Creationist school's plea is denied by state board

[numinus]

Intelligent design starts with the supposition (and acceptance of) some manner of supreme all powerful being.

A being that:

can't be defined
can't be qualified
can't be quantified
can neither be proven nor disproven


Exactly how can this EVER be SCIENCE?

Space time singularities are phenomena that:

has no spatial length
has no time
has infinite (irrational) mass and density

Currently, it is the subject matter of higher mathematics and topology. Where do you suppose it should be taught?

Teach it in Philosophy or Religion.

I agree. It should be taught in philosophy. Although the natural sciences is a philosophical field of inquiry as well.

 

[numinus]

It does my heart good to see so many reasonable people dismissing creationism for the nonsense that it is. Predictably there is one person using the same tired rhetoric, large words, poor--but creative--definitions, and a great deal of hot air to argue against science.

The only way that Creationism should be taught is in Comparative Religion and only then along with all the other stories of Creation that people believe. It is telling that the Creationists only want "their" version of Creationism taught--what's wrong with the Hopi version? The Dogon people actually have far more proof of their creation story than the Christians do.

I find it hilarious that the people who require everything to be explained in terms of science are the very same people who know very little of science.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I find it hilarious that the people who require everything to be explained in terms of science are the very same people who know very little of science.

You have demonstrated over and over again that you speak with the voice of experience, Nums. Give it a rest, post about something you know about--knitting or dog washing or pan-galactic gargle-blasters, hematicrit levels, spontaneous human combustion, stellar parallax, the collected works of Amy Irving---there must be SOMETHING you know enough about to put together at least one cogent post, isn't there?

 

[The Scotsman]

This may be a daft question but do all US Schools teach Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as part of a "National Curriculum"? Or is it down to each schools choice if taught or not?

 

[top gun]

Truth be told, physical cosmology speculates that the universe came from NOTHING -- couched in the fancy scientific term SPACE-TIME SINGULARITY.

So, science and theology speculates the VERY SAME THING.

There is a law of probability my friend that one just cannot escape. Maybe there was always something. All one can really do is learn. However being as there is never anything new on the religious front. There is nothing testable and much of what has been said over the years has been shown to be scientifically incorrect... well there you go.

On the other hand you have a very likely chain of events and things further down the line that absolutely positively link up in a provable scientific way.

Once again "faith" is great. I have no problem with persons of faith and think if that fulfills ones life they should indeed strive for ideas in church or in private clubs with people of like minds.

It's just not something I want in a science or biology class because it is all speculative and varies greatly from one religion to another. Once you open the door will you be fine with the teaching as "science" that people come back to life in various forms depending on how good of a person they were in their previous life? I'm thinking no. But millions of people in India believe this whole heartedly.

Let's leave science to the scientists and keep it as scientific as possible.

 

[numinus]

You have demonstrated over and over again that you speak with the voice of experience, Nums. Give it a rest, post about something you know about--knitting or dog washing or pan-galactic gargle-blasters, hematicrit levels, spontaneous human combustion, stellar parallax, the collected works of Amy Irving---there must be SOMETHING you know enough about to put together at least one cogent post, isn't there?

Try differential geometry and topology.

Do you know enough of that science you speak of to even begin comprehending this subject matter? Can you even imagine space with a time-dependent scale factor? Or do you need me to simplify relativity for you?

 

[numinus]

There is a law of probability my friend that one just cannot escape. Maybe there was always something. All one can really do is learn. However being as there is never anything new on the religious front. There is nothing testable and much of what has been said over the years has been shown to be scientifically incorrect... well there you go.

On the other hand you have a very likely chain of events and things further down the line that absolutely positively link up in a provable scientific way.

Once again "faith" is great. I have no problem with persons of faith and think if that fulfills ones life they should indeed strive for ideas in church or in private clubs with people of like minds.

It's just not something I want in a science or biology class because it is all speculative and varies greatly from one religion to another. Once you open the door will you be fine with the teaching as "science" that people come back to life in various forms depending on how good of a person they were in their previous life? I'm thinking no. But millions of people in India believe this whole heartedly.

Let's leave science to the scientists and keep it as scientific as possible.

What are you talking about?

The universe couldn't always have existed.

If you observe the hubble separation, logic will tell you that the universe expanded from a single finite point through a finite amount of time. I'm afraid this isn't something debatable.

That the universe has always existed and will always exist is a fantasy concocted by the materialist idiots who have finally realized the implication of their indefensible philosophy and yet do not have the intellectual integrity to admit their mistake.

Creation IS the only logical conclusion to all cosmological phenomena we are observing today.

 

[arbitor]

oh, the big bang is fact now? evolution is fact now? last i checked they were theories. they are saying its not okay to teach kids a certain religion but it is okay to teach them that their religion is false. evolution and the big bang theory are theories. they require faith. they are religions whose god is a big cosmic coincidence. if you cant teach creationism you shouldnt be able to teach atheism.

 

[Coyote]

oh, the big bang is fact now? evolution is fact now? last i checked they were theories. they are saying its not okay to teach kids a certain religion but it is okay to teach them that their religion is false. evolution and the big bang theory are theories. they require faith. they are religions whose god is a big cosmic coincidence. if you cant teach creationism you shouldnt be able to teach atheism.

Evolution is fact and is observable.

The exact details and mechanisms are more theoretical in some cases.

Religion and science are two different things. Many religious people find a way to combine both their faith and rational science into a coherent whole - but not by adhering to a fundamentalist mindset which is what Creationists do.

You are wrong about theories - as has been said many times in this sort of argument, there is a difference between what constitutes a "theory" in general, and "scientific theory" in particular. The latter has to meet a series of hurdles before being accepted as a theory in science.

In terms of what is being taught, I think you are confused. Teaching evolution does not address the existence (or lack there of) of any diety. Evolution address the stage by stage evolution of life from ancient to modern forms as recorded and observed in fossil data, biology, biochemistry, geology and genetics. Religion and philosophy have nothing to do with it.


Something that:
can't be defined
can't be qualified
can't be quantified
can neither be proven nor disproven

can not be evaluated via the scientific method. By definition it is not science and never will be. Why should it be taught in the science classroom?

Or are you seeking a return to some sort of medievil dark ages?

 

[arbitor]

evolution is not a fact. evolution is a theory, its just that society has blindly accepted it for the mere fact that it is considered the only "scientific" alternetive to religion (despite all the missing evidence). basicly it wins by defult becuase it the only so called scientific theory for our creation. its idiots like you who have forgotten that is not a solid fact. we are missing billions of missing links. the most we have for a chain is 3 or so. that is not enough to asume that they evolved from each other.

 

[Coyote]

Space time singularities are phenomena that:

has no spatial length
has no time
has infinite (irrational) mass and density

Currently, it is the subject matter of higher mathematics and topology. Where do you suppose it should be taught?

I don't have the knowledge to understand singularities very well - but...higher mathamatics are structured so that they can be proven or disproven correct?

Something that can neither be proven nor disproven can not be answered by the scientific method, so by definition - not science.

I agree. It should be taught in philosophy. Although the natural sciences is a philosophical field of inquiry as well.

I think there is overlap or maybe it's complimentary. For example if you are looking into the origin and nature of life (which isn't really evolution) - you can easily cross over into philosophy. I don't think anyone argues that...but to argue the literal biblical view of creation and a young earth as science doesn't even come close to the definition.

 

[Coyote]

evolution is not a fact. evolution is a theory,

What is a theory?

What is a scientific theory?

its just that society has blindly accepted it for the mere fact that it is considered the only "scientific" alternetive to religion (despite all the missing evidence).

That's your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinon (though that doesn't mean it's valid).

Religion and science are two different things. They both seek to explain the world and our place in it through different means.

Religion asks "Why" while Science asks "How".

Why are we here and how did we get here. Why do feel necessary to pretend that religion IS science?

As far as "missing evidence" - of course there are holes, you are looking at billions of years only spottily preserved in the geologic and genetic record.
You are also committing two fallacies:

- lack of evidence (negative evidence) is proof of evidence (postive evidence) for another theory.
- just because a theory is not 100% whole in it's details does not mean it's wrong (you believe in gravity don't you?).

basicly it wins by defult becuase it the only so called scientific theory for our creation.

It wins because it is the theory that BEST answers all of the available evidence thus far. THAT is what makes it science.

its idiots like you who have forgotten that is not a solid fact. we are missing billions of missing links. the most we have for a chain is 3 or so. that is not enough to asume that they evolved from each other.

The fossil record contains millions of examples of links and that's pretty impressive considering that a miniscule miniscule portion of all the species that ever existed were preserved as fossils and out of that tiny proportion an even smaller number have been discovered. For example the horse and the whale (two better known species) have a pretty comprehensive evolutionary trail.

Does creationism offer even close to that? Well, in a way it does but...first we must believe in an all powerful supernatural being that can neither be proved nor disproved nor qualified nor quantified and has no beginning and has no end.... (cough)...


Disclaimer: this does not mean I may not believe in an allpowerful being or three or that it might have something do do with our spiritual inner life - but, I know what is and is not science and I see no reason for religion to masquarade as science in order to validate itself.

 

[PLC1]

Sorry about the IE, I was typing fast so I could go help my daughter. I meant ID.

Far more evidence than you could begin to post on here.... ok sounds like you know a lot about evolution so I was wondering if you could explain a couple of things to me.


1st if everything came from one first single cell, where did that cell come from ? or as I am often told we all came from pond scum, so where did that pond scum come from? and what are the mathmatical chances that a male and a female of all the creatures ever having lived and living today evolved enough the same to mate and create a race of what ever they are be.. people, horses exc.

2d. if everything evolved and is still evolving, where are the skeletons of the T rex in its evolutional process. we find hundreds of T Rex skeletions and the funny thing is, they all look like T Rex. none are in the process of becoming something else, or from having been something else. that seems to go for every other skeleton out there. i want to see some skeletons in some part of the process of evolution.

according to fish experts the sturgeon fish has not evolved in 25 million years. but in that same time look how everything else changed completly.

I am sorry but as of yet I have not got the faith to become a believer in this stuff.

Probably anyone who has studied biology at one time or another, and who has taken the time to observe the world and how things work could make the statementr that there is a lot more evidence for evolution than could ever be posted on a forum like this one.

Where that first cell came from is unexplained. No one knows, not me, not you, not Charles Darwin himself. I think it was created, but I can't prove than, nor can you prove me wrong. No one knows.

As for dinosaurs, there are many examples of fossil evidence of their having changed gradually through millions of years. Some dinosaurs, we now know, had feathers, giving credence to the hypothesis that they may have evolved into modern birds.

If the sturgeon remained unchanged for millions of years, that is a testamony to the success of the sturgeon. The Ceolacanth is another example of a fish that didn't change for a very long time. Such examples don't mean that other organisms didn't change and aren't continuing to change. Evolution has not stopped. Just ask anyone trying to stay ahead of the pathogens that continue to evolve resistance to our antibiotics.

You don't have to suspend a belief in God to believe in logic and reason. Logic and reason brings an understanding of evolution. "Believing in" evolution is a misnomer, as it makes that theory out to be a religion, which it is not.

 

[top gun]

What are you talking about?

The universe couldn't always have existed.

If you observe the hubble separation, logic will tell you that the universe expanded from a single finite point through a finite amount of time. I'm afraid this isn't something debatable.

That the universe has always existed and will always exist is a fantasy concocted by the materialist idiots who have finally realized the implication of their indefensible philosophy and yet do not have the intellectual integrity to admit their mistake.

Creation IS the only logical conclusion to all cosmological phenomena we are observing today.

Listen to what I'm saying.

What isn't debatable is Creation theory is religion pure and simple. And it's so silly The Creation Museum itself just randomly shoved dinosaurs into the story of the Ark because the whole comical attempt had so many holes in it. It is all totally made up poppy cock.

Just like I don't want someone teaching the reincarnation in Hinduism as how life is created and recycled... (I.E. that if you're bad in this life you may come back as a fly) as science. Creationism is just as groundless, fictional and expectedly unprovable.

 

[arbitor]

Probably anyone who has studied biology at one time or another, and who has taken the time to observe the world and how things work could make the statementr that there is a lot more evidence for evolution than could ever be posted on a forum like this one.

oh thats very convient. "we have evidence but we cant fit it here." oh yeah. thats a valid arguement.

Where that first cell came from is unexplained. No one knows, not me, not you, not Charles Darwin himself. I think it was created, but I can't prove than, nor can you prove me wrong. No one knows.

it is absurd. if you left a pottassium molocule in a giant petri dish, do you honestly beleive that in a couple million years it is going to be anything other than a pottasium molocule. things dont magicaly transform into life.

As for dinosaurs, there are many examples of fossil evidence of their having changed gradually through millions of years. Some dinosaurs, we now know, had feathers, giving credence to the hypothesis that they may have evolved into modern birds.

i have seen those records and they are a JOKE. one is one foot three inches and the next is 5 feet tall. most evidence for a certain chain is no more than a dozen fossils (most are fewer than that). many of them could be from the same species but they are just different sizes. many could have been the same species only they were deformed from thousands of years of being packed under dirt. and many of them could just be different species altogether.

If the sturgeon remained unchanged for millions of years, that is a testamony to the success of the sturgeon. The Ceolacanth is another example of a fish that didn't change for a very long time. Such examples don't mean that other organisms didn't change and aren't continuing to change. Evolution has not stopped. Just ask anyone trying to stay ahead of the pathogens that continue to evolve resistance to our antibiotics.

why is any time you guys see something adapting you assume it is evolution that is at work. animals adapt to situations every day in the wild. for example, a lion lives in a valley were there is a herd of wildibeast. it hunts there daily but one day the beasts are gone. the lion doesnt just sit there. it analyzes the situation and moves on to a different place. of course it wont just sit there. just becuase something is cappable of change that doesnt prove that they can turn into another species altogether. that is your logical flaw.

You don't have to suspend a belief in God to believe in logic and reason. Logic and reason brings an understanding of evolution. "Believing in" evolution is a misnomer, as it makes that theory out to be a religion, which it is not.

im am purplexed by this comment. are you saying that evolution=logic/reason? if so then that is incredibly ignoorant of you. i may disagree but im not saying that you are incappable of reasoning.