Should creationism be taught in schools?

[Inverted Things]

Evolution should only be taught in Literature class as an example of well written fiction.
 
 No Liberal can explain what or whom made or started the so called(by retards) "Big Bang". Mmmm, could it be King Jesus?

Ever heard of Alan Guth?

[Inverted Things]

For the millionth time (why do we keep having these threads), yes, it should be taught in schools in their proper context.  Creationism should be taught in English or History classes along with all of the other historical religions and their beliefs.  It is unfair (discriminatory) to teach all the other worlds religions (current and past) and their beliefs while refusing to teach Christianity as well.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with teaching creationism in a class studying religion. However it has no place in a science class.

That is the problem with the two main sides of the debate.  Evolutionists don't want it taught at all, and Creationists want it taught along side of evolution as a counter theory.  Neither side can get their heads out of their butts long enough to see the obvious answer.

Right on!

Yes, but it would have to be alongside evolutionism. I don't see what's wrong with this except some people think that it must be "evil religion trying to brainwash our kids".

At most high schools biology is optional. Students can choose to not learn about evolution.

The idea of evolution has helped spur development in health, medicine, genetics, computing, chemistry, and others. Even if you reject evolution, it must be taught in order to train future doctors, geneticists, computer scientists and chemists.

Creationism has no such value to the scientific community, but at the same time contributes much to philosophy, literature, religion, mythology and history. That's why creationism has no place in a science class.

[Inverted Things]

The big bang also needs to be taught in science courses. We have loads of data about the big bang. Fermilab and CERN recreate the big bang millions of times per day.

[Inverted Things]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

Two words - prove it.

When confined to current scientific laws, the only scientifically sound conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.

Not true--inflationary theory by Alan Guth is consistent with the known laws and with non-beginning.

[Inverted Things]

Regarding the big bang, let's work deductively.

Take general relativity as a fact, and assume the laws of physics are the same everywhere else as they are here. We observe red shifts of galaxies. From relativity, we deduce that almost all galaxies are flying away from us. Working backward, we assume nothing beyond our understanding happened to significantly change the macroscopic nature of the universe. It follows that the galaxies must have been VERY close together at some point. There's your big bang.

Our extrapolation remains valid until we get to Planck's time, 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. Between the hypothetical big bang and this time, we have no understanding of what went on. After this time, we have a rather good understanding. Set the "big bang" at this time, and call that "the big bang theory."

Assuming our deduction yielded correct results, we study the very young universe in our particle accelerators.

The big bang theory is perfectly good science: start with what's already known, deduce the logical implications.

[Inverted Things]

Regarding the big bang, let's work deductively.

Take general relativity as a fact, and assume the laws of physics are the same everywhere else as they are here. We observe red shifts of galaxies. From relativity, we deduce that almost all galaxies are flying away from us. Working backward, we assume nothing beyond our understanding happened to significantly change the macroscopic nature of the universe. It follows that the galaxies must have been VERY close together at some point. There's your big bang.

Our extrapolation remains valid until we get to Planck's time, 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. Between the hypothetical big bang and this time, we have no understanding of what went on. After this time, we have a rather good understanding. Set the "big bang" at this time, and call that "the big bang theory."

Assuming our deduction yielded correct results, we study the very young universe in our particle accelerators.

"Take . . . as a fact, and assume . . ."

In other words "Have faith . . ."

Secondly, the fact that "most" galaxies that we have identified are showing that they are separating, it shows that there is universal expansion, not proof of a big bang.  Additionally, recent science has sown that these galaxies are in a ribbon fashion rather than random expansion as would occur from an explosion.  Some hypothesize that this is due to gravitational attraction between the galaxies, "holding" them together during an expansion process.  Others hypothesize that that there is a larger universal current that draws the galaxies into line with each other as debris flow through channels in the river, and that also explains why many of the galaxies that we have observed so far seem to flowing away from us (and not a universal central point).  So no, "big bang" is a weak theory.  Unfortunately, scientists have not come up with a stronger argument yet, requiring you to have faith in their explanation in the hope that they might one day prove it.  (Funny, that sounds a lot like a religious belief.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, no . . . it's not perfectly good science.  It's a theory, and without proof, it's not "perfect" nor "good."  You made many logical mistakes in that argument.  It's similiar to the arguments that die-hard creationists make.


BTW - There have been some good clear nights here on the East Coast to observe Mars over the past month.  With a more powerful telescope I might have even been able to see one of her moons.

We have more evidence for general relativity than we have that planes fly. We can therefore take relativity as a fact. We also have pretty good evidence that laws of physics are the same everywhere. In short, I make claims which are backed up by a scientific body of evidence.

I agree that redshift data shows universal expansion. It therefore follows that galaxies must have been closer together in the past.

Scientific theories are NEVER proven. They are only revised or discarded as new evidence comes to light. The big bang theory is consistent with the science we know (except the evidence you cited... I hadn't heard of that).

Now, about that new evidence... we modify the big bang theory with the caveat that perhaps some areas of the young universe were denser than others. This would cause more materials to be distributed in specific directions. We are then consistent again.

[Inverted Things]

We have more evidence for general relativity than we have that planes fly. We can therefore take relativity as a fact. We also have pretty good evidence that laws of physics are the same everywhere. In short, I make claims which are backed up by a scientific body of evidence.

I agree that redshift data shows universal expansion. It therefore follows that galaxies must have been closer together in the past.

Scientific theories are NEVER proven. They are only revised or discarded as new evidence comes to light. The big bang theory is consistent with the science we know (except the evidence you cited... I hadn't heard of that).

Now, about that new evidence... we modify the big bang theory with the caveat that perhaps some areas of the young universe were denser than others. This would cause more materials to be distributed in specific directions. We are then consistent again.

You are making a ton of assumptions there.  First of all, the big bang theory doesn't explain why we view galaxies coming towards us at various speeds instead of us speeding up to them.  Secondly, you cannot take the theory of relativity as fact.  We don't even take the theory of gravity as fact, since it is not a constant across the globe.  And as you said, theories are never proven, though I would say they are "rarely" proven.  But in either case, you cannot take a theory as fact without being able to recreate repeatedly.  And since we cannot recreate a big bang, it remains just a theory based on a series of observations and assumptions.  Again, we end up back with faith being involved, which is the same thing which creationists have when it comes to God.

You don't appear to have bothered to read what I said:

We have more evidence for general relativity than we have that planes fly.

[Inverted Things]

We do reproduce it in particle accelerators. I think we can get energy densities comparable to those seen in the universe when it was 10^-12 seconds old. This experimentation ensures that the big bang theory is consistent with experimental observations up to a certain point.

[Inverted Things]

We do reproduce it in particle accelerators. I think we can get energy densities comparable to those seen in the universe when it was 10^-12 seconds old. This experimentation ensures that the big bang theory is consistent with experimental observations up to a certain point.

"comparable to those seen in the universe..." Again, under assumptions that their guesses of what occurred in the beginning.  And again, you are not responding to the point that we need tons of enternal energy in a particle collider, but the Big Bang theory assumes the energy was internal (and gives no real explanation of how it occurred).  We would have to find an element which can store up such energy in order to "reproduce" the event.  So no, going back to what you said initially, it's not a perfect science.  It will take us hundreds of more years to work out the math and prove some of these theories which are made up to answer the numerous questions the Big Bang theory itself creates.  While that is good for science, it still remains today just a theory, and requires faith to believe that one day the theory might be proven.  It's exactly the same as with religious creationism.  Takes the same amount of faith in something that cannot be seen nor rationalized.

I keep telling you: you can't prove anything with science. As for the energy, a vast amount of energy is stored in a vacuum, according to quantum mechanics (another theory we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly). We also get that random fluctuations happen from quantum machanics. So, given a large expanse of vacuum, and enough time, there will be a fluctuation which will condense the energy stored into matter, thus beginning a universe.

I'm not arguing that the big bang theory is fact. I'm saying that the big bang theory is consistent with the known science, and it will be revised as necessary as new discoveries are made (or discarded if something major comes up).

[Inverted Things]

So Yaks, I'm trying to figure a few things out and get a few things straight in my head.

The natural state of a vacuum is to be filled with zero point energy?

If that is correct, then I'm assuming the current posit is that the zero point energy some how gathered to form the singularity which caused the creation of the universe. Is that correct?

Is there a theory as to how the zero point energy gathered as of now?

Are there any good books (written for laymen) that explain zero point energy that you know of? Are there any that use quantum electrodynamics to help us better understand the big bang theory?

Sorry if I'm asking the wrong person, but you seem to at least have a better understanding of recent advances in physics than I do (which isn't necessarily saying much).

Hmmm... the general idea of vacuum energy is that given any "empty" area of space, there are still subatomic particles which are constantly popping in and out of existence.

In terms of good literature to facilitate understanding, a subscription to Scientific American is probably the best place to start. If you're really interested, go to a Barnes & Noble and check out the science section. Just look for interesting titles and read the first few chapters of them while in the store. Buy them if you like what you see.

I'm not an expert by any means; I did get a physics major, and I do enjoy reading these sorts of things. I have no intention of picking up an advanced degree is this sort of stuff.

[Inverted Things]

As for the energy, a vast amount of energy is stored in a vacuum, according to quantum mechanics (another theory we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly).

And quantum mechanics abides by the Laws of Thermodynamics.  It does NOT violate them.

--

We also get that random fluctuations happen from quantum machanics. So, given a large expanse of vacuum, and enough time, there will be a fluctuation which will condense the energy stored into matter, thus beginning a universe.

1st) “Condensing” vacuum energy into matter is STILL a conservation of energy.  It still stays within the Laws of Thermodynamics.   You’ve simply converted energy into matter.  You have created nothing.

2nd)  Your initial state of a large expanse of vacuum and time, means that you began with energy.  Space can not exist with the presence of energy.

Fundamentally, you have a misunderstanding of the second law. The second law says that entropy will PROBABLY increase. It's not a definate thing at all.

Who said anything about an initial state? When the expansion of the universe runs its course, we'll be left again with a great expanse of vacuum and time. From which (eventually) a new universe will condense. This creates a cyclic universe, which needn't have had a beginning at all.