MitchSchaft
New Member
I agree with you thus far, Gonz, but I won't believe that evolutionl is not theoretical.
Should Creationism be taught in schools?
- Thread starter outside looking in
- Start date
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Homo Erectus et. al is evolution in the historical sense, not the biological sense.
Historical evolution is the trail of evidence left in the fossil record and gene sequences that shows the relationships from one species to the next, one family to the next, etc. It is the idea that all life on this planet evolved from simpler organisms. That idea has been proven beyond any reasonable scientific critical standards.
Biological evolution deals with the molecular processes by which historical evolution occured. It involves transcription errors, mutation rates, genetic drift, how natural selection works on individual and group genetics, and at a greater level of depth it deals with the evolutoin of small scale biological systems: how blood clotting evolved, how cilia evolved, how eukaryotes came to be, etc. Much of this field is still theoretical, though much progress has been made in the last decade.
Historical evolution is the trail of evidence left in the fossil record and gene sequences that shows the relationships from one species to the next, one family to the next, etc. It is the idea that all life on this planet evolved from simpler organisms. That idea has been proven beyond any reasonable scientific critical standards.
Biological evolution deals with the molecular processes by which historical evolution occured. It involves transcription errors, mutation rates, genetic drift, how natural selection works on individual and group genetics, and at a greater level of depth it deals with the evolutoin of small scale biological systems: how blood clotting evolved, how cilia evolved, how eukaryotes came to be, etc. Much of this field is still theoretical, though much progress has been made in the last decade.
Justintime
Guest
I was taught that Adam and Eve were the only first perfect people, there were no otherss before, and that the scientists were on a one way trip to hell, i spoke of evolution and theories and was beat by a boy there, so much for Anglican schools 
the teachers went as far as to say that the scientists manufactured the bones and it was one great sham, sheesh
the teachers went as far as to say that the scientists manufactured the bones and it was one great sham, sheesh
unclehobart
New Member
Creationism should only be taught in school as a general lump study that covers all religions and thier effect upon the general course of history. Religion, fact or fantasy, does exist and has played a major shaping force within history and warfare. It deserves at least a brief overview as part of a full educational exposure as to how the world operates.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Originally posted by Justintime
I was taught that Adam and Eve were the only first perfect people, there were no otherss before, and that the scientists were on a one way trip to hell, i spoke of evolution and theories and was beat by a boy there, so much for Anglican schools
the teachers went as far as to say that the scientists manufactured the bones and it was one great sham, sheesh
That's exactly why religion shoudn't be taught in public schools. Private schools... well, that's their own ball of wax to deal with I guess.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
I agree. There is a big difference in teaching about religion from a historical perspective, and teaching religion as a truth. For example, creationism might be mentioned in the same fashion as alchemists are covered in Chemistry... as some background on the subject and its origin.
To attempt to put Creationism on equal footing with Evolution, as many are trying to do today in our courts and school board meetings, is a crime to our children.
Rotten Rob
New Member
If creationism were to be taught (or taught about) in schools, which version would be used? In the second message of this thread, you defined one of the basic Christian versions of creation. There are many variations of that story - and then there are creation stories that are totally different. Many of them pre-date Christianity. So who would decide what version of creationism would be taught?
As for evolution, it's a "process" and not a "theory." It can be observed and it exists just as surely as processes of motion, degeneration, gravitation, etc. The theoretical part arises when this process is used to explain some of the earliest origins of life - and the ever increasing data in this regard is simply awesome.
- RR
As for evolution, it's a "process" and not a "theory." It can be observed and it exists just as surely as processes of motion, degeneration, gravitation, etc. The theoretical part arises when this process is used to explain some of the earliest origins of life - and the ever increasing data in this regard is simply awesome.
- RR
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
RR,
I guess I was referring to Christian creationism, i.e. the Genesis story, specifically. Even then though, you are correct that there are different versions; old Earch, young Earth, etc.
My questions was really addressed to the issue of Christians in the US pushing for creationism, of one sort or another, to have equal footing with Evolution in the science classroom in public schools.
I guess I was referring to Christian creationism, i.e. the Genesis story, specifically. Even then though, you are correct that there are different versions; old Earch, young Earth, etc.
My questions was really addressed to the issue of Christians in the US pushing for creationism, of one sort or another, to have equal footing with Evolution in the science classroom in public schools.
freako104
Well-Known Member
i think that its more the idea of gov't made religion or as is said, gov't established religion. i dont think there is a separation of church and state, but the constitution was written so it can be interperted. and in terms of saying science isnt about respect, i dont think religion is either i think that they are both belief systems. the difference is that religion is based in faith and science is based in fact but what is fact? and how do we know its true? same with religion? how do we know thats true?
Justintime
Guest
well i am confused now 
GOD ALMIGHTY
YHWH
I create this beautiful thing called life and all anyone wants to do is find a new way. For the record, I created man in MINE own image. Where does it say what I look like? Not one of you has any clue as to MY image, so quit guessing. 
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Read some works on epistemology by Karl Popper. It's a bit difficult for me to explain, as it's quite involved and thought provoking, but the essence is that we believe some things are fact because there is no other logical choice.
Solopsism and isolationism are just whacked. To be blunt, you know a rock is real if when you kick it you feel it. There is really no other important definition. Scientific facts are very similar... you know they are a fact because you can directly obvserve or there is overwhelming logical support.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
What's wrong is that in science class, I would expect my children to be taught about things grounded in fact. Perhaps in a "cultural exploration" class, there is room for other things, but not in science. The definition of science is unambiguous, and there is no room for creationism.
MitchSchaft
New Member
Evolution is not fact either.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
When creationism is taught in schools, it is taught as a science. Creation science. When religious people lobby for it to have an equal footing, they're not lobbying for equal footing with a cultural idea, or a historical class, but with a scientific theory.
Rotten Rob
New Member
From Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary:
Evolution - n. any process of formation or growth; development; such as the evolution of a language or the evolution of the airplane; the process of developing gradually to a different adaptive state or condition.
Well, I've seen software applications evolve. We've all seen our language evolve with the times. It's obvious flight has evolved dramatically since the days of the Wright brothers. Of course the process of evolution is fact.
- RR