Creationism Your thoughts

[Laser]

Creationism.
What do you think of it being taught in schools, in actual science lessons?
Also what about it being "called" a science?
People say that Darwinism is utter crap (in many more words) and yet they belive god created mankind by adam and eve.
Do YOU belive it should be taught alongside "proper" sciences like biology or physics?

indeed there are much more questions to be asked but i would like to hear your thoughts.

[Hobo]

I feel that it is irrelevant to day to day life to cause such hassle to people in the Deep South. But I am an evolutionist

[Laser]

indeed but what if those ideas were to make its way to north american states?

Or what if the next president was (again) from the deep south and forced all schools to teach creationism?

[skillya_glowi]

I spent all my life trying to make myself believe Creationism, but it just doesn't make any bloody sense. Took me a while to accept that it just isn't my thing. Therefore I abandoned the realm of Christianity and settled into a state of comfortable agnostic atheism. =D

I'm a firm believer in science, and much more comfortable with things that can be followed through with the mind. Evolution, once you think about it, makes a lot of sense.

[Mutual Friend]

Objectively speaking, it's a load of old bollocks and anyone who endorses it is a complete and total fucking mongler.

[skillya_glowi]

Objectively speaking, it's a load of old bollocks and anyone who endorses it is a complete and total fucking mongler.

Isn't it just dandy that ILoveHammy left?

[Mutual Friend]

Point? But to answer your question: oh my god, yes.

[Hobo]

But guys, god helped her win a beauty contest. God himself, you know... with the beard?

[Paul]

Hmm lets see, we all came from adam & eve.. or rocks... somehow I dont like either options.

[Mutual Friend]

Explain?

"The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity and richness and strangeness that is absolutely awesome. I mean the idea that such complexity can arise not only out of such simplicity, but probably absolutely out of nothing, is the most fabulous extraordinary idea. And once you get some kind of inkling of how that might have happened, it's just wonderful. And . . . the opportunity to spend 70 or 80 years of your life in such a universe is time well spent as far as I am concerned."

-Douglas Adams (really annoying writer, but good and proper sentiment, no?)

[Mac Sirloin]

[Hobo]

Is that from that legosomething webcomic thing?

That cracks me up

[Laser]

Hmm lets see, we all came from adam & eve.. or rocks... somehow I dont like either options.

rocks?
since when have we EVER came from rocks?

[Mac Sirloin]

Is that from that legosomething webcomic thing?

That cracks me up

Lego ROBOT

Link in things not related to you thread.

I want this postcount (777) to be permanantly set please.

[Hobo]

Yeah thought it might be that. It's awesome^10

[Strike Witch]

Hadawkin!

Heh.

I think it's crap too.

Man, this is going to be an exciting thread.

[Laser]

i know
i should of made this thread when ilovehammy was here...

[Mac Sirloin]

It's okay, we didn't want to cause a Catholic spamfest.

It would have ruined mine

[Havoc]

My thoughts?

If creationism can be taught then I want my theory about live taught in science class too. Earth is created by a clown with shoes that are to small for him.

Something that has NO proof whatsoever does not belong in school, period. No matter what class, it doesn't belong in fucking school. Same with religion class, it shouldn't be there, not as a mandatory class like math or something.
Anyone trying to push creationism into the classrooms should be shot on sight!

[Mutual Friend]

My thoughts?

Oh god...

If creationism can be taught then I want my theory about live taught in science class too. Earth is created by a clown with shoes that are to small for him.

As I understand it, and as these nutcases argue, the ID theory being taught would not be tethered to any specific idea as - didn't you know? - there's no actual scientific evidence for any specific idea. It would just be offered up as an alternative (?) to evolutionary theory, the counter-argument (but since it's a theological point, I fail to see how it has anything to do with a subject based on empirical knowledge. Because it doesn't.)

Anyone trying to push creationism into the classrooms should be shot on sight!

Yeah! Maybe you could do that! Awesomeness.

[Bullet Magnet]

Creationism: the very word prickles my ears, my intellectual guard instinctively raises and I prepare for one of two possible idiocies: someone supporting the idea, or someone raving against it in support of evolution whilst making it absolutely clear that they have no understanding of either whatsoever.

I mean, in itself I can tolerate that it exists. Combine it with the word "science", "biology", "teach" or any connotations thereof, and man, do I get annoyed.

Never mind the particulars, which I can get into with glorious detail should the necessity arise, I can counter the idea of creation as science simply by citing the scientific method, specifically, falsification.

Paraphrased from Karl Popper's 1963 essay in which it was first formally discussed:

1. It is easy to confirm or verify nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations are significant only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is, if, unenlightened by the theory, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. "Good" scientific theories include prohibitions which forbid certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify or refute it. Theories that take greater "risks" are more testable, more exposed to refutation.

6. Confirming or corroborating evidence is only significant when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; "genuine" in this case means that it comes out of a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their advocates — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

This is wear Creationism, and it's alias, Intelligent Design, meets a roadblock (one of many) in regards to scientific acceptance (in fact, this was the killer blow in the case for ID in Dover, Kansas recently) It is impossible to falsify the existence an/or action of a being beyond nature that cannot be observed by any means (likewise,it is impossible to obtain positive evidence in favour of this circumstance). It doesn't make predictions, forbid specific circumstances from occurring... It has no practical use whatsoever, which also makes creationism/ID rather worthless in itself. There is no quarter that can be given to support its claim to be science. How can we possibly be granted a place in science class beyond a mention as the laughable-yet-dangerous opposition to reason?

[Nate]

I have no problem with Creationism as a theory. Certainly, I've heard some interesting attempts to link science with creationism, to say that the creator may have used evolution as a tool.

Personally, I have no idea what to believe and I'm fine with that. My one big problem with pro-science people is that their beleifs are based on faith just as much as religious people. I mean, Big Bang theory can be succinctly be described as "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded". No science can explain what caused the Big Bang and yet atheists seem totally fine with the concept of the universe being created out of nothing. Don't get me started on String Theory.

In any case, there is no room for ID in classrooms. I went to an ultra-orthodox school and I think they treated the topic right when they said in science class "This is the common theory. We're going to teach it to you because we have to but we don't actually agree with it. You'll learn the alternative in other classes".

[Bullet Magnet]

Hmm... string theory is not truly a theory. Not yet, anyway.

The Big Bang is better put "in the beginning there was a singularity, which expanded. Then inflated". We do not know where it came from, since by definition a singularity is going to destroy all information that has entered it, but it is what the evidence points to, and the best conclusion that can currently be drawn from it. But no one has ever suggested that this is the end of it, which is more than can be said of creationism. The amount of time and effort put into improving our understanding of it or a scientific alternative is astonishing. In fact, we do know far more about it than can possibly be expressed in laymen's terms.

And that is a big problem. Without sufficient education, indeed, often without a high enough IQ, many of the discoveries pertaining to this field of physics is hopelessly beyond the grasp of almost all of us, which is the biggest difficulty when it comes to public acceptance. People are going to be more receptive of something they do understand than of something they do not.

[OANST]

Or of something they aren't allowed to understand or question.

[Salamander]

Although I am religious (and thus believe in Creationism), I do not think that it is appropriate to teach Creationism in Science, it has no scientific principals, or proof.

[Nate]

Hmm... string theory is not truly a theory. Not yet, anyway.

My point, which I couldn't be bothered actually expressing in my last post, was that scientists over the world believe that the strings exists and will fight for the theory despite the fact that it's actually impossible to prove.

It's just that it seems logical and answers a few questions. Just like religion (to some people at least).

[Alcar]

I don't mind if Creationism is taught in religious studies, but I do have objections to it being studied in Science classes.

That being said, I follow the same line of thinking as Nate. Which is why I'm Agnostic, as opposed to Atheist.

Alcar...

[Laser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA
You all might like this

[Venks]

I hate it when someone leaves a community and afterwards they are bashed by said community. Aren't we more mature then that?

[Havoc]

As I understand it, and as these nutcases argue, the ID theory being taught would not be tethered to any specific idea as - didn't you know? - there's no actual scientific evidence for any specific idea. It would just be offered up as an alternative (?) to evolutionary theory, the counter-argument (but since it's a theological point, I fail to see how it has anything to do with a subject based on empirical knowledge. Because it doesn't.)

There may not be direct evidence but there's plenty of indirect evidence. Findings of dinosaurs, cave paintings, other sets of skeletons, all indicate that species developed over the course of years. It's no solid proof, but to teach the idea that an invisible person in the sky made everything, next to trying to scientifically explain it, is like explaining mathematics to Einstein with the help of hand puppets. It's insulting to the profession.

Besides, if religion is scientific enough to be taught in schools then science is spiritual enough to be taught in church.