has to do with faith and you can't "see" faith it doesn't take a rocket scientist to prove the fallicies found in Darwinism...religious or not. Since you want the proof that you can "see" then I've given you some in that which you can, which is found in science itself.

Also, I just wanted you to know that I'm done after this...I've had loads of fun debating with you the majority of my afternoon, but I sense that an agree to disagree sort of agreement would be best in this case...since I see things going nowhere other than me having to prove my beliefs and thoughts to someone who is just going to dispute them otherwise... when what I really was trying to say is that I don't believe ANY sort of religion or Creation theory should be involved in the schools at the thought of overlooking another. It was fun :dave:

 

[Marquis of Granby]

this isnt proof that god exists though, this is proof that science doesnt (and hasnt claimed to) answer all the questions, which i have already accepted. i also accept that you believe your proof is in the bible, but that isnt proof (not an attack on religion) its what your faith tells you you're supposed to believe. if you have, or feel that you need proof then you do not have faith if that makes sense? while it may seem/feel like evidence to you, the system of science doesnt recognise it as evidence because by its standards it is not evidence.

im not trying to say darwinism is 100% truth. i said that it is the best explanation we have. why teach anything about anything ever by that token? if we dont know it all we dont know any of it?

i understand that you believe god created everything but he did not invent language, language is a man made construct, its a means of communication. we create it and it evolves. what i was trying to get at with that point was to describe a dinosaur you dont necessarily (and shouldnt) need to use the word "dinosaur". the description is vague at best. it could just be crocs and snakes.

im not asking you to prove your beliefs and thoughts. people are free to believe what they want and i wasnt attempting to ridicule you for it. pretty much all of the science vs religion debates go along the "agree to disagree" lines because no party budges. because as i said science works with proof and evidence and religion is based on faith.

i dont believe in god because i havent seen or experienced anything to lead me to believe that such a thing exists. i vaguely remember RE at school, it was the main religions we covered and i remember thinking it was all utter bollocks, but i think id probly be a lot more ignorant if i didnt have those classes. i think the idea is to instill tolerance and not convert people or whatever. aside from the fact that it would be impossible to cover all religions in a class like that, i dont think youd really need to, as i said its more a lesson on tolerance than anything else.

 

[moogling]

...there are no intermediate fossils... maybe you're forgetting that a fossil in itself is a transitional form. Fossils show clear features shown in both classes of animals they are transitioning.

This ridiculous argument has been debunked countless times.

http://www.skyhighhobby.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ArchaeopteryxFossil.jpg

Archaeopteryx. The oldest bird known so far. It shows transitional characteristics from dinosaurs to birds. In addition to the feathers, there are reptilian characteristics such as the tail and teeth (which no modern birds have).

http://itc.gsw.edu/faculty/bcarter/histgeol/paleo2/limbs.jpg

Homologous structures. Humans have a long bone in the upper arm, two bones in the lower arm, some small bones in the wrist and a set of five digits. All of the tetrapods shown in that example have similar structures used for different purposes. Some of these animals lose some of these structures in various stages of development as we can see in birds. Why would birds initially develop five digits if they only needed three in order to fly? A common ancestor.

http://kenpitts.net/bio/evolution/evidences/embrys2.jpg

Embryology. Looking at this example, I'm baffled that anyone can argue evolution past this point. If humans are the ultimate goal, the superior organism, and they do not deserve to be classified as animals, why do their embryos look extremely similar to multiple animals?

This brings up the question of why there are such large differences in certain organisms' evolution.

Geographical separation. By separating a small group from the main population, with its large gene pool, it increases the chances for speciation. Why were the organisms separated? Take the Grand Canyon for example; it became a huge barrier for squirrel and forest development. "The Abert's squirrel, with its several subspecies, has a much broader distribution and is found on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. The canyon became a formidable barrier geographically separating the forests and squirrels on each rim. The genetic isolation of the squirrels on the North Rim allowed the evolution of distinct characteristics."

There are so many more examples but I keep asking myself why I'm bothering to post even this. If you believe the teachings of a book with absolutely no evidence behind it over a plethora of studies conducted by extremely intelligent scientists/archaeologists then I'm sorry, but you are being quite stupid. I try to be respectful of people's religious beliefs, and you're right in one aspect, everyone has the right to their religion, but when future children are threatened with being deprived of basic biological education in favor of ONE view of how the world was created then I have a very hard time with that. How would you like your children being taught Pan Gu and Nü Wa over Genesis? The Golden Chain? What makes Genesis so much more superior to these creation stories? Especially in a country as diverse as the US (which I'm assuming is the country's educational system in question). What makes Genesis fact, and why should it be allowed to be placed next to evolution?

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.[64]

I did an essay on this exact subject this year but unfortunately I recycled my sources, so I'm going to go off of memory here - scientists conducted a study where they recreated the conditions of Earth at the time when life was originated. As stated here, these chemicals combined and created a protein. Proteins are the building blocks of life. In theory, these proteins and other chemicals could come together and form a single cell. Granted, this is a miraculous claim - however, religious people have absolutely no standing to call this outrageous; their "irrefutable" book makes statements just as miraculous.

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."[87]

The probability of a human being born with a tail is also very low, however it has happened. He's probably just trying to express that it's difficult to explain the origins of life without going back to a miraculous cause. However, science, as I stated above, has explained it in a way that is much more probable than god just deciding to shit us out one day.

Just for the hell of it -

For instance, such a biologist easily grasps that there is an incomprehensible harmony in a protein molecule, the building block of life, and that there is no probability that this might have come about by chance. Nevertheless, he alleges that this protein came into existence under primitive earth conditions by chance billions of years ago. He does not stop there; he also claims, without hesitation, that not only one, but millions of proteins formed by chance and then incredibly came together to create the first living cell. Moreover, he defends his view with a blind stubbornness. This person is an "evolutionist" scientist.

If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an assertion would be considered insane.

If Jesus or Mohammed made his claims today, he would also be considered insane. People only believed these two because their claims were so appealing. Follow my proposed religion and commandments/pillars, eventually die, and then you shall prosper in heaven [with all of your ancestors/72 virgins].

I was enrolled in an Honors Biology class (and no, I am not trying to show off my intelligence there because what it boils down to is none of us here are nearly as smart as the people who are constantly answering the questions creationists lob towards evolutionary theory), which is basically an accelerated and advanced Biology class, and we just barely finished off the year with the basics down. If we were to try and incorporate the hundreds of interpretations of creation in the same unit/chapter/lesson as evolution, we would need to cut down on evolution which is unacceptable. If you were to try and explain each and every religious view to a regular high school Biology class, you would confuse every single student in that classroom. Not to mention that evolution is not only taught to high school students - it is taught, although not as in depth, in middle school. What creationists/intelligent design proponents are asking students to do is what Ph.D. biologists do every day. You can't possibly expect a 13 year old to weigh out the options of each religion/creation story and then decide whether or not they believe in evolution. The average 13 year old student just wants to get out of school at the end of the day to go home.

Religion is only good in modern times for morals, ways of life and gathering. It originated in the absence of science, and now that what religion attempts to explain can be logically explained by science, it should not try and refute science. I realize that I cannot reason with religious people, however I can try and enlighten you similar to the way you try to "open my eyes/make me see the light" in order to convert me.

There were probably more things I wanted to say on the matter but I've spent long enough on this post.

 

[CassinoChips]

My evidence is in the bible...which you do/don't believe exisits or do/don't believe/follow the teachings of. So you've already given yourself the upper hand, haven't you So since you likely won't believe anything from that and science is the only acceptible form of evidence for you:

-The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 1966

-However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation

The theory of evolution makes no claims about how to explain the origins of life. Evolution requires that there's already something to evolve from. If you put it numerically, evolution/Darwinism explains how we got from 1 to 100, but does not deal with how we got from 0 to 1. So a lack of understanding/explanation of the zero point does not devalue evolution in any way. It's a separate discussion entirely.

 

[ElvenAngel]

My evidence is in the bible...which you do/don't believe exisits or do/don't believe/follow the teachings of. So you've already given yourself the upper hand, haven't you

I'm a Christian (and I loathe to just advertise it like this) and I believe in the Bible. However I believe in it as a strictly spiritual book. It's not a science or a history book. Yes, it contains some historical references in the same way that someone's blog would mention contemporary events. But the Bible is a spiritual book and looking at everything through the angle of religion and spiritual beliefs. It is, after all, written by men and adapted by men. It is not a flawless source of information.

And it certainly is not a good source of historical information since we have ample archaeological and contradictory historical evidence that refutes some of the things the Bible says--take the conditions of life for the Hebrews in Egypt for instance. The Bible claims they were slaves but in fact we have a lot of archaeological evidence and records from the Egyptian side that show that the Hebrew population may in fact have enjoyed quite a few privileges and were valued as engineers and other professions. So why does the Bible say they were slaves? Because it was written by Hebrew people of later times who wanted to make everyone but their own nation sound bad. Or perhaps they just had bad sources--we'll never know.

Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:
•The Fossil Record
•Living "Fossils"
•The Cambrian Explosion
•New T.Rex Discoveries
•"Missing Links"

The problem with this argument is that all those examples are prone to what all science is prone to: Changes. New information comes in all the time and theories are formed as fast as they are debunked. THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

The funny thing is that the above can also support the theory of evolution, under a different interpretation.This is what science is all about. Formulating a theory; testing this theory; if the theory doesn't hold water based on what evidence you have, you throw it out and start again! Science is not rigid, while religion when it tries to play science is.

The fossil record is constantly enriched and I know that by experience. As an archaeology minor I've been to excavations. People find new stuff and new information all the bloody time. Just last year here in Attika a fossil of a new species of prehistoric canid was discovered and its existence proved a theory about the migration of early canids from Asia to Europe and updated an existing theory.

Even more so, we have ample fossil evidence that shows how a species changed through millions of years and evolved into different species with different characteristics. The human species is a really nice example. While the whole 'man descends from ape' is a bit of a stretch of words and not a really great choice of words, it's true that homo sapiens definitely traces his roots back to a primate ancestor in Africa. We have hard evidence in the form of fossils as well as remains of tools, early settlements and a source everyone keeps forgetting about--prehistoric garbage! We get loads of information about their diets and even their health from such deposits. Personally I find it hard to see how these discoveries disprove the theory of evolution instead of enforcing it, since they prove that man evolved from a simple primate into the complex, thinking and reasoning creature that we are today.

As for living fossils--more and more zoologists today are starting to dislike this term. Living fossils are nothing more than creatures that hit the peak of their evolutionary path millions of years ago and have not needed to change. If anything, their existence allows us to have an idea about the behavior of their ancestors and use it to gauge the behavior of other creatures they shared the world with back then. Take sharks for instance! Sharks supposedly have not changed much since they first evolved because they developed all the skills and tools they needed for survival. That's actually wrong. Sharks have changed. Just a lot less than other species and they've endured the longest as a taxis because they adapt so well--they're one of evolution's biggest success stories. They've changed in subtle ways--for one they've gotten smaller and faster. Some species adapted to live birth. Some developed particular jaw structures. Others became nocturnal. And yet they're all still sharks. They've evolved.

The Cambrian Explosion is still a relative mystery because we don't have enough evidence about it yet. We know a lot of species existed all together and they appeared in mass but we don't know exactly why yet. Evidence is a little hard to come by and we don't have all the information we need to explain it. However, evidence that many species we thought had developed during the Cambrian Explosion have recently been proven to have Pre-Cambrian roots and therefore cast doubts as to whether they could be part of that explosion. If you take into account the theories as to why the Explosion happened (increased oxygen levels due to a drop in volcanic activity and the release of oxygen into the water or the Snowball Earth effect) they all in fact support the theory of evolution. Organisms that had formed earlier on took advantage of the changing environment and adapted. These adaptations enabled them to grow and diversify.

Missing links are also something prone to debate and another subject that we need more information on before we discard or accept them. Because of the slow process of evolution and the precise set of happenstance that involves preservation of fossils, we may never be able to completely piece together the full chain of any species' evolution. Missing links will turn up all the time because every discovery we make, every fossil presents potentially new information that changes the way we think about a particular species. T-Rex is a good example--we know quite a lot about him than we used to because of these new discoveries. The fossil record for Tyrannosaurids though is far more limited than other geni of dinosaurs. So we can't get as much information from them as we'd like to which leads to a lot of speculation--but that's how science starts out, with theories and speculation before it moves onto testing those theories.

I also disagree with you on the idea that some species defy evolution. Why would they? Evolution isn't something that happens from one generation to another and certainly it's not things we can see with the naked eye or identify within one generation. It'd be crazy to pretend we can 'see' evolution. What we can see though is adaptation which, in the long run, is a precursor to evolution. A species adapts and over the course of several generations these adaptations become part of the genetic legacy and keep on changing. You say:

It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.

But that's the whole point, you see. These ecosystems that creatures live in are never stable. Ecosystems change all the time. If creatures don't adapt and evolve to be able to survive in these changing ecosystems, they die out! Evolution is change and that's what happens in nature.

But here's something you and I probably agree on: Darwinism is not the 100% truth. As effective a theory as it is and as plausible and fact-supported, it's not complete. But it doesn't mean it's bunk either. On the contrary, it's one of the strongest theories out there today, constantly changing and evolving (it's a lovely coincidence that a theory about evolution is prone to evolve and improve itself! ) in accordance to new ideas and new information scientists receive and debate about. No self-respecting theory should be completely stable and without changes and improvements.

I've already stated you've given yourself the upper hand in the argument. Since Creationism has to do with faith and you can't "see" faith it doesn't take a rocket scientist to prove the fallicies found in Darwinism...religious or not. Since you want the proof that you can "see" then I've given you some in that which you can, which is found in science itself.

I 'see' faith. So why do I still support scientific thought over Creationism? Because of logic. Nobody asked Christians or any other religion to abandon their beliefs. We just want them to stop thinking of religion as science, and stop forcing their ideas down people's throats.

One might argue that science and religion can't co-exist but in fact they can. A lot of prominent scientists today are also religious people who believe in a higher power or in some spiritual law that guides the universe. They're being scientists even in their belief: They disregard nothing! You can believe in God and still apply science because all it takes is to just apply some logic and reason to both. Don't let religion dictate what you call science and what not because it makes religion look bad. Religion cannot look bad unless you're being rigid about it.

 

[Tucker]

We don't know for sure how we came about. Creationism/Micro-Evolution, Macro-Evolution, Cosmology etc, we have no concrete proof of any of these.
Even though I myself am Catholic, I don't think Creationism/Micro-Evolution should be taught as a fact. I think that all theories/hypotheses should be brought to the table.

I think that if the subject comes up in a science class, all ideas should be brought up equally as a hypothesis, myth, or theory. If there are active people believing different things, and may be possible, it should be brought up. Even though it may not have a scientific value, it relates to how human beings came about, which relates to History, Religion, and Science.

I don't see how it has to be one or the other, and how other possibilities (although unlikely) are ignored. If it comes up, all possibilities should be acknowledged.

 

[moogling]

I think that all theories/hypotheses should be brought to the table.

I think that if the subject comes up in a science class, all ideas should be brought up equally as a hypothesis, myth, or theory. If there are active people believing different things, and may be possible, it should be brought up. Even though it may not have a scientific value, it relates to how human beings came about, which relates to History, Religion, and Science.

I don't see how it has to be one or the other, and how other possibilities (although unlikely) are ignored. If it comes up, all possibilities should be acknowledged.

Then again, in evolutionary lessons in school, the origins of life are not addressed. I was only taught how organisms evolve, creation was never even brought up. So it's completely unnecessary to involve religion.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

thats like saying its alright to hijack a chemistry class with discussions on fine art techniques. to waste time discussing something that has no scientific value whatsoever in a science class is just daft. its ok for science to say it doesnt know the answer, because it doesnt claim to know everything but it gives us the best observable explanation without trying to force people to believe it whereas religion says "this is what happened. believe it".

as people have already said darwinism is the theory of evolution, not a theory on the origins of life, more to the point, its scientific. creationism is not. if you want to learn bible stories...go to sunday school.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Education should be completely privatized. Then you wouldn't have this problem. Christians could send their kids to Christian schools, and atheists could send their kids to their schools.

The only flaws in this plan are: [1] Sooner or later, you'd get a lot of spoiled people running around claiming that education is a natural human right, the same way that they want to claim that "free" (RE: I force somebody else to pay for it and try to pretend that's not theft) health care is a natural human right, and that it should therefore be subsidized by rich people who are evil (RE: I demonize people who have something I covet.) [2] Sooner or later, some lobbyist is going to come along, the way that several already have in the battle over homeschooling, and complain that kids in the Christian schools are disadvantaged and should be forced to go to a common secular school. And then one scandalous incident that happened in one Christian school will be over-reported by CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC; and then that will goad enough fencesitters to side with the lobbyists.

What I find really funny about this whole discussion is that the Roman Catholic Church was the first group in America to protest religious content in public schools in the 1850s (or thereabouts), because they insisted that the content was distinctly Protestant. (And no, I don't have any idea how that fits into the Orwellian secularist metanarrative that America is secular and has always been secular.) Martin Luther's idea to introduce free public education so that more Germans could be equipped to read the Bible backfired on us in the long run. Big time.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Education should be completely privatized. Then you wouldn't have this problem. Christians could send their kids to Christian schools, and atheists could send their kids to their schools.

school is for education, not indoctrination or breeding intolerance.

The only flaws in this plan are: [1] Sooner or later, you'd get a lot of spoiled people running around claiming that education is a natural human right, the same way that they want to claim that "free" (RE: I force somebody else to pay for it and try to pretend that's not theft) health care is a natural human right, and that it should therefore be subsidized by rich people who are evil (RE: I demonize people who have something I covet.)

i dunno what kind of national health sevice youre proposing here but in britain our nhs is subsidised by everyone who works through whats called "national insurance", its not exclusive to rich people.

[2] Sooner or later, some lobbyist is going to come along, the way that several already have in the battle over homeschooling, and complain that kids in the Christian schools are disadvantaged and should be forced to go to a common secular school. And then one scandalous incident that happened in one Christian school will be over-reported by CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC; and then that will goad enough fencesitters to side with the lobbyists.

if the material being taught is so different (read: limited) that we'd actually have to have different schools for secularist kids and kids of [insert some religions here] then i think people have every reason to be worried about kids being disadvantaged.

religion and science are both part of our world whether you (or anyone else) likes it or not. both should be taught in school so that the next generation and all those after that can be allowed to make up their own mind with regards to their beliefs. you dont have to raise your kid as a catholic, or a muslim or a this or a that so that they wont kill, steal, rape etc so theres really no reason to force your beliefs on them.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

school is for education, not indoctrination or breeding intolerance.

This is a nonsensical retort. What, pray tell, is education? Education is the process of bestowing information to young minds that will equip them for life in the real world, all the way from learning to tie one's shoes in Kindergarten to learning how fit exponential decay equations to the behavioral data of an albino rat. Part of my adult life in the real world is my particular religious beliefs. Why on earth should this be excluded from the curriculum of a child? Because you don't like it, and therefore brand it "indoctrination" and "breeding intolerance"? Those are just buzzwords that people use to describe education according to someone else's worldview. It provides zero intellectual justification for why you or I have the right to say that someone else can't teach their child what they think is important about life. It's just namecalling.

i dunno what kind of national health sevice youre proposing here but in britain our nhs is subsidised by everyone who works through whats called "national insurance", its not exclusive to rich people.

Ah, well you see, in America we like to blame rich people for all our problems, so we propose to burden them with a disproportionate tax rate on the theory that they have luxury money. No one in my country bothers to think about whether the rich defend their luxury consumption by passing the cost of these taxes on to consumers in lower tax brackets, thus driving their standard of living in a direction opposite to that intended by the do-gooders who proposed subsidization.

if the material being taught is so different (read: limited) that we'd actually have to have different schools for secularist kids and kids of [insert some religions here] then i think people have every reason to be worried about kids being disadvantaged.

Why?

religion and science are both part of our world whether you (or anyone else) likes it or not. both should be taught in school so that the next generation and all those after that can be allowed to make up their own mind with regards to their beliefs. you dont have to raise your kid as a catholic, or a muslim or a this or a that so that they wont kill, steal, rape etc so theres really no reason to force your beliefs on them.

That does not compute. The Christian religion commands that the children of Christians be educated in that faith. If your theory is applied, then no Christian could ever be allowed to practice their religion fully, and thus is an incursion into their beliefs. Your idea that there is some kind of tabula rasa neutral child who has the capacity to objectively and logically decide between religions is inconceivable to anyone who's worked with children for even five minutes. First, the mind does not even finish maturing until a person is in his mid-twenties; and second, everyone starts from ethical and logical presuppositions when judging between logical choices, and those presuppositions are very often shaped by the environment. You're basically saying that you'd rather that children in general, having immature brains, were pushed into their choices of religion by chance influences like those of peers instead of being pushed into those choices by the parents who are bearing the economic burdens of birthing and rearing the child. That's absurd! Why the heck should I, as a Christian who believes that he has the responsibility to educate his child in his own worldview, ever find your scheme a suitable compromise?

 

[CassinoChips]

This is a nonsensical retort. What, pray tell, is education? Education is the process of bestowing information to young minds that will equip them for life in the real world, all the way from learning to tie one's shoes in Kindergarten to learning how fit exponential decay equations to the behavioral data of an albino rat. Part of my adult life in the real world is my particular religious beliefs. Why on earth should this be excluded from the curriculum of a child? Because you don't like it, and therefore brand it "indoctrination" and "breeding intolerance"? Those are just buzzwords that people use to describe education according to someone else's worldview. It provides zero intellectual justification for why you or I have the right to say that someone else can't teach their child what they think is important about life. It's just namecalling.

You can teach your child whatever you want. However, in a publicly funded educational system that is neutral to religion, no religion's bent should be taught, regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof.

Ah, well you see, in America we like to blame rich people for all our problems, so we propose to burden them with a disproportionate tax rate on the theory that they have luxury money. No one in my country bothers to think about whether the rich defend their luxury consumption by passing the cost of these taxes on to consumers in lower tax brackets, thus driving their standard of living in a direction opposite to that intended by the do-gooders who proposed subsidization.

Rich people don't pay taxes. Who are you trying to kid?

You're basically saying that you'd rather that children in general, having immature brains, were pushed into their choices of religion by chance influences like those of peers instead of being pushed into those choices by the parents who are bearing the economic burdens of birthing and rearing the child.

I agree absolutely 100%. Religion should absolutely be taught by the parents. Not by the publicly funded educational system that is neutral to all religions. If you want to pull the wool over your child's eyes on your own time, more power to you. Don't expect the system to do it for you.