"Creationism Trumps Evolution"

[muon2]

And evolution is just a theory, nothing more.  It can't be proven, and neither can Creation be proven.  I would let local school boards decide whether to teach evolution, Creation, or both in school.

The difference, however, is that evolution is scientific, whereas creationism is not.  That fact makes evolution a lot more useful than creationism to scientists.

What I mean is that there are certain predictions that evolution makes about what should occur in nature which we can then go out, run some tests on, and either validate or contradict.  If validated, it becomes strengthened as something more likely to be true and gains credibility as a theory.  If contradicted, then it's back to the drawing board and scientists can either revise it based on the new data or come up with something new.

Creationism, however, is not useful to scientists.  It does not make any predictions whatsoever and offers absolutely nothing quantitative that can be tested.  It's an interesting idea, but I feel that it's not something that should be taught in a science class because, as I said, it isn't a scientific theory in nature.  It's just unprovable speculation.

That's not to say that creationism should never be mentioned at all, but it shouldn't be taught in a science class because there really isn't anything to teach.  It can be stated in one sentence and then nothing more can come from it.

Evolution isn't science either.  It has as much science as witchcraft.  It is not proven.  In fact, since Darwin wrote his brook 2 centuries ago, it hasn't been proven.  It does not belong in the science class if Creation doesn't belong in the science class.

Creation is based on faith in God.

Evolution is based on faith in no God.  Atheism.

Let us separate Darwin's work from modern biology.

Richius is correct that Darwin's work is written in a way to undermine any divine guidance of the universe. It make a lot of presuppositions, and lacks the evidence that meets usual scientific standards. Darwin lived in a time when many philosophers were setting nature aprt from God, and he was very much a product of that time. If that is what one means by "Evolution" then I understand and support Richius' point of view.

However, language evolves, and science moves on. What is understood by biologists today is far removed from the work of Darwin. What we understand today we call an "evolutionary" process but it carries none of the intent of Darwin. Most any biologist or geologist I work with agrees that modern models of evolution are not about intent, divine or otherwise. Biology and geology merely organize the facts of nature in a way that is testable and predictable. My belief that God sets out an evolutionary process that results today in humans is not part of science and not in conflict with science.

[muon2]

Yeah, because the constitution totally allows state sponsored religious education, right?

It does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The keyword here is Congress.  It says nothing about the States.

And evolution is just a theory, nothing more.  It can't be proven, and neither can Creation be proven.  I would let local school boards decide whether to teach evolution, Creation, or both in school.

Gravity is also a theory that can't be proven. Better strike that from the textbooks, too.

It is?  Since when?  Gravity is a CONCEPT.  See, in order to have a theory, you need a hypothesis.  What is the hypothesis "gravity?"

Gravity is as much a theory as any other discussed on this thread. Under one hypothesis gravity is a force exactly proportional to the product of two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the two masses. Under another hypothesis gravity is force that gives rise to an acceleration that is indistinguishable from the acceleration due to one's frame of reference. Both hypotheses have been rigorously tested, yet science continues to test them in more detail and in new situations.

[muon2]

Regarding that Science article...

Dark matter is a hoax. There is a neater explanation which I'm looking into for my doctorial thesis. From what I understand about dark energy, this IS in Einstein's theory. It is a term that is usually ignored because it's unimportant in experiments.

I think science is always looking for better explanations for the observed phenomena. It may be the case that there are better explanations for the observed behavior in galactic motion and microwave background than dark matter. But I would strongly refrain from calling dark matter a hoax. A hoax implies that there is intentional deception regarding the data presented, which is certainly not the case with the WMAP and other results. If you believe that there is a hoax, rather than a better explanation, you should be prepared to back up that accusation.

[muon2]

No, what I was saying is that human babies are helpless while the vast majority of other animals babies are not. Something is definately different between humans and all other creatures.

In general, mammals are unable to survive without their mother for some period of time. That period of helplessness depends on the species. Humans have a relatively long period of dependency, but our society makes it longer than is necessary for our biology.