Should creationism be taught in schools?

[J-Mann]

Actually, I find it to be pretty useless anyway, so it would be nice to see it removed.

hehehe . . . I know, that was unfair of me.    I'm not sure how it is taught today, but when we learned the old world mythologies, we first learned who the figures were for each civilization, and then we matched the similiar figures across the civilization (like Jupiter and Zues, etc).  It was neat that way to see how the civilzations mirrored each other (though Egythian mythology was a bit different), yet was vastly different than the Hebrew mythology.  I wish we had a teacher who knew more of the Asian mythologies back when I was in school, since that would have been a good discussion as well.  My sis-in-law has been working on a book that covers many of the world mythologies lately, and hopefully it will fill in those gaps in my education. 

I would argue of the extreme relevance of Greek and Roman mythology, among the many other things present in our world today that owe so much directly to those two cultures!  The ancient myths have a funny way of cropping up into the most ordinary of places...like the days of the week, for instance, which get their names from the Babylonian planet gods via Latin and Saxon.  You can really see the old gods' influence in the Romance languages, especially.

Saturday = Saturn (Latin and Saxon)
Thursday = Thor's Day (via Saxon) = Jupiter (Jueves in Spanish via Latin)
Wednesday = Woden's Day (via Saxon) = Mercury (Miercoles in Spanish via Latin)
Monday = Moon Day = Luna
Tuesday = Tiw's Day (via Saxon) = Mars (Martes in Spanish via Latin)
Friday = Frigg's Day (via Saxon) = Venus (Viernes in Spanish via Latin)

Sunday, incidently, is a bit different.  We call it Sunday, which relates to the sun god or Sol, but in Romance languages, Sunday is closer to Domingo (Spanish) because of the Christian influence on the calander from 313 onward.

And that's just scratching the surface. Greek and Roman history -- including mythology -- should be taught moreso than it is now!

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes

Dave

[nlm]

Only in the context of other mythology as of this juncture

And a few correction

1. The Big Bang Theory is a separate and unrelated theory to evolution.

2. Evolution is proven science with a few unknowns still in it. It occurs everyday. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in simple life forms. Why is it so much harder to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in complex life forms? The answer is reproduction cycles. Bacterial reproduction cycles are measured in minutes or less, Human reproduction cycles are measured in years (and quite a few of them). It's easy to observe bacteria evolving. What do you folks think the bird flue scare is about? It's about the fear that the bird flue will make an evolutionary jump in its DNA and be able to infect based on human to human contact. It will take many 100's of years to observer human DNA development in the same manner in which a culture of bacterial DNA can be observed in 20 minutes. That's why it's a theory still. But, if you accept the basic principles of DNA, it's a very sound theory. There is also a host of additional factual information that plays into the theory of evolution, from fossil records to observed patterns of life development by the same species in different locations. The same can not be said of Creationism or Intelligent Design, they are both postulates, things assumed to be true without proof, things that are based on speculation and conjecture. Does that mean they are incorrect? No, it just means they are not theories and do not have the backing of factual data at this point in time.

Just because evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it doesn’t, doesn’t mean it explains nothing. It was never intended to explain where life came from, much less the origin of the entire universe. It is intended to explain how life on this planet has changed, and help to predict how it will continue to change. Without a detailed understanding of evolution, our children will not have the ability to combat future potential pandemics like the bird flue. Watching the battle over evolution in this country is much like watching a person cut off their own nose to spite their own face.

[CheeseWhiz]

Either teach all or none (amoung Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design). None can be proven or disproven, so if you want to teach theory, teach all. If you want to teach facts, teach none.

[MODU]

Only in the context of other mythology as of this juncture

And a few correction

1. The Big Bang Theory is a separate and unrelated theory to evolution.

2. Evolution is proven science with a few unknowns still in it. It occurs everyday. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in simple life forms. Why is it so much harder to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in complex life forms? The answer is reproduction cycles. Bacterial reproduction cycles are measured in minutes or less, Human reproduction cycles are measured in years (and quite a few of them). It's easy to observe bacteria evolving. What do you folks think the bird flue scare is about? It's about the fear that the bird flue will make an evolutionary jump in its DNA and be able to infect based on human to human contact. It will take many 100's of years to observer human DNA development in the same manner in which a culture of bacterial DNA can be observed in 20 minutes. That's why it's a theory still. But, if you accept the basic principles of DNA, it's a very sound theory. There is also a host of additional factual information that plays into the theory of evolution, from fossil records to observed patterns of life development by the same species in different locations. The same can not be said of Creationism or Intelligent Design, they are both postulates, things assumed to be true without proof, things that are based on speculation and conjecture. Does that mean they are incorrect? No, it just means they are not theories and do not have the backing of factual data at this point in time.

Just because evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it doesn’t, doesn’t mean it explains nothing. It was never intended to explain where life came from, much less the origin of the entire universe. It is intended to explain how life on this planet has changed, and help to predict how it will continue to change. Without a detailed understanding of evolution, our children will not have the ability to combat future potential pandemics like the bird flue. Watching the battle over evolution in this country is much like watching a person cut off their own nose to spite their own face.

Well thought out, though I think you should reference my prior post regarding micro/macro evolution.  What you have described above is basically micro-evolution.  Macro-evolution, the process of one animal turning into a completely different animal, has not been proven, though we can make logical assumptions based on the information we have at hand.

The Big Bang (as we have both mentioned) is not a part of evolution.  It is, however, the scientific explanation to the galaxy as Creationism.  Neither can be remotely proven, but the Big Bang is taught in school since it is "scientific" because we put faith into the scientists to have done their homework on the subject.  The same amount of faith is needed with Creationism, but since it comes from a philosophical belief and not a scientific belief, it is discounted, which is a shame.  I'm still waiting for someone to challenge the "forced" teaching of the Big Bang "religion" on students in the courts.  hehehe . . . that will be a good day.

[nlm]

Only in the context of other mythology as of this juncture

And a few correction

1. The Big Bang Theory is a separate and unrelated theory to evolution.

2. Evolution is proven science with a few unknowns still in it. It occurs everyday. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in simple life forms. Why is it so much harder to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in complex life forms? The answer is reproduction cycles. Bacterial reproduction cycles are measured in minutes or less, Human reproduction cycles are measured in years (and quite a few of them). It's easy to observe bacteria evolving. What do you folks think the bird flue scare is about? It's about the fear that the bird flue will make an evolutionary jump in its DNA and be able to infect based on human to human contact. It will take many 100's of years to observer human DNA development in the same manner in which a culture of bacterial DNA can be observed in 20 minutes. That's why it's a theory still. But, if you accept the basic principles of DNA, it's a very sound theory. There is also a host of additional factual information that plays into the theory of evolution, from fossil records to observed patterns of life development by the same species in different locations. The same can not be said of Creationism or Intelligent Design, they are both postulates, things assumed to be true without proof, things that are based on speculation and conjecture. Does that mean they are incorrect? No, it just means they are not theories and do not have the backing of factual data at this point in time.

Just because evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it doesn’t, doesn’t mean it explains nothing. It was never intended to explain where life came from, much less the origin of the entire universe. It is intended to explain how life on this planet has changed, and help to predict how it will continue to change. Without a detailed understanding of evolution, our children will not have the ability to combat future potential pandemics like the bird flue. Watching the battle over evolution in this country is much like watching a person cut off their own nose to spite their own face.

Well thought out, though I think you should reference my prior post regarding micro/macro evolution.  What you have described above is basically micro-evolution.  Macro-evolution, the process of one animal turning into a completely different animal, has not been proven, though we can make logical assumptions based on the information we have at hand.

The Big Bang (as we have both mentioned) is not a part of evolution.  It is, however, the scientific explanation to the galaxy as Creationism.  Neither can be remotely proven, but the Big Bang is taught in school since it is "scientific" because we put faith into the scientists to have done their homework on the subject.  The same amount of faith is needed with Creationism, but since it comes from a philosophical belief and not a scientific belief, it is discounted, which is a shame.  I'm still waiting for someone to challenge the "forced" teaching of the Big Bang "religion" on students in the courts.  hehehe . . . that will be a good day.

Indeed. The confusion about the relationship between the big bang theory and evolution has truly clouded the discourse in this nation. The big bang theory is far from sound, proven science and is entirely challengeable, but it is not the same thing as evolution and many people don’t seem to get that. If people were better educated about the principles of evolution, the noise levels of this debate would be greatly reduced, and most of the people who feel threatened by the theory of evolution would know that there was no need for them to be.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...and the idea of a Big Bang starting the Universe doesn't actually conflict with the idea that there is a God. The discredited theory that was big before Big Bang (what was it called? stable state? Something like that) did though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"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.)

[John Dibble]

"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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"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.

[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.

[MODU]

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.

Wow, they're creating tiny little galaxies?    Again, man made "big bangs" require a lot of energy and external forces.  Under the big bag theory itself, there were not exteral forces acting at a catalyst to initiate the big bang.  So, Fermiland and CERN are not recreating the big bang.  Particle accelerators allow for us to learn more about our world, which does benefit us, but recreating creation is well beyond their grasps.

[CheeseWhiz]

"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.

Prove that evolution is true

[MODU]

"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.

Prove that evolution is true

Which aspect of evolution?    Let's be specific here.  hehehe

[CheeseWhiz]

"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.

Prove that evolution is true

Which aspect of evolution?    Let's be specific here.  hehehe

Hmmm...    The Big Bang (not sure if that really counts or not) and Macro-evolution are my least favorite parts, so he'll have to prove them

[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.

[MODU]

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.

[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.

[MODU]

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.

[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.

[MODU]

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.

No, I did read it, but I need to research that since I don't completely buy it.  After all, we've been flying for decades now, so we know enough to fly and have had a ton of evidence to continue to adapt and evolve our technology to take us from simple hot air baloons to landing on the moon.  However, relativity is a theory which has branched theoretical physics, most of which is still comprised of other theories.  While we might have "more evidence" of relativity (again, I find this doubtful), it doesn't mean we are analyzing this evidence correctly or if it actually has any practical application.

But getting back on topic, the big bang theory is no more credible than creationism since it is full of assumptions and not able to be reproduced.

[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.

[nlm]

You know, there are times when we as a race find a quandary that is beyond our present understanding. Some work at them and hope to someday understand, some pretend they already understand and ignore the rest, and some pretend our present understanding is in fact sufficient. It's odd how that pattern, at least, has not changed through the course of history.

[KEmperor]

"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.)

God and the Astronomers, eh?  I'm not really up on my 80's bands, but I think they broke up a while ago.