Creation vs. Evolution

[Solar]

IMHO, they really shouldn't be teaching ANY theory of the origins of Life, the Universe and Everything in classrooms, as none can be solidly proven and all carry ideological baggage.

That would mean you would have to scrap any kind of Religion from the timetable, too. (Not that I would be against that, since I believe that people have to find their religion, not vice versa.)

And don't tell me that your doubt in evolution is not religiously motivated. AFAIK, the only movements towards banning evolution theory (and nota bene, it's theory and taught as such!) comes from religious Christian (perhaps Islamic?) backgrounds. I know that some scientists still doubt the evolution theory, but they are not vocal about it since they try to falsify the theory using scientific means. Bringing religious motives into science discussions is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Why was Darwin banned? Because Darwin itself carried Social Darwinism right along with it...

The theory is sound; that doesn't mean you have to live by it.

[NotTheCHEAT]

That's correct, I don't think anything unprovable should be taught in a science classroom, unless that class is quantum physics, in which nothing is provable

[Sarcas Tic]

That's correct, I don't think anything unprovable should be taught in a science classroom

Of course! You know what? I think we should abolish science class altogether, since science is based on empirical evidence, which could be faulty because we can't prove and don't know if our senses actually reflect the universe accurately. Thus, all empirical evidence not actually being proof of anything, we should abolish science class, and all scientific pursuits. After all, we can't prove any of it. Who wants to teach unprovable stuff?

[Solar]

That's correct, I don't think anything unprovable should be taught in a science classroom, unless that class is quantum physics, in which nothing is provable

You're aware of how that position could easily be turned around into abolishing any kind of religious teachings, politics, sociology, and even mathematics, because those cannot be "proved" either?

[distantvoices]

regarding maths: I reckon "proof by full induction" is not what we want here, is it? But who wants to prove maths anyway? it's part of daily life to know your numbers and if you're about to code something complicated, a fair deal of maths helps expressing it.

to the other thing: there is creation. there is evolution. period. How do you hairy-eyed, wax-eared evolution deniers expect to have come to the state you are now? without evolution you'd still sit in some sookit, dark hole and cling hairy fists to knobby sticks. even gained knowledge is subject to permanent evolution, damn it.

And yes, I'm not sorry for my french this time.

[Parabola]

"We take the same information and view it differently. Problem solved, case closed."
   
But why do we view the same information differently? If it's right there to be interpreted why don't we all accept the same 'theories'
based on the facts as we understand them.

And where do we draw the line on what information to pass on?

[NotTheCHEAT]

There is plenty of science that can be proven. Most of science can be proven, in fact. But theories should be taught only as theories, or not at all. IMVHO teachers should not teach evolution as gospel and pure fact. It should be viewed as the theory it is, and it isn't currently viewed that way by many.

People who believe in evolution have trouble with the difference between proof and evidence. And so do a lot of creationists! But IMVHO there is just as much "proof" of evolution as there is of creation. We take the information and interpret it our own ways. I believe in creation; most of you in evolution. That's OK. My point is that neither has been proven, and neither is provable that I can tell.

[Crazed123]

to the other thing: there is creation. there is evolution. period. How do you hairy-eyed, wax-eared evolution deniers expect to have come to the state you are now? without evolution you'd still sit in some sookit, dark hole and cling hairy fists to knobby sticks. even gained knowledge is subject to permanent evolution, d*mn it.

And yes, I'm not sorry for my french this time.

I don't appreciate being called hairy-eyed and wax-eared for my lack of belief in extending theories of the present into the past. Postulate of Universality can't be proven, remember?

If you wish to talk about the present and (most likely) the future then evolution is scientifically valid and will continue to work. I refuse to assume Universality and extend that into the past, though.

Yes, I have religious motives. However, it was me who said that we shouldn't teach any Origin Theory in the classroom. ANY, be they religious, scientific or ESPECIALLY that intelligent design bullshit. Science students should be taught about evolution in the present and future, and allowed to observe it with their own eyes (which can be done for microevolution). They just shouldn't be told that's how all life sprang from primordial soup on up to man, because we can't prove it without a time machine (which would be based on the scientific laws that may or may not extend back into the past). We can easily prove that fossils of things were found and seem to belong to different time periods and seem to show something like evolution, but we can't actually go back and see their formation, so we should let the damned science students decide for themselves how they got there.

Oy ge-freaking-valt, can't a guy not believe in Scientism here without being yelled at or called fanatically Christian? For the record, I'm JEWISH.

[distantvoices]

@crazed123:
And I don't appreciate blindfold ignorance. No more do I appreciate reading only halfway throu what I'm saying and getting half-boiled arguments delivered, thanks very much.

Ah, I won't discuss this anymore for at a certain point there 's enough of it. Just to say this: There has never - listen - never been any supernatural being waving a staff and conjuring humans. I know I know, genesis says so, but thats an *abstraction* It's an answer of long gone times to the questions: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Who has made this? etc. Human's life is extended by vivid imagination and adventure in the head, eh?

And as even the old testament is a collection of former oral tradition kept by the olden tribal lore keepers, I daresay, much has been changed so noone might tell how the real story might have looked like for each lore keeper might have altered it or changed and added.

The supernatural being 's been added by us, by human, to ease life and to avoid thinking about things we couldn't understand in those times. ("mine is the revenge" spake the Lord. - I think this one should prevent the lads to shed more blood in revenge. It's easy to misunderstand it)

as for religions:
Be jewish, be christ, never mind. I don't humiliate religions. I find believing in something which denies the obvious is atrocious to say it in a mild tone.

Have a nice day

[Solar]

Excuse BI while he's hyperventilating. He can't help it, he's Austrian.

;D

But I'll say:

Yes, I have religious motives. However, it was me who said that we should teach any Origin Theory in the classroom. ANY, be they religious, scientific or ESPECIALLY that intelligent design bullshit.

My Problem #1 is the mixing of religion and science. If you were going forth trying to scientifically prove the existence of God, you'd be welcome to teach your findings in science class. Until then, I prefer Biology teachers teaching evolution theory and Religion teachers teaching the writings of Genesis, Koran, Thora and whatever. They mustn't mix, just like state and religion mustn't mix. (And by that I mean both "God bless America" and the German state collecting "church tax"...)

They just shouldn't be told that's how all life sprang from primordial soup on up to man, because we can't prove it...

There is a very important distinction between not teaching evolution as a fact and not teaching evolution theory at all. NotTheCHEAT crossed that border a couple of times, jumping from "nothing unprovable should be taught (at all)" (bulls***, IMHO) and "it should be taught as theory only" (100% ACK, and - as far as I can tell, having spend four years studying Biology - that's how it's being done). But Creationism, as an "alternative explanation", doesn't belong into Biology class, period.

If a Biology teacher teaches evolution as a fact, that's too bad, but then again many a Religion teacher teaches the Bible as a fact. If a Biology teacher teaches Creationism, he should be suspended from office IMNSHO.

Oy ge-freaking-valt, can't a guy not believe in Scientism here without being yelled at or called fanatically Christian? For the record, I'm JEWISH.

I tend to throw Jews, Christians, Muslims and a couple other monotheistic religions into one, as they are based on one and the same ancient writing (just different toppings), and offend me in the very same way - they take themselves too seriously. No offense intended.

[distantvoices]

@solar: *rofl* hyperventilating. *bumpsunderthetableandrolls onthefloor*

And you're right. "schuster, bleib bei deinem Leisten", as we say in Vienna. In Englisch, that's "A cobbler should stick to his last".

Stay safe.

[Crazed123]

I apologize for the typo in my previous post. My "should" was missing its "n't". So it really says we SHOULD NOT teach any theories of the Origin of Life, the Universe and Everything. NONE OF THEM.

This has been a correction.

[distantvoices]

welcome back, Inquisition.

[Solar]

So it really says we SHOULD NOT teach any theories of the Origin of Life, the Universe and Everything. NONE OF THEM.

Then I disagree even more violently than to teaching Creationism alongside evolution theory.

Teaching, learning, and researching is about pushing the limits of our knowledge. Not teaching a sound and so far not disproven theory because some people take offense for religious reasons? Come on. The Dark Age is over.

[distantvoices]

I rather enjoy debug sessions darker than night than the return of Inquisition and Forbidding of interresting theories one can talk over and have the one or other *argument*. Without knowledge what could one discuss about?