Creationism to be included in GCSE science lessons
If hearing that Tory Bliar is comfortable with his illegal invasion of Iraq because only God can be his judge wasn't enough to make my blood boil, and fellow members on this forum know only to well how easily the damned red stuff coursing through my veins gets to boiling point, we now have the prospect of creationism being debated (not taught, debated) in science lessons at GCSE level.
Why?
What's wrong with debating this in RI like I did when I was a callow grammar school boy back in the seventies?
When I was sitting in the biology lab surrounded by tanks of stick insects and locusts, cages of rats and mice and huge posters of the reproductive organs of the human male and female why were we not discussing this mythological bollocks then?
Because even the most ardent theologian could recognise that it wasn't science and it's place was emphatically not in a science lab.
Perhaps the education department might like to look into ways our kids can study and debate the illiad and the odyssey in physics or geography to learn about where exactly atlantis is and how beings can survive when their hair is really live snakes and how it's possible for them to turn human flesh instantly to stone with a look.
Given a further hundred or so years in this same vein we'll have reverted to denouncing the old woman down the street with all the cats as a witch and thus creating a fine opportunity to have a boozy party, replete with fireworks, baked taters and candy floss while she burns at the fucking stake.
Full Version: Creationism
hear hear.
I agree that creationism should not be taught as part of the science curriculum. I do however believe that it should be discussed in RE. There are some very interesting debates raging about the whole intelegent design thing in the worlsd of science at the momment. I am following an interesting series of emails between three very well known scientists on this matter at the moment. And it appears that within the scientific community there is growing acceptance of some 'other' intellegence, because for every question that science answers so many other prepondables are opened up. I think that the discourse that i was following was in the times education supplement.
Log onto the TES site for educationalists view on this whole hornets nest.
Personnaly I feel that a lot of Jo Public undervalue the place of RE in the curriculum....the whole teaching ethos has moved on leaps and bounds since our day...RE has wonderful cross curricular opportunities dealing with the real issues of the hear and now.
PS I am not a GOD sqadder --- I am a paid up signed up Humanist who happens to enjoy teaching RE
Log onto the TES site for educationalists view on this whole hornets nest.
Personnaly I feel that a lot of Jo Public undervalue the place of RE in the curriculum....the whole teaching ethos has moved on leaps and bounds since our day...RE has wonderful cross curricular opportunities dealing with the real issues of the hear and now.
PS I am not a GOD sqadder --- I am a paid up signed up Humanist who happens to enjoy teaching RE
Just recently, BBC Horizon announced the surprising result that more than half of Britons don't accept the theory of evolution, and that more than 40 per cent believed creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science. Despite centuries of evidence to the contrary, the belief in creationism, the literal reading of Genesis that God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago, just won't go away.
The most recent chapter in this sorry saga can probably be dated back to 1925 when the biology teacher John Scopes was entertainingly prosecuted in Tennessee in the United States for instructing his students in the theory of evolution. Since then, surveys have repeatedly demonstrated that parts of the US have sympathy with this view. In 1987, its Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to teach creationism as science because it was an expression of religious belief and could not be tested. You would have thought that would have been the end of the matter, at least in the US.
Unfortunately no. An offshoot has now developed, perversely called "intelligent design", or "ID" for short. Here it is believed that some forms of life are so complex they must show the work of a designer. Again this idea was challenged in court and ruled to be unconstitutional for exactly the same reason: it is not testable. The bad word continues to spread. Now we learn that a significant element of British society is sympathetic.
But is it an issue we should be concerned about? Well frankly, yes, particularly when its proponents argue it should be thrust into school science lessons. It is through science that we enjoy much of our quality of life today. No one should claim that science has the answer to life, the universe and everything. But because of the way theories are constructed, tested and validated, the whole system is self-correcting. Students need to learn these principles, to question, to help them understand the world and make it a better place to live in. With creationism and ID, however, there is no test. You have to trust the teacher.
Creationists use a plethora of misleading techniques to convince people of their case. Its supporters argue: why can't students be exposed to creationism and ID in a science class? The key point is belief. No matter how much science proves otherwise, creationists chose to believe that God created the world only 6,000 years ago. I might believe that the world is flat or that little green men live on Mars; should I teach my beliefs alongside electrostatics, plant pollination and gravity? I hope not.
The most recent chapter in this sorry saga can probably be dated back to 1925 when the biology teacher John Scopes was entertainingly prosecuted in Tennessee in the United States for instructing his students in the theory of evolution. Since then, surveys have repeatedly demonstrated that parts of the US have sympathy with this view. In 1987, its Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to teach creationism as science because it was an expression of religious belief and could not be tested. You would have thought that would have been the end of the matter, at least in the US.
Unfortunately no. An offshoot has now developed, perversely called "intelligent design", or "ID" for short. Here it is believed that some forms of life are so complex they must show the work of a designer. Again this idea was challenged in court and ruled to be unconstitutional for exactly the same reason: it is not testable. The bad word continues to spread. Now we learn that a significant element of British society is sympathetic.
But is it an issue we should be concerned about? Well frankly, yes, particularly when its proponents argue it should be thrust into school science lessons. It is through science that we enjoy much of our quality of life today. No one should claim that science has the answer to life, the universe and everything. But because of the way theories are constructed, tested and validated, the whole system is self-correcting. Students need to learn these principles, to question, to help them understand the world and make it a better place to live in. With creationism and ID, however, there is no test. You have to trust the teacher.
Creationists use a plethora of misleading techniques to convince people of their case. Its supporters argue: why can't students be exposed to creationism and ID in a science class? The key point is belief. No matter how much science proves otherwise, creationists chose to believe that God created the world only 6,000 years ago. I might believe that the world is flat or that little green men live on Mars; should I teach my beliefs alongside electrostatics, plant pollination and gravity? I hope not.
Just in case you do not know what Intelegent Design is............
ID starts with a probability claim. The chances that things would have turned out the way they did are infinitesimally small. Numerous features of the natural world can only properly be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer; it is simply too improbable to be explained any other way. Evolutionary theory, by contrast, posits explanations that are internal to the world it is explaining: it relies wholly on natural explanations.
Because ID uses technical tools such as probability theory, and attends to the biological and palaeontological details, it claims more respectability than creationism. Recently, President Bush endorsed the teaching of ID.
Oh and as Tony B.Liar believes that GOD is his judge then I think that we can safely say thet Tones thinking is along the ID path.....
ID starts with a probability claim. The chances that things would have turned out the way they did are infinitesimally small. Numerous features of the natural world can only properly be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer; it is simply too improbable to be explained any other way. Evolutionary theory, by contrast, posits explanations that are internal to the world it is explaining: it relies wholly on natural explanations.
Because ID uses technical tools such as probability theory, and attends to the biological and palaeontological details, it claims more respectability than creationism. Recently, President Bush endorsed the teaching of ID.
Oh and as Tony B.Liar believes that GOD is his judge then I think that we can safely say thet Tones thinking is along the ID path.....
ID is bad science. It was very convincingly torn apart in a recent Horizon I saw.
I nearly ended up as an RE teacher! I was going to do a PGCE in History with RE as second subject but other options opened up to me.
Funny old world
I nearly ended up as an RE teacher! I was going to do a PGCE in History with RE as second subject but other options opened up to me.
Funny old world
Yes it may be bad science but as it is a current issue and one that is growing in strength from day to day I think that it is important that the children in our care are told about it, BUT they must have all the options , arguments given to them in an unbiased forum. and the science class in not the place to start getting into theological debates.
I was astounded at the ammount of UK citizens who are now going down this path of belief.
I was in a discussion a coouple of weeks ago with a lady who advices local authorities on the RE policies in schools, and the importance of RE in the curicculum. RE is having a renaisance at the momment. The government are pushing it again. Interestingly RE is always pushed when the country is at a low ebb/times of crisis etc. Just do a google on the variious education acts concerning RE in school and look at the dates.
I was astounded at the ammount of UK citizens who are now going down this path of belief.
I was in a discussion a coouple of weeks ago with a lady who advices local authorities on the RE policies in schools, and the importance of RE in the curicculum. RE is having a renaisance at the momment. The government are pushing it again. Interestingly RE is always pushed when the country is at a low ebb/times of crisis etc. Just do a google on the variious education acts concerning RE in school and look at the dates.
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Mar 10 2006, 08:55 PM)
Yes it may be bad science but as it is a current issue and one that is growing in strength from day to day I think that it is important that the children in our care are told about it, BUT they must have all the options , arguments given to them in an unbiased forum. and the science class in not the place to start getting into theological debates.
I was astounded at the ammount of UK citizens who are now going down this path of belief.
I was in a discussion a coouple of weeks ago with a lady who advices local authorities on the RE policies in schools, and the importance of RE in the curicculum. RE is having a renaisance at the momment. The government are pushing it again. Interestingly RE is always pushed when the country is at a low ebb/times of crisis etc. Just do a google on the variious education acts concerning RE in school and look at the dates.
I was astounded at the ammount of UK citizens who are now going down this path of belief.
I was in a discussion a coouple of weeks ago with a lady who advices local authorities on the RE policies in schools, and the importance of RE in the curicculum. RE is having a renaisance at the momment. The government are pushing it again. Interestingly RE is always pushed when the country is at a low ebb/times of crisis etc. Just do a google on the variious education acts concerning RE in school and look at the dates.
Sorry - it should be discussed in RE classes. I wholeheartedly agree.
I just also think that the intelligent design should be shown for what it is. As failing to meet exacting scientific criteria.
Calling it "bad science" doesn't get anywhere near close to what this crap is.
It's mumbo jumbo.
It's something that religious whackos have concocted to add weight to their belief.
A thing they've found it necessary to do since it's clear that God isn't doing a good enough job of rounding up his lost sheep by him or herself.
We heathen non-believers have to be shown "evidence" of the lord. Why the lord, who is omnipotent, is unable to demonstrate his omnipotence to us all by himself is a mystery to me. ID is a ridiculous euphemism for creationism which is itself a ridiculous attempt to explain everything in the world and around us as the work of some great powerful entity.
Teaching creationism in a science class is dangerous. Why not "debate" astrology? If creationism deserves debate in a science class then surely so does astrology.
Or Voodoo. Surely there must be something in this "dead people walking" malarchy.
Fair's fair.
It's mumbo jumbo.
It's something that religious whackos have concocted to add weight to their belief.
A thing they've found it necessary to do since it's clear that God isn't doing a good enough job of rounding up his lost sheep by him or herself.
We heathen non-believers have to be shown "evidence" of the lord. Why the lord, who is omnipotent, is unable to demonstrate his omnipotence to us all by himself is a mystery to me. ID is a ridiculous euphemism for creationism which is itself a ridiculous attempt to explain everything in the world and around us as the work of some great powerful entity.
Teaching creationism in a science class is dangerous. Why not "debate" astrology? If creationism deserves debate in a science class then surely so does astrology.
Or Voodoo. Surely there must be something in this "dead people walking" malarchy.
Fair's fair.
as roger said, dont believe in religion it tends to fuck people up
So we are all in agrement on this one
Hallefuckinlujah
Hallefuckinlujah
Come on for fucks sake some one must be able to step in and disagree on this one.
No
Well they are all a lot saner round here than you would give em credit for
Peace to all at last
Wheres that Jesus Christ fella when you want him
No
Well they are all a lot saner round here than you would give em credit for
Peace to all at last
Wheres that Jesus Christ fella when you want him
i disagree.
<nods>
<nods>
QUOTE(Martyn @ Mar 10 2006, 07:02 PM)
What's wrong with debating this in RI like I did when I was a callow grammar school boy back in the seventies?
Did you? I can't remember debating anything in RI. Having said that, RI always used to fall on "Twagging it Friday" so I never did RI. Furthermore, I think our school called it RE, is there a difference?
Cheers, Andy.
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Mar 10 2006, 10:27 PM)
Wheres that Jesus Christ fella when you want him
I don't think Jesus will disagree with you on this one. The pope doesn't anyway.
Oh, and Intelligent Design isn't gaining strength every day, it was recently torn to shreds by a Bush appointed judge in a case where parents sued a school board for introducing it. IDists are jumping ship and trying to find a new euphemism, just like they did when "Creation Science" was torn to shreds.
IIRC the education minister in Greece did something like this a few years ago and there was a huge backlash resulting in their firing, while the rest of the world (even the US) laughed at them. The same should be happening here, unless perhaps ID is being used as an example of what is not science?
QUOTE(Martyn @ Mar 10 2006, 10:01 PM)
Calling it "bad science" doesn't get anywhere near close to what this crap is.
It's mumbo jumbo.
It's something that religious whackos have concocted to add weight to their belief.
A thing they've found it necessary to do since it's clear that God isn't doing a good enough job of rounding up his lost sheep by him or herself.
We heathen non-believers have to be shown "evidence" of the lord. Why the lord, who is omnipotent, is unable to demonstrate his omnipotence to us all by himself is a mystery to me. ID is a ridiculous euphemism for creationism which is itself a ridiculous attempt to explain everything in the world and around us as the work of some great powerful entity.
Teaching creationism in a science class is dangerous. Why not "debate" astrology? If creationism deserves debate in a science class then surely so does astrology.
Or Voodoo. Surely there must be something in this "dead people walking" malarchy.
Fair's fair.
It's mumbo jumbo.
It's something that religious whackos have concocted to add weight to their belief.
A thing they've found it necessary to do since it's clear that God isn't doing a good enough job of rounding up his lost sheep by him or herself.
We heathen non-believers have to be shown "evidence" of the lord. Why the lord, who is omnipotent, is unable to demonstrate his omnipotence to us all by himself is a mystery to me. ID is a ridiculous euphemism for creationism which is itself a ridiculous attempt to explain everything in the world and around us as the work of some great powerful entity.
Teaching creationism in a science class is dangerous. Why not "debate" astrology? If creationism deserves debate in a science class then surely so does astrology.
Or Voodoo. Surely there must be something in this "dead people walking" malarchy.
Fair's fair.
Calm down Martyn.You seem to be mixing intelligent design, religion,christianity and creationism into one pot and treating it it as the same thing.It is not!
Some scientists do not believe in creationism ,but do believe is some sort of intelligent design (a few in continued-ID,and probably more in an initial ID that led to natural evolution).How arrogant of you to believe you have all the answers to creation,elovlution and the universe, after spending such a tiny period of time on this earth.
May i recommend the superb book by Bill Bryson 'A short History of nearly everything' It is probably the most accessible and comprehensive book ever written on Science,chemisty,biology,evolution,the universe.Most things about our world /universe/evolution that can be explained through science,BUT there are also many things that don't add up and make sense or follow scientific laws,and without those many anomaly's ,life as we know it would not exist,and life itself would not be possible.
To take one of many many examples.
QUOTE
Water contracts by 10% when chilled,but once within whispering distance of feezing,it begins - perversly,beguilingly,extremely improbably - to expand.By the time it is solid,it is almonst a tenth more voluminous than before.(This contradicts all known laws of science).Because it expands,ice floats on water - 'an utterly bizarre propery', according to John Gribbin.If it lacked this splendid waywardness,ice would sink,and lakes and oceans would freeze from the bottom up.Without surface ice to to hold the heat in,the waters's warmth would radiate away.Leaving it even chillier and creating yet more ice.Soon even the oceans would freeze and almost certainly stay that way for ever - hardly the conditions to nurture life.Thankfully for us,water seems unaware of the rules of chemistry and of laws of physics.
Bryson remains an evolutionist,but points out that there are many many things that we don't understandand, and many things that can't be explained totally by plain evolution.We know a lot lot less that we think we do.Take the universe as a whole.Even with the best scientific minds,computers and combined human intelligence ,well over 70% of the mass of the universe remains unaccounted for (we have no idea of the properties/materials or bulk, that make it up,and as a result,all astonomy calculations are flawed (or guesswork), as a result.When a scientist say that a particular solar system is 6o million light years away (he really means it is between 40 and 80 million light years away,but has no way of accurately calculating it).Were you aware of this?We have a perceived and misguided belief that humanity knows a lot more than it actually does.
Some people believe totally in evolution,science backs that up much more than creationism,but science doesn't back evolution up 100% or anwhere near that mark.Thats why i'm lean towards some sort of intellgent design, married to evolution, based on available facts.Of course i would not dare to presume or believe i was totally correct in my conclusion or to impose my personal theories on anyone else,and shout down and ridicule all those with a different view to mine.I'll leave that to the likes of Martyn and the Creationist-fundermentalists.
Nonsense, we understand exactly why ice expands. Water molecules are polar and form hydrogen bonds. The molecules in water without hydrogen bonds can pack quite close together, especially when chilled. When it starts to freeze hydrogen bonds at a fixed length of ~197pm form, preventing the moecules packing so close together, and additionally fix the molecules in certain regular arrangements.
klf, who are these "some scientists"? More specifically, who are the biologists amoungst them? I'll save you the bother: Behe and Dembski, two (2) people, out of hundreds of thousands of biologists. So if we're taking "some scientists" as grounds to teach pseudoscience, martyn's point about astrology (or the "theory" that babies are delivered by storks) is quite relevant.
What you say about "initial-ID followed by evolution" is called theistic evolution, and isn't classified as intelligent design. Don't go berating martyn for mixing terminology if you're going to just make up definitions. Intelligent Design is not a synonym for the argument from design (or teleological argument), and therefore there are not various different types of ID. ID is a specific pseudoscientific hypothesis. Actually, not even a hypothesis, just a lame claim that some things in biology look designed, therefore must have been. There's nothing to test, no experiments to run that could prove or falsify the claim, and no attempt at a theory to explain the mechanism. That is simply not science.
And sure, science hasn't explained everything, and there are still things to explore in evolution. But precisely because of this "controversy", and because it's such an important theory as it unifies all of biology, it has been one of the most studied topics in all of science, and there is so much data, from different fields from palaeontology to genetics, that we can be as sure that evolution has happened, and that natural selection has been the crucial mechanism, as we can that gravity exists, and how it works.
Humanity is a long way from knowing everything, but it's a damn sight closer than the klf. And I have no issues daring to shout down intelligent design. Science is about testing ideas and rejecting those that are false. If intelligent design doesn't want to be criticised than it shouldn't make the absurd claim that it is scientific.
klf, who are these "some scientists"? More specifically, who are the biologists amoungst them? I'll save you the bother: Behe and Dembski, two (2) people, out of hundreds of thousands of biologists. So if we're taking "some scientists" as grounds to teach pseudoscience, martyn's point about astrology (or the "theory" that babies are delivered by storks) is quite relevant.
What you say about "initial-ID followed by evolution" is called theistic evolution, and isn't classified as intelligent design. Don't go berating martyn for mixing terminology if you're going to just make up definitions. Intelligent Design is not a synonym for the argument from design (or teleological argument), and therefore there are not various different types of ID. ID is a specific pseudoscientific hypothesis. Actually, not even a hypothesis, just a lame claim that some things in biology look designed, therefore must have been. There's nothing to test, no experiments to run that could prove or falsify the claim, and no attempt at a theory to explain the mechanism. That is simply not science.
And sure, science hasn't explained everything, and there are still things to explore in evolution. But precisely because of this "controversy", and because it's such an important theory as it unifies all of biology, it has been one of the most studied topics in all of science, and there is so much data, from different fields from palaeontology to genetics, that we can be as sure that evolution has happened, and that natural selection has been the crucial mechanism, as we can that gravity exists, and how it works.
Humanity is a long way from knowing everything, but it's a damn sight closer than the klf. And I have no issues daring to shout down intelligent design. Science is about testing ideas and rejecting those that are false. If intelligent design doesn't want to be criticised than it shouldn't make the absurd claim that it is scientific.
QUOTE
ID starts with a probability claim. The chances that things would have turned out the way they did are infinitesimally small. Numerous features of the natural world can only properly be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer;
I loved the way Bill Bryson explained this one away:
If you argue back from a certain point, all the actions that led to that certain point contain so many changes and chances, that you could say that behind everything there should be a creator.
E.g.: I am currently wearing a blue shirt. Reason I wear this shirt is that Iris puked over my pink shirt yesterday so I needed to wear a new one. I did do laundry yesterday, but that hasn't dried yet. So I was confined to the shirts in my closet. I took this blue shirt because it was on top of the pile.
So, the probability for me to wear this blue shirt today was very very small because
1) the laundry did have to dry very slowly
2) I had to put the shirt on top of the pile
3) Iris had to puke over my old shirt
etc. etc.
Does that mean there is a GOD? I think not.
Do I believe in God? Yes, but that has nought to do with the science class as far as I'm concerned. It's a BELIEF, a FAITH... wanting or trying to concot proof seems blasfemas (I don't even know how to spell the bloddy word) to me...
QUOTE(Andy Tyrrell @ Mar 10 2006, 11:10 PM)
QUOTE(Martyn @ Mar 10 2006, 07:02 PM)
What's wrong with debating this in RI like I did when I was a callow grammar school boy back in the seventies?
Did you? I can't remember debating anything in RI. Having said that, RI always used to fall on "Twagging it Friday" so I never did RI. Furthermore, I think our school called it RE, is there a difference?
Cheers, Andy.
Historically the name has changed as the content has moved from religious instruction (ie here are the top ten faiths) to RE where we discuss, ethics, morality, faith and spirituality.
KLF.
You may not be aware of it, but the theory of evolution has been tested and proved.
The details of the experiment were recorded in an excellent book called The Beak of the Finch.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973337...glance&n=283155
As for the remarkable properties of water., I first learned about the phenomena in another great little book called How Things are:A science toolkit for the mind
Which, coincidentally also contains a great essay written by Professor Richard Dawkins to his ten year old daughter, outlinging good and bad reasons for believing.
Recommended reading for anyone getting the hard facts of science mixed up with middle eastern fairy tales.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html#
You may not be aware of it, but the theory of evolution has been tested and proved.
The details of the experiment were recorded in an excellent book called The Beak of the Finch.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973337...glance&n=283155
As for the remarkable properties of water., I first learned about the phenomena in another great little book called How Things are:A science toolkit for the mind
Which, coincidentally also contains a great essay written by Professor Richard Dawkins to his ten year old daughter, outlinging good and bad reasons for believing.
Recommended reading for anyone getting the hard facts of science mixed up with middle eastern fairy tales.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html#
Well has the big bang been proved, even Mr Hawkins is thinking again about his theories.
What the creationists want to get to the bottom of is what was there before the big bang...
Frankly I think creationism is just a way for right wing fundemental christians to get a toe hold in our schools and preach their views through the back door. Just look at what Reg Vardy is doing in the North of England with his city accademies....
What the creationists want to get to the bottom of is what was there before the big bang...
Frankly I think creationism is just a way for right wing fundemental christians to get a toe hold in our schools and preach their views through the back door. Just look at what Reg Vardy is doing in the North of England with his city accademies....
i thought RI stood for religious indoctrination....
QUOTE(TAFKABO @ Mar 11 2006, 10:07 AM)
KLF.
You may not be aware of it, but the theory of evolution has been tested and proved.
The details of the experiment were recorded in an excellent book called The Beak of the Finch.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973337...glance&n=283155
As for the remarkable properties of water., I first learned about the phenomena in another great little book called How Things are:A science toolkit for the mind
Which, coincidentally also contains a great essay written by Professor Richard Dawkins to his ten year old daughter, outlinging good and bad reasons for believing.
Recommended reading for anyone getting the hard facts of science mixed up with middle eastern fairy tales.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html#
You may not be aware of it, but the theory of evolution has been tested and proved.
The details of the experiment were recorded in an excellent book called The Beak of the Finch.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973337...glance&n=283155
As for the remarkable properties of water., I first learned about the phenomena in another great little book called How Things are:A science toolkit for the mind
Which, coincidentally also contains a great essay written by Professor Richard Dawkins to his ten year old daughter, outlinging good and bad reasons for believing.
Recommended reading for anyone getting the hard facts of science mixed up with middle eastern fairy tales.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html#
It is YOU and people like yourself that are mixing up middle eastern fary tales with evolution.Some people do not believe in any form of religion .They do not believe that Jesus was the son of god.They do not believe that the earth was created in six days.They DO believe in evolution,BUT they believe that evolution and its amonolys are being influenced and have been influenced by intelligent design.
You are trying to say 'You either believe in creationism/organised religion, or you believe in evolution'.
Many believe it not to be that black and white.
Nice one nevs,
But to begin with, let's get a little clearer about exactly what it is that creationists believe.
Creationism entails that:
The entire universe is about six thousand years old.
Modern scientific cosmologies on which the universe is many billions of years old and began with a Big Bang are thus fundamentally wrong.
No new species has ever evolved. All were created in the same week about six thousand years ago. So the dinosaurs (creationists don't deny they existed) walked the Earth along with man just a few thousand years ago.
So when did creation happen? According to creationists, the universe was created some time in the last ten thousand years. In fact, they typically insist that the entire universe is round about six thousand years old .
But to begin with, let's get a little clearer about exactly what it is that creationists believe.
Creationism entails that:
The entire universe is about six thousand years old.
Modern scientific cosmologies on which the universe is many billions of years old and began with a Big Bang are thus fundamentally wrong.
No new species has ever evolved. All were created in the same week about six thousand years ago. So the dinosaurs (creationists don't deny they existed) walked the Earth along with man just a few thousand years ago.
So when did creation happen? According to creationists, the universe was created some time in the last ten thousand years. In fact, they typically insist that the entire universe is round about six thousand years old .
Why creationism looks "scientific"
We have been looking at the kind of moves made by creationist to defend their theory that the entire universe and all species of living thing were created in the same week just six thousand years ago.
They defend their core theory by developing and adding to it and developing it in various ways so that it continues to fit the available evidence. Each time another piece of apparently solid counter-evidence to creationism is produced - the fossil record, the craters on the moon, etc. - the creationists add a bit more to their core theory to protect it. So they can continue to insist that their theory still fits the available evidence. "See?" they can say "Our theory is just as scientific as yours."
In short, creationists have been busy developing:
A theory of increasing complexity and ingenuity to "fit" the available empirical evidence.
And isn't this exactly how good scientific theories are developed?
Well, I admit that what creationists practice does look like a bit like science. In fact, it does, in this respect, very strongly resemble what scientists do.
And that, of course, is one of the reasons why so many people - something like a third of all Americans - now believe that creationism is scientifically respectable.
Still, despite looking rather like genuine science, the creationist approach to dealing with the evidence is actually thoroughly unscientific. The easiest way to see why is by means of an analogy.
We have been looking at the kind of moves made by creationist to defend their theory that the entire universe and all species of living thing were created in the same week just six thousand years ago.
They defend their core theory by developing and adding to it and developing it in various ways so that it continues to fit the available evidence. Each time another piece of apparently solid counter-evidence to creationism is produced - the fossil record, the craters on the moon, etc. - the creationists add a bit more to their core theory to protect it. So they can continue to insist that their theory still fits the available evidence. "See?" they can say "Our theory is just as scientific as yours."
In short, creationists have been busy developing:
A theory of increasing complexity and ingenuity to "fit" the available empirical evidence.
And isn't this exactly how good scientific theories are developed?
Well, I admit that what creationists practice does look like a bit like science. In fact, it does, in this respect, very strongly resemble what scientists do.
And that, of course, is one of the reasons why so many people - something like a third of all Americans - now believe that creationism is scientifically respectable.
Still, despite looking rather like genuine science, the creationist approach to dealing with the evidence is actually thoroughly unscientific. The easiest way to see why is by means of an analogy.
http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/liars/layfield.html
Here Steven Layfield, the Head of Science at Emmanuel College in Gateshead, gives his reasons as to why he should be teaching ID/creationism in his school as GOOD science
Here Steven Layfield, the Head of Science at Emmanuel College in Gateshead, gives his reasons as to why he should be teaching ID/creationism in his school as GOOD science
QUOTE(the klf @ Mar 11 2006, 10:58 AM)
QUOTE(TAFKABO @ Mar 11 2006, 10:07 AM)
KLF.
You may not be aware of it, but the theory of evolution has been tested and proved.
The details of the experiment were recorded in an excellent book called The Beak of the Finch.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973337...glance&n=283155
As for the remarkable properties of water., I first learned about the phenomena in another great little book called How Things are:A science toolkit for the mind
Which, coincidentally also contains a great essay written by Professor Richard Dawkins to his ten year old daughter, outlinging good and bad reasons for believing.
Recommended reading for anyone getting the hard facts of science mixed up with middle eastern fairy tales.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html#
You may not be aware of it, but the theory of evolution has been tested and proved.
The details of the experiment were recorded in an excellent book called The Beak of the Finch.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973337...glance&n=283155
As for the remarkable properties of water., I first learned about the phenomena in another great little book called How Things are:A science toolkit for the mind
Which, coincidentally also contains a great essay written by Professor Richard Dawkins to his ten year old daughter, outlinging good and bad reasons for believing.
Recommended reading for anyone getting the hard facts of science mixed up with middle eastern fairy tales.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html#
It is YOU and people like yourself that are mixing up middle eastern fary tales with evolution.Some people do not believe in any form of religion .They do not believe that Jesus was the son of god.They do not believe that the earth was created in six days.They DO believe in evolution,BUT they believe that evolution and its amonolys are being influenced and have been influenced by intelligent design.
You are trying to say 'You either believe in creationism/organised religion, or you believe in evolution'.
Many believe it not to be that black and white.
But the point is that science is about testing belief or theory. Believing something without evidence is what we call faith. The two things are fundamentally different.
In the words of steven Layfield
Webster's 1828 Dictionary says that Science is,
"1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
2. Pure science, as mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation..."
Thus Science, as its Latin root suggests, is concerned with knowing. We may have heard the glib comment, "If you really want to know something, ask a scientist". This seems altogether in sympathy with a more up to date definition, reflecting perhaps culture"s shifting religious conviction which defines Science as,
"knowledge obtained from the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities."
This latter definition may at first glance seem acceptable enough. It duly acknowledges the limited scope of scientific enquiry to "the physical world" in its present "structure and behaviour". But, unlike the previous one, notice that there is no reference to God, truth in general or metaphysics. Implicit in the first, yet strangely absent from this second absent definition, is the acknowledgement that there must exist some general framework of thinking to make proper sense of sensory empirical data. Hence, the possibility of Scripture providing this normative role is explicitly denied.
Both Scripture and human philosophy affirm that in developing a body of knowledge and/or truth, we must inevitably assume something. No practitioner of Science can avoid this presumptive first step. For example, cosmologists assume a uniformity of matter and the laws of Physics when contemplating the distant galaxies and stars etc,. But why should such matter and the laws which govern its behaviour be the same everywhere? Thus, when the astronomer infers the existence of metals and certain gases in distant stars he is in fact assuming the unity of nature (i.e. that we inhabit a universe, not a multi-verse): something he cannot prove.
However, if, as Jesus clearly taught, the Bible really is the Word of God - and the internal evidence is overwhelming - true Science will always agree with it. The form of knowledge to which it tends will be trustworthy and true. The ultimate absurdity of abandoning the Biblical framework of knowledge is the introduction of doubt into the universality of any scientific law.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary says that Science is,
"1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
2. Pure science, as mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation..."
Thus Science, as its Latin root suggests, is concerned with knowing. We may have heard the glib comment, "If you really want to know something, ask a scientist". This seems altogether in sympathy with a more up to date definition, reflecting perhaps culture"s shifting religious conviction which defines Science as,
"knowledge obtained from the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities."
This latter definition may at first glance seem acceptable enough. It duly acknowledges the limited scope of scientific enquiry to "the physical world" in its present "structure and behaviour". But, unlike the previous one, notice that there is no reference to God, truth in general or metaphysics. Implicit in the first, yet strangely absent from this second absent definition, is the acknowledgement that there must exist some general framework of thinking to make proper sense of sensory empirical data. Hence, the possibility of Scripture providing this normative role is explicitly denied.
Both Scripture and human philosophy affirm that in developing a body of knowledge and/or truth, we must inevitably assume something. No practitioner of Science can avoid this presumptive first step. For example, cosmologists assume a uniformity of matter and the laws of Physics when contemplating the distant galaxies and stars etc,. But why should such matter and the laws which govern its behaviour be the same everywhere? Thus, when the astronomer infers the existence of metals and certain gases in distant stars he is in fact assuming the unity of nature (i.e. that we inhabit a universe, not a multi-verse): something he cannot prove.
However, if, as Jesus clearly taught, the Bible really is the Word of God - and the internal evidence is overwhelming - true Science will always agree with it. The form of knowledge to which it tends will be trustworthy and true. The ultimate absurdity of abandoning the Biblical framework of knowledge is the introduction of doubt into the universality of any scientific law.
What the creationists want to get to the bottom of is what was there before the big bang...
Which is why they go wrong.
There was no Before as such.Scientific theory posits that time, like everything else, began at that moment.
KLF.
Without being rude, your reply made little sense to me, so I can't really give it an answer.
Which is why they go wrong.
There was no Before as such.Scientific theory posits that time, like everything else, began at that moment.
KLF.
Without being rude, your reply made little sense to me, so I can't really give it an answer.
One reason I think this whole ID thing has gathered so much popularity is the inability of some humans to concieve of the vast periods of time neccessary for evolution to happen. Their own arrogance (and/or stupidity), makes them think this is the pinnacle of existance. I hope it isn't, that would be rather crap, all things considered.
Evolution can happen over vast periods of time, but equally over relatively small periods.
Right wing propoganda is fostering the belief in ID . Come on if the eejit at the white house is sanctioning the teaching of creationism. Then his whole spin machine will be pushing it through the media. At times of national crisis faith is pushed as the opiate of the masses. Look at how sanctamoniously religious or Mr B.Liar has become.
ta
QUOTE(Andy Tyrrell @ Mar 10 2006, 11:10 PM)
QUOTE(Martyn @ Mar 10 2006, 07:02 PM)
What's wrong with debating this in RI like I did when I was a callow grammar school boy back in the seventies?
Did you? I can't remember debating anything in RI. Having said that, RI always used to fall on "Twagging it Friday" so I never did RI. Furthermore, I think our school called it RE, is there a difference?
Cheers, Andy.
To be honest I can't remember if Mr Hussey took us for RE or RI. Which is a bit lame since it was one of the O levels I actually passed. We didn't debate creationism but we certainly had heated discussions on and around the suject. There was a small bunch of us who could easily subvert his lessons by getting him into an argument about the existence of god etc etc and therefore not have to do any actual work which now begs the question, How did I pass the exam?
On reflection I suspect that he was far cleverer than any of us gave him credit for and was perfectly happy to allow the "subversion" of his classes since we were probably covering everything in the syallabus all by ourselves anyway.
QUOTE(Fred E @ Mar 11 2006, 11:57 AM)
QUOTE(the klf @ Mar 11 2006, 10:58 AM)
QUOTE(TAFKABO @ Mar 11 2006, 10:07 AM)
KLF.
You may not be aware of it, but the theory of evolution has been tested and proved.
The details of the experiment were recorded in an excellent book called The Beak of the Finch.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973337...glance&n=283155
As for the remarkable properties of water., I first learned about the phenomena in another great little book called How Things are:A science toolkit for the mind
Which, coincidentally also contains a great essay written by Professor Richard Dawkins to his ten year old daughter, outlinging good and bad reasons for believing.
Recommended reading for anyone getting the hard facts of science mixed up with middle eastern fairy tales.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html#
You may not be aware of it, but the theory of evolution has been tested and proved.
The details of the experiment were recorded in an excellent book called The Beak of the Finch.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973337...glance&n=283155
As for the remarkable properties of water., I first learned about the phenomena in another great little book called How Things are:A science toolkit for the mind
Which, coincidentally also contains a great essay written by Professor Richard Dawkins to his ten year old daughter, outlinging good and bad reasons for believing.
Recommended reading for anyone getting the hard facts of science mixed up with middle eastern fairy tales.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html#
It is YOU and people like yourself that are mixing up middle eastern fary tales with evolution.Some people do not believe in any form of religion .They do not believe that Jesus was the son of god.They do not believe that the earth was created in six days.They DO believe in evolution,BUT they believe that evolution and its amonolys are being influenced and have been influenced by intelligent design.
You are trying to say 'You either believe in creationism/organised religion, or you believe in evolution'.
Many believe it not to be that black and white.
But the point is that science is about testing belief or theory. Believing something without evidence is what we call faith. The two things are fundamentally different.
Knowhere near 100% of things that create,sustain and allow life on earth can be explained by simple evolution.So arn't those that 100% totally rely on 'evolution',also relying on faith .Faith about evolution being the total and complete answer???
No, they accept it as the best possible explanation given the facts.
It's called a paradigm.
Creationism or ID would be accepted by the science community if they explained the facts better. But they don't, so they are not.
Science is all about investigating, gathering new information, see if it still fits the paradigm. On a regular basis revolutionary new facts are discovered that require the old theories to be thrown overboard, and new theories are put in place, a new paradigm is born.
That's what science is all about. Nothing to do with faith, but about finding explanations for observations
It's called a paradigm.
Creationism or ID would be accepted by the science community if they explained the facts better. But they don't, so they are not.
Science is all about investigating, gathering new information, see if it still fits the paradigm. On a regular basis revolutionary new facts are discovered that require the old theories to be thrown overboard, and new theories are put in place, a new paradigm is born.
That's what science is all about. Nothing to do with faith, but about finding explanations for observations
Again, klf, you seem to be somewhat confused about what evolution is. Evolution is biological theory, not physics, not a belief system, not cosmology. Evolution is a process of descent with modification. Replication with random errors followed by non-random differential survival and reproduction. Changes in allele frequencies in gene pools over time. Evolution is not "the things that create,sustain and allow life on earth", by which I assume you must include things like the precise amount of energy reaching Earth from the sun, and the physical laws that govern chemistry. The conditions that sustain life do so because evolution has adapted live to thrive in those conditions, not vice-versa. As a biological theory it would be absurd to claim that it is in the business of explaining why the physical variables of our universe are the way they are.
You are Douglas Adams' puddle, in awe of the hole that fits you so perfectly that you believe it must have been made for you. I claim my five pounds.
You are Douglas Adams' puddle, in awe of the hole that fits you so perfectly that you believe it must have been made for you. I claim my five pounds.
KLF.
Again, I'm not quite sure what you re getting at.
For my own part, I don't have any "faith" in evolution, what I do have trust in is the scientific method.
Using the scientific method I have come to know and understand (as opposed to "believe") that evolution provides the only plausible answers as to how life on earth came to this point.
You seem to be confusing that gaps in scientific knowledge regarding other big issue with scientific knowledge about evolution.
Science doesn't claim to know everything tere is to know, all it does it posit theories that can be tested, and in the absence of hard evidence, it suggests other indicators that ought to be there if the theory is correct.
Again, I'm not quite sure what you re getting at.
For my own part, I don't have any "faith" in evolution, what I do have trust in is the scientific method.
Using the scientific method I have come to know and understand (as opposed to "believe") that evolution provides the only plausible answers as to how life on earth came to this point.
You seem to be confusing that gaps in scientific knowledge regarding other big issue with scientific knowledge about evolution.
Science doesn't claim to know everything tere is to know, all it does it posit theories that can be tested, and in the absence of hard evidence, it suggests other indicators that ought to be there if the theory is correct.
Basically, what klf means is that because Evolution does not explain everything, we should consider it equal to an idea that explains nothing.
He needs to realise that Evolution does not attempt to explain everything, but that it explains quite elegantly how the diversity of life on Earth arose, and the patterns we see in biology.
He needs to realise that Evolution does not attempt to explain everything, but that it explains quite elegantly how the diversity of life on Earth arose, and the patterns we see in biology.
QUOTE
'To begin with, trillions of drifting atoms have somehow assembled in an inticate and curiously obliging manner to create you.During your lifetime these tiny particles will uncomplain-inly engage in billions of deft,co-operative efforts necessary to keep you intact.The atoms that make you,are mindless particles and not even alive.
At the level of chemistry 'life' is fantastically mundane: Carbon,hydrogen,oxygen and nitrogen,a little calcium, a dash of sulphur,a light dusting of very ordinary elements - nothing you wouldn't find in an ordinary pharmacy - and thats all you need.That is,of course, the 'miracle of life', because the atoms that so liberally and congenially flock together to form life on Earth are exactally the same atoms that decline to so elsewhere in the universe.'
At the level of chemistry 'life' is fantastically mundane: Carbon,hydrogen,oxygen and nitrogen,a little calcium, a dash of sulphur,a light dusting of very ordinary elements - nothing you wouldn't find in an ordinary pharmacy - and thats all you need.That is,of course, the 'miracle of life', because the atoms that so liberally and congenially flock together to form life on Earth are exactally the same atoms that decline to so elsewhere in the universe.'
Argument from incredulity. Excellent. klf's mind boggles at the complexity, therefore God did it.
klf: do you think that the theory of evolution is all about trillians of atoms just "drifting" together to form a person? In that case, people are so complicated that I refuse to believe they just "drift" together in the womb. Clearly The Almighty Stork delivers them.
klf: do you think that the theory of evolution is all about trillians of atoms just "drifting" together to form a person? In that case, people are so complicated that I refuse to believe they just "drift" together in the womb. Clearly The Almighty Stork delivers them.
QUOTE
The Big Bang
Time doesn't exist.There is no past for it to emerge from.In a single blinding pulse, a moment of glory much to swift and expansive for any form of words, the singularity assumes heavingly dimensions,space beyond conception.Within a second, gravity and all other forces that goven physics are produced.In an instance the universe is a million billion miles across.98 of all matter there is or will ever be has been produced.
Time doesn't exist.There is no past for it to emerge from.In a single blinding pulse, a moment of glory much to swift and expansive for any form of words, the singularity assumes heavingly dimensions,space beyond conception.Within a second, gravity and all other forces that goven physics are produced.In an instance the universe is a million billion miles across.98 of all matter there is or will ever be has been produced.
Sounds like a miracle to me.
"But, for me, personally, this debate has another dimension. I spent all of my teenage years, as mentioned in the introduction, in Orlando, Florida. As many people know, the southern African American community is one with a deep tradition of religious faith. The bulk of my religious training occurred in the confines of the African American Methodist Episcopal Church. There, we were taught that faith is to be anchored on the inhuman perfection of religion. If intelligent design is accepted as science, then like all scientific theories, it is in principle possible to disprove it by the actions of human observation and thought. Thus, those who would join the inhuman perfection of religion to the human imperfection of science put both at grave peril for anyone who deeply contemplates them. Many in the AME church tradition, like me, must reject this idea that by thoughts and actions of man our faith can be called into question. This is the very greatest danger, in my opinion, of the notion of intelligent design." S. James Gates Jr, "Einstein's Lesson for the Third Millennium"
1. You make the debunking and ridiculing of your religious beliefs legitimate by claiming a scientific basis for them.
2. You are confused about the topic again.
3. Since you claim your creation miracle to be scientific, would you like to present a testible, potentially falsifiable and parsimonious hypothesis for what caused the miracle, what caused the cause of the miracle, what caused the cause of the cause of the miracle, what cau...?
4. Or are you just arguing from personal incredulity again? Do you think incredulity is a good reason for teaching "God did it" in science?
1. You make the debunking and ridiculing of your religious beliefs legitimate by claiming a scientific basis for them.
2. You are confused about the topic again.
3. Since you claim your creation miracle to be scientific, would you like to present a testible, potentially falsifiable and parsimonious hypothesis for what caused the miracle, what caused the cause of the miracle, what caused the cause of the cause of the miracle, what cau...?
4. Or are you just arguing from personal incredulity again? Do you think incredulity is a good reason for teaching "God did it" in science?
1. I claim no religious beliefs.Why do you always mix religion with ID.I also claim no scientific data.I'm saying evolutionists and athiests cannot at present prove 100% scientific data to answer all questions and anomoly's of 'life'.
2. Not confused at all.The thread started as a creationist thread.All my comments are on topic or have evolved form that starting point.
3.A very pretentious question and deliberatley designed to be unanswerable.I'm not saying i am 100% accurate with my accessments.YOU ARE.As such it is up to you to prove to me what caused the big bang or that it wasn't a miracle or influenced by something beyond our comprehension.I'm not saying it was .I'm saying there is a small possibility.A possiblity you will not even accept.You or i have not real knowledge of why the big bang happened or of it was designed to happen.Do We?? There is no proof is was designed to happen.There is no proof it wasn't designed to happen.
4. I have made no mention of the merits or otherwise of teaching creationism in science lessons.I have also never mentioned any support for creationism (in the biblical sense) either.
2. Not confused at all.The thread started as a creationist thread.All my comments are on topic or have evolved form that starting point.
3.A very pretentious question and deliberatley designed to be unanswerable.I'm not saying i am 100% accurate with my accessments.YOU ARE.As such it is up to you to prove to me what caused the big bang or that it wasn't a miracle or influenced by something beyond our comprehension.I'm not saying it was .I'm saying there is a small possibility.A possiblity you will not even accept.You or i have not real knowledge of why the big bang happened or of it was designed to happen.Do We?? There is no proof is was designed to happen.There is no proof it wasn't designed to happen.
4. I have made no mention of the merits or otherwise of teaching creationism in science lessons.I have also never mentioned any support for creationism (in the biblical sense) either.
1. I claim no religious beliefs.Why do you always mix religion with ID.I also claim no scientific data.I'm saying evolutionists and athiests cannot at present prove 100% scientific data to answer all questions and anomoly's of 'life'.
Again, I think you are confused.
Science can provide exactly as much data as it needs to test the theory of evolution, indeed I posted a link to an experiment in which the theory was tested and proven.
What information are you arguing is missing from the scientific data that ought to be there?
Science makes no claim to naswer all questions, what it does do is claim to provide tangible proof that will stand up to scrutiny for any claims made under the auspices of "scientific knowledge".
On the other hand, not a shred of credible (by strict scientific criteria) evidence is available for the Intelligent Design "theory".
It is also disingenuous to try and seperate Intelligent Design from religion.Intelligent Design comes from the relgious community, is supported and promoted by the religious communty.To deny this is so weaken your credibility.
Again, I think you are confused.
Science can provide exactly as much data as it needs to test the theory of evolution, indeed I posted a link to an experiment in which the theory was tested and proven.
What information are you arguing is missing from the scientific data that ought to be there?
Science makes no claim to naswer all questions, what it does do is claim to provide tangible proof that will stand up to scrutiny for any claims made under the auspices of "scientific knowledge".
On the other hand, not a shred of credible (by strict scientific criteria) evidence is available for the Intelligent Design "theory".
It is also disingenuous to try and seperate Intelligent Design from religion.Intelligent Design comes from the relgious community, is supported and promoted by the religious communty.To deny this is so weaken your credibility.
Nonsence. Many people believe in some sort of higher intelligence or GOD, without believing in any organised religion.
QUOTE(the klf @ Mar 11 2006, 06:02 PM)
Knowhere near 100% of things that create,sustain and allow life on earth can be explained by simple evolution.So arn't those that 100% totally rely on 'evolution',also relying on faith .Faith about evolution being the total and complete answer???
Can you provide an *example* of something which is not explained by evolution?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.