Creationism/Intelligent Design in Schools

[Dogenzaka]

Uh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with SN's attitude Dogen, but you do know DK's statement is incorrect, right?

Eh yeah, true, but I'm kind of borderline with his wording. There's evidence for evolution, but you can't completely prove it to be an absolute truth, unless we had a time machine or something. In which case it would be a law, not a theory. But that's just me nitpicking at choice of wording. The attitude though, as noted, I don't agree with.

[Phoenix]

Hah, alright Dogen, so are you saying Ben Stein did not say: "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed" exactly was quoted? Because if he didn't, then the world is ending, since wikipedia has a whole section of your movie's article dedicated to it. If he did, however, he is a quote miner, and as a quote miner, a very dishonest man.

Btw, that is completely true, at least in my opinion:

So you can quote Wikipedia, but apparently I can't.

Eh yeah, true, but I'm kind of borderline with his wording. There's evidence for evolution, but you can't completely prove it to be an absolute truth, unless we had a time machine or something. In which case it would be a law, not a theory. But that's just me nitpicking at choice of wording. The attitude though, as noted, I don't agree with.

Shit like this, Dogen. Shit like this.

You've been explained to countless time how science defines "theory" and how science defines "law", and you persist in using the word "law" as some sort of higher level in the hierarchy of science.

"A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it."

This is what makes a law:

* True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
* Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
* Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
* Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
* Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
* Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
* Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
* Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
* Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

I bolded the ones evolution would never be able to fulfill, even if we took a time machine and saw it happening.

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

You are using theory instead of hypothesis. A theory is a generally accepted idea with lots of proof and evidence backing it up. A theory still can change or a be replaced by a whole different theory but it is the most probable idea. A hypothesis is an assumption made by someone which lacks proof and evidence.

Evolution is proven widely and often thus an accepted idea. The more proof gathered for evolution the less probable a different hypothesis is.

Ever notice that it has always been called the 'Theory of Evolution'? It is not a law, because we have no way of observing the first organisms, and deciding whether or not all organisms are descendants of them.

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

Why are you still in the Intel section?

Why do you post simple, two word posts? Because you can. Why am I still here? Because I can be.

[ikkuh2]

So to you only law is closest to fact, than to you not much things are close to fact. The word law is mainly used in physics, does this mean all chemistry, biology and maths is wrong or inconsistent with reality. I won't tell you again about when to use the word theory but you should really read that part, it will be a lot more clear

[square-enix]

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

Watch Expelled.

Is this the same Expelled? The very same one caught plagiarizing?

[ikkuh2]

That's the one. It's pure propaganda and propaganda is known to twist or bend truth.

[Endless Devoid]

Originally Posted by Face Down

Not true really.

My Biology does not teach us about evolution.

But back to the main point

I'm for it.

And like DA said if they want to go to a school that teaches it, let them.

Trust me, it does.
Biology is the study of life, and every cellular study you'll ever do in a biological field will be based on principles defined by evolution and adaptation.

[Endless Devoid]

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

Um, no he didn't. Hell, he didn't comment much on it himself. He asked respected scientists what he thought. What YOU'RE saying is totally out of context, probably taken from some pissed off, elitist atheists that watched the movie.
Currently, I have watched it, and you haven't. So your opinion is just borrowed out of context from someone else.

He didn't purposefully leave out text, the guy interviewed scientists..some of the most respected in their field...there was no "text".

Don't force your opinion on a movie you haven't seen.
The movie's purpose doesn't even have anything to do with religion, it has to do with academic freedom.

As for Nazism, the ideal behind some of it was that the weak and the lesser-humans shouldn't be a llowed to breed or populate the earth, and that the higher-evolved, superior humans should reform the world to improve the standards of the human race. That's what some scientists that Ben Stein interviewed said, that's all.

kthx



Btw, that is completely true, at least in my opinion:

Don't get so defensive, dumbass.


The movie blows.
The actors were highly paid.
Ben Stein is a christian fundamentalist.
A Republican Conservative.
Creationism is illegal. Intelligent Design is the same damn thing.
Read the constitution and get your finger out of your butt.

Originally Posted by ikkuh2

So to you only law is closest to fact, than to you not much things are close to fact. The word law is mainly used in physics, does this mean all chemistry, biology and maths is wrong or inconsistent with reality. I won't tell you again about when to use the word theory but you should really read that part, it will be a lot more clear

How about we assume for a second that you aren't a genius. Because the term theory is used to describe something with massive amounts of proof, but is lacking a component, we can also assume that most theories are true. The idea that theories in chemistry, biology, or the maths is completely ludicrous.

Law is not 'closest' to fact, law *is* 'fact'. Theory is something that cannot be considered entirely factual, because we cannot/ have not observed all phenomena having to do with the theory.

[Phoenix]

Ever notice that it has always been called the 'Theory of Evolution'? It is not a law, because we have no way of observing the first organisms, and deciding whether or not all organisms are descendants of them.

DK, I like you, I really do, but the post directly before yours explains why isn't evolution a law :( It's not for any lack of proof, it's because laws are used to refer to universal forces in the Universe.

Furthermore, I think people need to start distinguishing between evolution, common descent and abiogenesis.

=/ My main point was that the kid's idea of answering 'evolution' for everything on a test doesn't make sense.

So, I think that teaching Creationism in schools would require a different course, or at least not one involving the other sciences. Maybe philosophy or a religious course, but it's probably a given that they're discussed in those classes anyway.

[Chevalier Sombre]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Furthermore, I think people need to start distinguishing between evolution, common descent and abiogenesis.

And physics as well. Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.

[Endless Devoid]

And those classes are illegal in American public schools.

Which is why I'd never go to a private school.
They can teach you whatever they want.

[Hollow Bastion]

Originally Posted by Endless Devoid

And those classes are illegal in American public schools.

Which is why I'd never go to a private school.
They can teach you whatever they want.

Not necessarily. World Religions classes are nice, so long as the teachers aren't biased. And as long as the school doesn't reject a class due to the actual religion, then there's not much that can be said. Now, if they reject teaching it 'cause it's, say, Islam, but they accept a Christianity class, then they got a lawsuit coming in.

Also, a philosophy class wouldn't have that problem. These generally go over different issues.

[Endless Devoid]

I meant a creationism class would be illegal. A teacher outright stating creationism as fact, so illegal.