Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum

697	106017

offline

Aaroniscool

254 posts

Nomad

Posted December 13, '08 7:56pm UTC

I would say it's pretty easy to observe...A long-necked giraffe lives in an area where the trees are tall. Why? Adaptation. The short-necked giraffes died out.

Well, why haven't I heard anything of these short-necked giraffes? I don't seem to recall any mention of those in history books nor do I recall fossil evidence suggesting the existence of a short-neck giraffe. I could be wrong, there may have been a short-necked giraffe somewhere out there in history, but so far, nothing.

Darwin's observations of different finches and tortoises aren't to be taken as accurate? Fossils on display throughout museums around the world aren't legit?

Honestly, I wasn't implying that Darwin wasn't a legit author. He is probably smarter than I could ever dream to be. He is a pretty legit author. I was mainly talking about books dating back thousands of years and whether or not those people are legit.

I.e. when it was proposed that the Gospel of Judas be added to the Bible, there was some skepticism about the legitimacy of the Author, who, as it turns out, wasn't really Judas but some other person altogether.

I did stumble across a quote from Darwin regarding the evolution of the sense of sight,

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree" (The Origin of Species, Penguin Classics, London, 1985, p.217)

Sure, I found that in my Christian Biology book. It's biased but it did come from Darwin himself, right?

No...There is no proof of God, unless you are going to argue that the Bible is proof, that the fact that the Earth and humans exist is proof, etc., etc.

Well, I would refer to the Bible as a Historical text. An accurate one at that. In that light, yes, I would use the Bible as evidence. We could say that the Earth and humans are proof, but apparently that doesn't get us Creationists very far...

I believe that both sides have the internet, both sides have access to scientific journals, libraries, labs, and the Earth itself to gather get data.

Considering that the half-lives of molecules like C-14 and Uranium are pretty constant, I would say it's pretty accurate, especially as science continues developing.

It would be a bit hard to say that is it accurate. Assuming that evolution is indeed a fact, there would be no way to confirm the accuracy of those dating methods. There would be no intelligent life to keep record.

Once again, incorrect. Religion is based on faith, whereas science is based on theories backed up with tangible evidence.

Well, if I am correct and there isn't fossil evidence or truly accurate dating methods, then I'd say that you evolutionists have just as little concrete evidence as Creationism and you guys have to put just as much faith into evolution as we do God.

[quote]I would say it's pretty easy to observe...A long-necked giraffe lives in an area where the trees are tall. Why? Adaptation. The short-necked giraffes died out.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell, why haven't I heard anything of these short-necked giraffes? I don't seem to recall any mention of those in history books nor do I recall fossil evidence suggesting the existence of a short-neck giraffe. I could be wrong, there may have been a short-necked giraffe somewhere out there in history, but so far, nothing.\r\n\r\n[quote]Darwin's observations of different finches and tortoises aren't to be taken as accurate? Fossils on display throughout museums around the world aren't legit?[/quote]\r\n\r\nHonestly, I wasn't implying that Darwin wasn't a legit author. He is probably smarter than I could ever dream to be. He is a pretty legit author. I was mainly talking about books dating back thousands of years and whether or not those people are legit.\r\n\r\n I.e. when it was proposed that the Gospel of Judas be added to the Bible, there was some skepticism about the legitimacy of the Author, who, as it turns out, wasn't really Judas but some other person altogether.\r\n\r\nI did stumble across a quote from Darwin regarding the evolution of the sense of sight,\r\n\r\n[quote]"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree" (The Origin of Species, Penguin Classics, London, 1985, p.217)[/quote]\r\n\r\nSure, I found that in my Christian Biology book. It's biased but it did come from Darwin himself, right?\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]No...There is no proof of God, unless you are going to argue that the Bible is proof, that the fact that the Earth and humans exist is proof, etc., etc.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell, I would refer to the Bible as a Historical text. An accurate one at that. In that light, yes, I would use the Bible as evidence. We could say that the Earth and humans are proof, but apparently that doesn't get us Creationists very far...\r\n\r\n\r\nI believe that both sides have the internet, both sides have access to scientific journals, libraries, labs, and the Earth itself to gather get data. \r\n\r\n[quote]Considering that the half-lives of molecules like C-14 and Uranium are pretty constant, I would say it's pretty accurate, especially as science continues developing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt would be a bit hard to say that is it accurate. Assuming that evolution is indeed a fact, there would be no way to confirm the accuracy of those dating methods. There would be no intelligent life to keep record.\r\n\r\n[quote]Once again, incorrect. Religion is based on faith, whereas science is based on theories backed up with tangible evidence.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell, if I am correct and there isn't fossil evidence or truly accurate dating methods, then I'd say that you evolutionists have just as little concrete evidence as Creationism and you guys have to put just as much faith into evolution as we do God.

offline

Lynoth

509 posts

Nomad

Posted December 13, '08 9:37pm UTC

Well, why haven't I heard anything of these short-necked giraffes? I don't seem to recall any mention of those in history books nor do I recall fossil evidence suggesting the existence of a short-neck giraffe. I could be wrong, there may have been a short-necked giraffe somewhere out there in history, but so far, nothing.

He's referring to giraffes that are just shorter then other giraffes, not some sort of sub-species.

Well, if I am correct and there isn't fossil evidence or truly accurate dating methods, then I'd say that you evolutionists have just as little concrete evidence as Creationism and you guys have to put just as much faith into evolution as we do God.

Check the beginning of that sentence and then click this link.

Well, I would refer to the Bible as a Historical text. An accurate one at that. In that light, yes, I would use the Bible as evidence.

So you are saying that, despite the facts that none of the people who wrote the bible were Jesus, the bible has been translated numerous times, it is thousands of years old, and there is no proof that God has spoken to any of those that wrote the bible, that it is indeed accurate?

[quote]Well, why haven't I heard anything of these short-necked giraffes? I don't seem to recall any mention of those in history books nor do I recall fossil evidence suggesting the existence of a short-neck giraffe. I could be wrong, there may have been a short-necked giraffe somewhere out there in history, but so far, nothing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHe's referring to giraffes that are just shorter then other giraffes, not some sort of sub-species.\r\n\r\n[quote]Well, if I am correct and there isn't fossil evidence or truly accurate dating methods, then I'd say that you evolutionists have just as little concrete evidence as Creationism and you guys have to put just as much faith into evolution as we do God.[/quote]\r\n\r\nCheck the beginning of that sentence and then click [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%27s_paradox]this[/url] link.\r\n\r\n[quote]Well, I would refer to the Bible as a Historical text. An accurate one at that. In that light, yes, I would use the Bible as evidence.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo you are saying that, despite the facts that none of the people who wrote the bible were Jesus, the bible has been translated numerous times, it is thousands of years old, and there is no proof that God has spoken to any of those that wrote the bible, that it is indeed accurate?

offline

AowDevil

16 posts

Nomad

Posted December 14, '08 1:39am UTC

I'm going to be ready to get flamed *Gets on fire proof suit*

I think creationism is 100% fiction, I am a Christian but I am willing to look through my religion to see it's flaws. So many people think that Evolution says that humans came from monkeys. That's not what it says. Over a period of time mutations pile up and the ones who are best suited for the envirement survive. That is why we are the only species alive in the genus "Homo". We were simply the best fitting ones for the landscape in the mutation sheet.

*For those of you who don't know what a mutation sheet is. When scientests find mutations and what they came from they can track it back to find the animal that the mutations began in.

offline

samy

4,871 posts

Nomad

Posted December 14, '08 3:42am UTC

I think creationism is 100% fiction, I am a Christian but I am willing to look through my religion to see it's flaws. So many people think that Evolution says that humans came from monkeys. That's not what it says. Over a period of time mutations pile up and the ones who are best suited for the envirement survive. That is why we are the only species alive in the genus "Homo". We were simply the best fitting ones for the landscape in the mutation sheet.

If evolution is true, I would REFUSE point blank to be a christian. This would mean God created death, it would mean he used an extremely brutal way for life to come about when he could have just made us. It means sin doesn't cause death and hell is a place he made JUST to torture us!

So you are saying that, despite the facts that none of the people who wrote the bible were Jesus, the bible has been translated numerous times, it is thousands of years old, and there is no proof that God has spoken to any of those that wrote the bible, that it is indeed accurate?

They haven't found anything to prove that the bible is false, ion fact it's extremely historicly accurate.

He's referring to giraffes that are just shorter then other giraffes, not some sort of sub-species.

Right they're just a different species.

[quote] I think creationism is 100% fiction, I am a Christian but I am willing to look through my religion to see it's flaws. So many people think that Evolution says that humans came from monkeys. That's not what it says. Over a period of time mutations pile up and the ones who are best suited for the envirement survive. That is why we are the only species alive in the genus "Homo". We were simply the best fitting ones for the landscape in the mutation sheet.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf evolution is true, I would REFUSE point blank to be a christian. This would mean God created death, it would mean he used an extremely brutal way for life to come about when he could have just made us. It means sin doesn't cause death and hell is a place he made JUST to torture us!\r\n\r\n[quote] So you are saying that, despite the facts that none of the people who wrote the bible were Jesus, the bible has been translated numerous times, it is thousands of years old, and there is no proof that God has spoken to any of those that wrote the bible, that it is indeed accurate?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey haven't found anything to prove that the bible is false, ion fact it's extremely historicly accurate.\r\n\r\n[quote]He's referring to giraffes that are just shorter then other giraffes, not some sort of sub-species.[/quote]\r\n\r\nRight they're just a different species.

offline

iPC

146 posts

Nomad

Posted December 14, '08 4:10am UTC

I think creationism is 100% fiction, I am a Christian but I am willing to look through my religion to see it's flaws.

I think then that, by definition, you're not a Christian. What do you think God does, if you think he exists?

So many people think that Evolution says that humans came from monkeys. That's not what it says.

You're correct, but for the wrong reason. Evolution states that humans came from apes.

Monkeys vs. Apes
And, to clear up confusion, there is a theory of evolution and a fact of evolution, much like the theory and fact of gravity. The fact of gravity and evolution states that things fall down and that generations change over time. The theories of evolution and gravity explain why. (Clicky for more info.)

At any rate, we digress from the topic. The topic is what should be taught in schools. Schools want to teach information that is simple and the most acceptable. As we can see here, Creationism is favoured over evolutionism, so it might be more acceptable. But... that graph also means that the majority of people in schools go to church. They will already know the content. As people can see in even this threat, the ideas of evolution are still shaky.

How about a compromise? The debate is essentially science vs. religion. Why not leave evolution in science class while moving creationism and other religions to Social Studies or some other class? 'Twould work, and noone would be insulted as long as teachers kept a neutral point of view.

[quote]I think creationism is 100% fiction, I am a Christian but I am willing to look through my religion to see it's flaws.[/quote] I think then that, by definition, you're not a Christian. What do you think God does, if you think he exists? \r\n\r\n[quote]So many people think that Evolution says that humans came from monkeys. That's not what it says.[/quote] You're correct, but for the wrong reason. Evolution states that humans came from apes. \r\n\r\n[url=http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/monkeys-vs-apes.htm]Monkeys vs. Apes[/url]\r\nAnd, to clear up confusion, there is a theory of evolution and a fact of evolution, much like the theory and fact of gravity. The fact of gravity and evolution states that things fall down and that generations change over time. The theories of evolution and gravity explain why. ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact]Clicky [/url]for more info.)\r\n\r\nAt any rate, we digress from the topic. The topic is what should be taught in schools. Schools want to teach information that is simple and the most acceptable. As we can see [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx]here[/url], Creationism is favoured over evolutionism, so it might be more acceptable. But... that graph also means that the majority of people in schools go to church. They will already know the content. As people can see in even this threat, the ideas of evolution are still shaky. \r\n\r\nHow about a compromise? The debate is essentially science vs. religion. Why not leave evolution in science class while moving creationism and other religions to Social Studies or some other class? 'Twould work, and noone would be insulted as long as teachers kept a neutral point of view.

offline

SuperzMcShort

325 posts

Nomad

Posted December 14, '08 4:40am UTC

I would have to disagree with that statement. My reason being that evolution in itself is a very long process and no single human has been around to watch one species acquire different traits that suggests the transformation into another species altogether.

This is a very common misconception about evolution, that being it's an unobservable phenomona. It is observable, even in a single human lifetime, so long as you find a species that has short enough lives that they go through many generations in a short period of time. Basically any micro organism.

If you wanted to do an experiment you could theoretically take a sample of one type of bacteria, and put half in one container and half in anouther and raise the temperature of one crate while lower the temperature of the other by one degree celsius every 1 years for 50 years from a starting point of 50 degrees while keeping all other variables the same. I can almost guarentee you that you'd see speciation, and if not speciation then at least one population becoming more suited for living in a hotter envrionment and the other in a colder.

You can also observe evolution in bacteria in real world settings. The introduction on penicillin and the subsequent rise of anti-biotic resistant bacteria in the last 80 years are real world, single lifetime examples of evolution. If you're not willing to look at that I don't think it'd be possible to convinve you at all.

How about a compromise? The debate is essentially science vs. religion. Why not leave evolution in science class while moving creationism and other religions to Social Studies or some other class? 'Twould work, and noone would be insulted as long as teachers kept a neutral point of view.

I think this gets to the root of the issue. My main problem with people demanding that creationism being taught in biology is that if most biology classes were taught like mine have been then there's barely enough time to get through most of the science behind it without adding other requirements into the mix. Teaching creationism in Religious Studies or anouther similar class would make perfect sense to me and I'd actually be suprised if they weren't doing it already.

[quote]I would have to disagree with that statement. My reason being that evolution in itself is a very long process and no single human has been around to watch one species acquire different traits that suggests the transformation into another species altogether. [/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is a very common misconception about evolution, that being it's an unobservable phenomona.  It is observable, even in a single human lifetime, so long as you find a species that has short enough lives that they go through many generations in a short period of time.  Basically any micro organism.  \r\n\r\nIf you wanted to do an experiment you could theoretically take a sample of one type of bacteria, and put half in one container and half in anouther and raise the temperature of one crate while lower the temperature of the other by one degree celsius every 1 years for 50 years from a starting point of 50 degrees while keeping all other variables the same.  I can almost guarentee you that you'd see speciation, and if not speciation then at least one population becoming more suited for living in a hotter envrionment and the other in a colder.  \r\n\r\nYou can also observe evolution in bacteria in real world settings.  The introduction on penicillin and the subsequent rise of anti-biotic resistant bacteria in the last 80 years are real world, single lifetime examples of evolution.  If you're not willing to look at that I don't think it'd be possible to convinve you at all.\r\n\r\n[quote]How about a compromise? The debate is essentially science vs. religion. Why not leave evolution in science class while moving creationism and other religions to Social Studies or some other class? 'Twould work, and noone would be insulted as long as teachers kept a neutral point of view.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI think this gets to the root of the issue.  My main problem with people demanding that creationism being taught in biology is that if most biology classes were taught like mine have been then there's barely enough time to get through most of the science behind it without adding other requirements into the mix.  Teaching creationism in Religious Studies or anouther similar class would make perfect sense to me and I'd actually be suprised if they weren't doing it already.

offline

purpledinosaur

679 posts

Peasant

Posted December 14, '08 11:03am UTC

The story of Adam and Eve in the bible is not literal the creation stories in the bible are sometimes fictional only to represent something just like the book animal farm and the soviet union

offline

Strop

10,816 posts

Bard

Posted December 14, '08 1:06pm UTC

This would mean God created death, it would mean he used an extremely brutal way for life to come about when he could have just made us. It means sin doesn't cause death and hell is a place he made JUST to torture us!

What? Could you rephrase or explain this somehow? As it currently is that doesn't seem to make any...sense.

offline

samy

4,871 posts

Nomad

Posted December 14, '08 8:26pm UTC

What? Could you rephrase or explain this somehow? As it currently is that doesn't seem to make any...sense.

Um no seeing as how you just don't understand it, it makes perfect sense if you know the back ground which would take a few hours to explain read the bible :P

The story of Adam and Eve in the bible is not literal the creation stories in the bible are sometimes fictional only to represent something just like the book animal farm and the soviet union

No, where does it say this, or what biblical proof do you have to back it up.

This is a very common misconception about evolution, that being it's an unobservable phenomona. It is observable, even in a single human lifetime, so long as you find a species that has short enough lives that they go through many generations in a short period of time. Basically any micro organism.
If you wanted to do an experiment you could theoretically take a sample of one type of bacteria, and put half in one container and half in anouther and raise the temperature of one crate while lower the temperature of the other by one degree celsius every 1 years for 50 years from a starting point of 50 degrees while keeping all other variables the same. I can almost guarentee you that you'd see speciation, and if not speciation then at least one population becoming more suited for living in a hotter envrionment and the other in a colder.
You can also observe evolution in bacteria in real world settings. The introduction on penicillin and the subsequent rise of anti-biotic resistant bacteria in the last 80 years are real world, single lifetime examples of evolution. If you're not willing to look at that I don't think it'd be possible to convinve you at all.

50 degress celcius would kill the virus,

[quote] What? Could you rephrase or explain this somehow? As it currently is that doesn't seem to make any...sense.[/quote]\r\n\r\nUm no seeing as how you just don't understand it, it makes perfect sense if you know the back ground which would take a few hours to explain read the bible :P\r\n\r\n[quote] The story of Adam and Eve in the bible is not literal the creation stories in the bible are sometimes fictional only to represent something just like the book animal farm and the soviet union[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, where does it say this, or what biblical proof do you have to back it up.\r\n\r\n[quote] This is a very common misconception about evolution, that being it's an unobservable phenomona.  It is observable, even in a single human lifetime, so long as you find a species that has short enough lives that they go through many generations in a short period of time.  Basically any micro organism.  \r\nIf you wanted to do an experiment you could theoretically take a sample of one type of bacteria, and put half in one container and half in anouther and raise the temperature of one crate while lower the temperature of the other by one degree celsius every 1 years for 50 years from a starting point of 50 degrees while keeping all other variables the same.  I can almost guarentee you that you'd see speciation, and if not speciation then at least one population becoming more suited for living in a hotter envrionment and the other in a colder.  \r\nYou can also observe evolution in bacteria in real world settings.  The introduction on penicillin and the subsequent rise of anti-biotic resistant bacteria in the last 80 years are real world, single lifetime examples of evolution.  If you're not willing to look at that I don't think it'd be possible to convinve you at all.\r\n[/quote]\r\n\r\n50 degress celcius would kill the virus,

offline

SuperzMcShort

325 posts

Nomad

Posted December 14, '08 10:16pm UTC

50 degress celcius would kill the virus,

50 celcius would kill a virus because they don't have DNA, hence why anti-bacterials don't work on them. Bacteria however does, and we've already observed them going through similar changes in simaler time frames so it would most definately be possible. Of course if you changed it 50 degrees in one day oyu'd kill them, but that's not how evolution works, and it's not at all what I'm proposing.

offline

Aaroniscool

254 posts

Nomad

Posted December 15, '08 3:16am UTC

Micro evolution is probable. Cells transfer DNA all the time in the Micro world. I won't deny that, but Macro evolution is when I doubt evolution. Through various methods, cells can actually get cellular information from other cells. Sometimes the change is good, but other times, the change is bad. i.e. a virus transfers cellular information to its target and the cell dies as a result.

It is highly unlikely that a genetic mutation will be beneficial to the organism.

The main problem that I have with this topic, iPC, is that evolution completely takes credit for what God did in the beginning. How he created the earth, I don't know. All i know is that he spoke life into our universe by saying several sentences. Where it says "God created the Heavens and the earth," he didn't say anything, so it may have been created via the "big bang." Idk.

Other than that first verse, evolution is taking credit for all the species that exist today. I believe that God made each and every species at the beginning of the earth, but as time went on, more and more species became extinct.

This is, at least, my take on this...

Micro evolution is probable. Cells transfer DNA all the time in the Micro world. I won't deny that, but Macro evolution is when I doubt evolution. Through various methods, cells can actually get cellular information from other cells. Sometimes the change is good, but other times, the change is bad. i.e. a virus transfers cellular information to its target and the cell dies as a result.\r\n\r\nIt is highly unlikely that a genetic mutation will be beneficial to the organism. \r\n\r\nThe main problem that I have with this topic, iPC, is that evolution completely takes credit for what God did in the beginning. How he created the earth, I don't know. All i know is that he spoke life into our universe by saying several sentences. Where it says "God created the Heavens and the earth," he didn't say anything, so it may have been created via the "big bang." Idk.\r\n\r\nOther than that first verse, evolution is taking credit for all the species that exist today. I believe that God made each and every species at the beginning of the earth, but as time went on, more and more species became extinct.\r\n\r\nThis is, at least, my take on this...

offline

RubberyChicken

956 posts

Nomad

Posted December 15, '08 10:07pm UTC

My take on this issue is that evolution seems more likely, but there is no way to prove either the theory of evolution or creationism / ID correct, and probably won't be in our life time.

Still, in the spirt of neutrality, religion is a very big part in world history, so it only fits that creationism is taught in history rather than science.

There are somethings we are never going to know, and this could be one of them...

offline

BASHA

660 posts

Nomad

Posted December 16, '08 1:00am UTC

hey samy that link you gave me brought me to a home page of some christian web sight. It didn't give me any facts on creationism, so my question still stands, could you give me some reliable evidence supporting creationism

offline

Pixie214

5,838 posts

Peasant

Posted December 18, '08 8:29pm UTC

If creationism is right why would God kill his creatures haven't seen a dinosaur walking round nor were they mentioned in the bible( pretty big thing Hey Jesus look its a diplodocus I'm gonna talk about this in mmy book book said luke, me too said John). How abput the Cambriam explosion or galapogas tortoises. Creationism is a religious ideal and shouls be taught in R.E. Evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in Biology.

offline

samy

4,871 posts

Nomad

Posted December 19, '08 3:28am UTC

If creationism is right why would God kill his creatures haven't seen a dinosaur walking round nor were they mentioned in the bible( pretty big thing Hey Jesus look its a diplodocus I'm gonna talk about this in mmy book book said luke, me too said John). How abput the Cambriam explosion or galapogas tortoises. Creationism is a religious ideal and shouls be taught in R.E. Evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in Biology.

First, in the book of Job dinosaurs were mentioned, just a tip know both sides of the argument. Second Jesus lived after the time of dinosaurs, that holds true for both theories. Actualy we have less speciec now thne we had in the Cambriam era. Want to know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory?One word.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum