Creation vs. Evolution on trial in Kansas

[Harrison]

Big Bang won't and cannot be disproven, it's impossible in much the same way as ID is.

[Gidan]

I have no problem with religiuos discussion in school, a class devoted to discussing religions of the world would be great. It would give the youth of this country a chance to see what religions throughout the world are and a brief idea of what they beleive.

Forcing specific religions on our childreen in public schools is what I have a problem with.

[Donnel]

Evolution and the Big Bank are the current theorys but they can be disproven. They havn't been to this point and may never be disproven but if somonething shows they are not true they will be disproven.

it is not possible for something to show "inteligent design" as unture. If you can reponded to any and all questions with "It was inteneded to be that way" then nothing can prove it wrong. no matter what evidence you show it can still be answered with "It was intnded to be that way" If evolition and the big bang were all but proven to be true the "inteligent design" person can just say "In was designed that way".

If aliens came down from the sky, said they created life on earth and showed us how they did it, it would prove evolution didn't take place.

Tell me 1 thing that would prove "intelligent design" didn't take place. I dont care how outlandish or rediculas it is. Tell me something that would prove it to be wrong.


On a side not I do not thing Evolution or the big bang should be taught as fact in schools. I think they should be taught was the best scientific theorys that we have and be taught in a VERY limited bases if they are even taught. It was not taught in a single class I ever took before College, my brother who is graduating Highschool this year has also never been taught either.

I see what you were getting at now Gidan, wasn't entirely clear in your first posts to me :D

[Eziekial]

"Intelligent design" can not be considered science because there is no observation that can prove it wrong. Everything in existance can be seen as proof of "intelligent design". Somone who beleives in "Intelligent design" can respond with "It was designed to be that way" to everything and anything.

Not tring to be a smart ass or anything here, but can we see the formations of electrons in elements? I recall learning something in highschool about "rings" of electrons around the nucleus of an atom and the "sequence" that those electrons fall into their rings as they bond with other elements. Since we cannot observe that, how did it end up in my chemisty book?

[Gidan]

Big Bang won't and cannot be disproven, it's impossible in much the same way as ID is.

If you prove that the univers has always been here and was not created, you would prove it wrong.

[Harrison]

What would be everything prior to the Big Bang? Nothingness?

The Big Bang isn't the creation of existence, it is an explanation to the creation of our very finite view of a portion of the universe.

Universe being, EVERYTHING. Not just what we can see...

[Trielelvan]

The "fear" regarding hard-core atheists is that a) religion is bullshit, b) brainwashes people, and c) they don't want their offspring learning anything even remotely religious while in school when they should be sticking to hardnose facts and figures in their schoolwork.

Personally, I'm not really sure if having creationism taught in school is a good or bad thing, mostly due to the fact that there's already so many basics in school (electives and all) to learn about without throwing religion in there too. It was never taught in my school, but we did have many discussions (very heated discussions) in various classes where the teachers would just kind of let us ask and probe one another for simple debating purposes (read: too lazy/tired to teach so let the kids focus on something other than me today).

Lyion does have a point - evolution has some ( <-- keyword there for the fanatics) pretty solid facts behind it that stand today. Why are people so worried about religious stuff being taught? Because *they* want to choose *who* teaches it - it is a very sensitive area. Less religious people don't want their kids becoming "sheep." Various sects of varying religions want it taught *their* way and only their way - everything else is blasphemous etc etc.
Personally, I think it is a good idea to have wide and various exposure to religion of all kinds. I don't think it is going to corrupt my child's view. If anything, he will get to see another side of the idea of creationism. Then again, the approach we are taking with religion in raising him is probably a bit different than most people.

[Gidan]

I understand that, religious people have been claiming for a very long time that god created everything but that god has always existed. If you can claim god has always existed then why can somone not claim that the univers has always existed. It would disprove the big bang theory.

The whole point I was making is that it could be disproved. I dont care how obserd the evedence would have to be to disprove it, just that you could show something that would disprove it.

[Eziekial]

Forcing specific religions on our childreen in public schools is what I have a problem with.

I don't see this as forcing a specific religion. Having an open and honest discussion on religion isn't the same as telling kids they must believe in Jesus or they go to Hell (TM)

[Gidan]

Teaching creation isn't forcing your religion on people unless you teach it as fact. The problem is when specific religions want their and only their creation storys taught in schools.

teaching it as this religion beleives creation as like that, and this one beleives this and so on, is not a bad thing.

[Zanchief]

Kids aren't taunt to sit Indian style anymore, it's now called Criss-cross applesauce.

Why would schools perpetuate a racist expression? I'm sure teachers aren't aloud to use the term nigger in school. Damn hippies.

A lot of schools have communal bins for all crayons brought to school...it's teaching redistribution of wealth (ie welfare) at the kindergarten level.

'A lot of schools' = one article you read on the internet. I'm sure schools are trying to teach kids to be on welfare. They have SO much to gain from it.

Until the recent law change, schools could tell parents their child had to be on Ritalin or that child couldn't come back to school, even if the doctor didnt' think the child needed it.

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Thanks for the infoz though.

And if you think teachers don't have their own agenda, you are sadly mistaken. I see tidbits all the time about little things that teachers say. Like the teacher that told the class "war is evil" after a couple military jets flew over the class at recess. Stuff like that leaves a big impression on small children especially when it made by an authority figure.

So the government is responsible for teachers pushing agendas on their students? Last time I checked your government is right wing Cristian bastion of 'morals' and 'decency', I doubt they're conspiring to teach kids that war is evil. Maybe it's just people acting like people.

[Arlos]

I don't despise religion, Lyion. Indeed, I'm quite religious myself, I just am no longer Christian of any kind. More importantly, however, I feel no need or impulse to foist my own personal religious beliefs and tenets on anyone else whatsoever. If someone wanted to sit down with me in private and discuss them, I'd be happy to, but that's just it, religion is a set of personal beliefs, not public beliefs. That is exactly what they should be and remain: private. If you teach and/or promote religion in a public school setting in required classes, you are converting private religious belief into the public realm. If a school wishes to have a class on religion, that is in NO way required for any student to take, then that's perfectly OK. Anyone signing up for it is doing so of their own free will, knowing what they will be getting in for.

As for the Big Bang, I can tell you wholeheartedly that it is a theory completely in line with all observable data and past evolution of the universe. Remember, I used to be an Astrophysics major, so I'd be willing to say I studied it in far more depth than just about anyone else here. The physics and math involved are, in a word, complex. Also, in the earliest stages, we simply don't know how things worked, because matter/space/etc was in a radically different form than it is today. Much of the cutting edge research on physics, astronomy and cosmology is involved in figuring out how things worked closer and closer to the time of the Big Bang. So, if a creationist tries to claim that the Big Bang never happened, I will laugh at them for being the equivalent of a flat-earther, as they are completely ignoring absolute mountains of evidence supporting it. If, however, they tell me, "God caused the universe to spring into being", I would have no way to refute that, nor indeed would I attempt to. After all, who am I to say that God, if he/she exists, couldn't have used the Big Bang as their mechanism to bring the universe into existance. It's simply an area science doesn't cover.

As for Evolution, we've had this discussion already. I oppose creationism being taught in a science class for the simple reason that it is, in no way, SCIENCE. It's a religious belief system, that cannot be proved or disproved. Even a completely secular die-hard evolutionist couldn't argue with an assertion of: "God guided developments of organisms in order to produce Mankind", as again, it's a statement of faith, not one of science. They may disagree with it, but that's as far as they can go. Evolution, on the other hand, has significant amount of evidence backing it up, which the vast majority of scientists involved in the issue accept as valid. It is a scientific theory, derived with scientific methods and observations, and as such has a place in a SCIENCE class.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

It was called Indian style because the Indians were the ones who taught us it. How can you remotely see anything racist about it?

One article? So you've read thru my eyes and heard thru my ears? Good to know.

Do we want to discuss how schools were buying textbooks with tiny changes to the Bill of Rights so it read completely different than it's actually written? Or the school district in Rhode Island that had cancelled the annual spelling bee. An administrator said that the spelling bee violated the spirit of "The No Child Left Behind Act" because one child would win, and the others would be left behind. Or the girl in Atlanta that wrote a story about a sleeping girl that dreams she shot her teacher. She was expelled for 'inappropriate writings'. OR how bout the girl that brought in little cups of jello to share with her class that got suspended cuz it was a 'look-alike drug'. Then there was the school in CA that suspended a teacher for using the Declaration of Independence in class but it contains references to God and Christianity.

Then there's the lovely case of the kid that was sent home for the Holiday Dance at Christmastime....his crime? He was dressed as Santa. And the topper of them all, a 9 year old took a pair of scissors to school...so the school had her arrested, then they suspended her for 5 days and THEN they debated whether she needed to go to reform school. For a pair of scissors she did nothing with.

Public school is fubar.

[Zanchief]

Indians come from india, not the US.

But you're mentioning disciplinary problems that have, for the most part, nothing to do with what the students are learning.

[Trielelvan]

Zanchief, you aren't that thick headed, are you? Yes, the technical term is "Native Americans" but just about everyone still refers to them as Indians... spare the PC bullshit, k?

Her point is that public school is too incompetant as it is. Now let's throw in a sensitive thing like religious discussion into the mix = possible disaster? Or something to that point...

[Narrock]

What would be everything prior to the Big Bang? Nothingness?

The Big Bang isn't the creation of existence, it is an explanation to the creation of our very finite view of a portion of the universe.

Universe being, EVERYTHING. Not just what we can see...

What you don't understand Finawin, is that the Big Bang is a mere theory, not some discovery of scientific fact. Therefore it cannot be proven or disproven... it doesn't need to be disproven because it's not proven. Get it?

[Lyion]

Arlos, based on your posts its apparent you like Christianity about as much as Hitler liked Judaism.

As for the Big Bang, I can tell you wholeheartedly that it is a theory completely in line with all observable data and past evolution of the universe.

I have a Math Degree with a heavy emphasis on Physics, also. We could sidetrack this thread, but PM me if you want to discuss this indepth. If you DO have a background in Physics then I'm surprised you'd be posting that sentence.

Then again, you are linking a complete wild guess of a theory with huge holes to macroevolution, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised....

[Arlos]

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS FUCKING "PROVEN", EVER. You can DIS-prove a theory, but you can NEVER prove one.

E=mc^2 is a theory. It's not "proven"

Plate tectonics is a theory. It likewise is not "proven"

In science, *NO* theory is *EVER* proven. There's no such thing as a "fact" in science. There is observed data and there's experimental results, all of which go to support or disprove a theory. However, no matter how much supporting evidence a theory has behind it, no scientiest will ever EVER call that theory "proven".

Remember, the term "theory" in science is used in a very different way than it is used in the general population. What the general population uses the word "theory" for is what is called a "hypothesis" in science. An educated guess. A theory in science, however, started out as a hypothesis, and has garnered significant evidentiary backing behind it, and as a result is the explanation for what you're describing most consistent with known data, and it's predictions are likewise supported by observation or experimental data.

-Arlos

[Gidan]

Arlos, no matter how much you explain that a theory can never be proven and that there is no such thing as a "fact" in science. Most people who are not in the field will not understand it. I gave up tryign to explain that years ago.

They always come back with something like "Gravity", there is a proven theory. makes you want to pull your hair out.

[Lyion]

Thanks, Arlos. I'm sure any wild guess with huge holes should be accepted as FACTS, because you personally like it!

There are THEORIES and there are THEORIES.

There are huge holes in the Big Bang that you should know about, if you keep up with Physics that even Hawking has discussed.

In your mythological world of science nothing is proven, perhaps. In mine a lot is proven or tested for heavy validation without gaping holes.

The Big Bang is a good guess, but calling it close to irrefutable given the current understanding of Physics is bullshit, period.

[Harrison]

What would be everything prior to the Big Bang? Nothingness?

The Big Bang isn't the creation of existence, it is an explanation to the creation of our very finite view of a portion of the universe.

Universe being, EVERYTHING. Not just what we can see...

What you don't understand Finawin, is that the Big Bang is a mere theory, not some discovery of scientific fact. Therefore it cannot be proven or disproven... it doesn't need to be disproven because it's not proven. Get it?

[Spacewoman Spiff]

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

[Zanchief]

Zanchief, you aren't that thick headed, are you? Yes, the technical term is "Native Americans" but just about everyone still refers to them as Indians... spare the PC bullshit, k?

Her point is that public school is too incompetant as it is. Now let's throw in a sensitive thing like religious discussion into the mix = possible disaster? Or something to that point...

spare the PC bullshit? I sure hope "just about everyone" doesn't use Indian to describe a people who have probably never been to India. It's pretty fucking racist.

And her point was that the government is trying to brainwash kids into some specific system of beliefs, and then she goes on to list a dozen horribly mismanaged disciplinary issues, most of which are probably taken out of context or spun by the students lawyers.

What I'd like to know is, what possible objective organization would be best to educate people? Maybe we should privatize the whole thing and let Microsoft Academy teach people the horrors of apple.

[Arlos]

Actually, no.

For example, Gravity. Gravity is, for some reason, vastly weaker than the other 3 primary forces in the universe: E&M, Strong, Weak. Example: Gravity can accelerate you to a certain velocity, at a steady pace, but when you impact the ground, you stop instantly. What really stops you is the electric fields of the atoms making up the ground, and how tightly they're bound together. Travel for miles, at high velocities, and boom, those electrical bonds stop you like that. Why then is that one force weaker than the others?

If you look at the cutting edge work of the String theorists, one of the outcomes of their work, and something that solves a LOT of the current problems in physics, is that the universe consists of 10 or 11 different dimensions, and that this universe is one of an infinite number of universes. One of the outcomes of this, that explains the gravity problem (among others) is if you posit that Gravity is not a native force to our universe, it is something that leaks into it from a nearby parallel universe. This is why that force is so much weaker than the rest, because we're only getting the overflow from elsewhere.

So, how can it be a "law" when we don't even understand where it comes from or how exactly it works?

Lyion: I'm not saying that the Big Bang theory can't use more refinement, that'd be absurd. Nor is it absolutely perfect. There is, however, a lot of evidence behind it, yes? Also, I've not seen, anywhere, a theory that provides any sort of better explanation for the beginning of the universe. And no, "God Willed it to Happen" doesn't count either.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

This thread is turning into a circus act.