15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

See the rest here .

This is a pretty interesting article from Scientific American. Do you think "intelligent design" should be taught as an alternative to evolution in science?

Evolution is a slow process, but ultimately evolution will take those 'creationist' out of the gene pool.

I don't understand why people are continuously getting in to this....

Creationism is a belief... Evolution is a science.

Those are two very different things. Stop stressing yourselves

We are all here, aren't we... so <deleted> does it matter?

Evolution is a slow process, but ultimately evolution will take those 'creationist' out of the gene pool.

Good point Jean!

These creationists should be walked over to the edge of this flat earth and be given a push.

I don't understand why people are continuously getting in to this....

Creationism is a belief... Evolution is a science.

Those are two very different things. Stop stressing yourselves

We are all here, aren't we... so <deleted> does it matter?

While we're all here, as you say, shouldn't we all be taught what has more proof and scientific sense than what creationism and most religions have to offer?

Do you think "intelligent design" should be taught as an alternative to evolution in science?

No, organised BS shouldn't be tought in schools.

Good read. Thanks Boon Mee

No point in quoting all the points and counter-arguements contained in that article. I'd be here for hours, and all the people that still believe everything was "created" in 6 days, would ignore any facts that prove otherwise any ways.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

E=MC2 was just "a theory" at one time, now you would be hard put to find a scientist that would argue that it isn't a fact or "scientific law"

#3 Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created

Of course you can't observe a process that took 10's of thousands of years to happen. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because the writer (or others) haven't personally observed something, then it can't be true.

Exchange "Evolution" with "Creationism" in the same statement. Is Creationism testable and falsifiable (definition = confirmable, verifiable) ? Can the events be re-created ?

There is far too much scientific evidence proving evolution did occur, and is happening right now.

Similar to a court trial, the judge and jury are people who never saw the crime committed (unless it was caught on tape of course). Sometimes there is no eyewitness to the crime. Does that mean it never occurred ? Judges and juries use facts (evidence) to determine guilt or innocence.

Actually, evolution has been observed. It is a mistake to assume evolution is always a slow process.

The story of the peppered moth

Industrial melanism in peppered moths is one of the most frequently used examples of natural selection in action. This is largely because of its pedagogical simplicity -- it is a straightforward example that is visual and dynamic -- and its copious documentation. Industrial melanism refers to the darkening of color that occurred in a number of species of insects following the Industrial Revolution. This change appears to be related to the increase in pollutants in the environment. Before the Industrial Revolution, individuals of the moth species Biston betularia (commonly called the "peppered moth") were predominantly white with black speckles. By the end of the 1800s, they were predominantly charcoal grey. This change was well documented and led Tutt (1896) to hypothesize that this change was a result of pollution- stained trees' affecting the camouflage potential of the moths. This change was termed "industrial melanism." In the 1950s, Bernard Kettlewell decided to test the hypothesis that natural selection was working on the differential camouflage of the moths. In order to do this, he released marked light and dark moths into polluted and non-polluted forests. He found that birds appear to prey selectively on light moths in polluted forests and on dark moths in non-polluted forests and so documented the idea of natural selection of these color patterns in moths by birds. After anti-pollution laws took effect and the bark lightened, the moth populations in formerly polluted areas returned to previous color distributions.

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon6moths.html

Where did life actually start? There is no answer and there may NEVER be an answer. The big bang? Where did that come from? The fairy tale books that some people devoutly believe in are simply fairy tales. Evolution is a fact but that in itself is certainly no answer either. I'll just continue to enjoy life as we know it and I won't worry why or where it came from.

I have a problem when our leaders profess a strong belief in what I consider an illogicality.

It says to me that their reasoning is unsound.

William Tierney, the former United Nations weapons inspector who unveiled the so-called "Saddam Tapes" at a conference in Arlington, Virginia, Saturday, told National Review Online that God directed him to weapons sites in Iraq and that his belief in the importance of one particular site was strengthened when a friend told him that she had a vision of the site in a dream.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602200720.asp

I have a problem when our leaders profess a strong belief in what I consider an illogicality.

It says to me that their reasoning is unsound.

William Tierney, the former United Nations weapons inspector who unveiled the so-called "Saddam Tapes" at a conference in Arlington, Virginia, Saturday, told National Review Online that God directed him to weapons sites in Iraq and that his belief in the importance of one particular site was strengthened when a friend told him that she had a vision of the site in a dream.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602200720.asp

Guess God didn't want him to find any WMD's, and misdirected him to sites where there wasn't anything to find ?

(sssshhhhh, GWB will think he's off the hook for the war in Iraq, if he can blame the missing WMDs on God)

Creationists are keen to apply critical analysis to Scientific theories but are totally uncritical of the only source of 'Creation Theory' - The Bible.

The veracity of the Bible is in serious doubt, but ... they choose to believe it, they choose to forget that the Bible, like scientific theories, was written by people.

And NO Creationism, and inteligent design should not be taught in schools.

We need critical thought, not blind belief in stories.

I can't understand why Creationism / Intelligent design is taught in US schools. Surely this violates the principle of the separation of church and State?

Wow, this is a balanced thread! Just like the OP, a real scientific title. "15 Answers to creationist nonsense", oh yeah, that's really scientific.

Like I always say, you can believe what you want to believe. Then when it comes to supporting that belief that you are un-willing to change, you can be as biased and unbalanced as you like.

I'll leave you guys to it...

Wow, this is a balanced thread! Just like the OP, a real scientific title. "15 Answers to creationist nonsense", oh yeah, that's really scientific.

Like I always say, you can believe what you want to believe. Then when it comes to supporting that belief that you are un-willing to change, you can be as biased and unbalanced as you like.

I'll leave you guys to it...

Why don't you present some scientific evidence to support your beliefs?

Wow, this is a balanced thread! Just like the OP, a real scientific title. "15 Answers to creationist nonsense", oh yeah, that's really scientific.

Like I always say, you can believe what you want to believe. Then when it comes to supporting that belief that you are un-willing to change, you can be as biased and unbalanced as you like.

I'll leave you guys to it...

I started this thread to generate a little rational discussion and did not mean to ruffle anyone's feathers. The genisis for the thread was that Scientific American article and by no means do I, personally, suscribe to everything outlined within.

My two satangs: A person's faith is that which is his alone and nobody has cause to judge.

I'll leave you guys to it...

Probably best that you do. Lacking any demonstratable reasoning is always a good excuse to skip a discussion.

"God made everthing because.... well... erm.... The Bible says so"

'Don’t be so patronising', might be a good start for an intelligent discussion.

Like I said, '15 answers to creationist nonsense' is not a valid scientific statement.

Also, my coming back and stating alternative views would be a patent waste of time, posters on this thread have already made up their minds.

I have too, by the way, but only after 30 years of study and looking at all the arguements.

Good luck to you if you search for the truth...

I thought you'd left.

Or was that one of those second comings?

I can't understand why Creationism / Intelligent design is taught in US schools. Surely this violates the principle of the separation of church and State?

There are a lot of people in the states that are trying to "blur" that separation. Having failed to get Creationism taught, they shifted gears (slightly) and started pushing "Intelligent Design".

In an increasingly better educated and smarter world, some religions are noticing a decline in their congregations (and therefore their "profits"). This decline has been going on for awhile, and some feel that taking religion out of the classroom is partly to blame (for example, doing away with morning prayers in classrooms).

In order to maintain a healthy (i.e. profitable) flock, those religions have to keep reinforcing the dogma that makes up their religion. Once a week at church isn't enough (obviously), so they are trying to bring it back into the schools (easier to influence young people).

Even Doonesbury "gets it" !

Doonesbury Cartoon

Even Doonesbury "gets it" !

l]

If we're going to be 'even-handed' here, I wouldn't be citing Garry Treudeau(sp) - author of Doonsbury, an un-biased source/example...

Even Doonesbury "gets it" !

l]

If we're going to be 'even-handed' here, I wouldn't be citing Garry Treudeau(sp) - author of Doonsbury, an un-biased source/example...

Why's that Boon Mee, he's not right wing enough for yer?

Even Doonesbury "gets it" !

l]

If we're going to be 'even-handed' here, I wouldn't be citing Garry Treudeau(sp) - author of Doonsbury, an un-biased source/example...

Why's that Boon Mee, he's not right wing enough for yer?

Right Wing?

He's about as Pink as they get!

Only unbiased right-wing-extreme cartoons are allowed to be posted on this forum.

He's about as Pink as they get!

Does that mean left-wingers can't recognize the truth when they see it?

The right-wing has a monopoly on the truth?

Learning diff viewpoints is a necessity, let the intended target determine its relevence.

Personaly I would prefer the teaching of religion in schools to be taught as a foreign language would. I think all the major religions and their ideas and beliefs is a good source of education as it helps us to understand other peoples and their cultures (and ourselves perhaps too). This could include creationism etc. It should be discussed from both a scientific and cultural basis.

However, it should not be taught as part of a science lesson or as a scientific fact or even a viable competing theory - in science lessons, perhaps it should not be mentioned at all - as above for discussion as part of humanities and cultural studies even with a scientific bent - but not in a science class. Children should be taught the prevailing theories - that which is taken as fact until it is disproved or improved upon.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together. Theories are built upon and confirmed by supporting evidence, but it only takes one true disproof to void it. Newton was right for hundreds of years until he wasn't. Theories evolve too - and teaching should follow this (granted not directly), but should not confuse by shooting off in unsupported (in the scientific community that is) directions.

I think religion should be taught by parents and the family of the child - not my schools - as with manors, respect, pride (the good type) and honesty. Of course the schools should not discourage any of this either - but it should only be interested in teaching the curriculum and enforcing the rules, not indoctrination of any sort.

Just my thoughts on it.

When Creationism and/or Intelligent Design can be backed up with solid proof, then it could be taught along side Evolution.

When those theories can prove that the world was created in just 6 days, using more than wild supposition and various interpretations of the bible, then it could be considered a valid subject. As long as those theories expect you to believe everything based on faith alone, it can't be taken seriously.

When Creationism and/or Intelligent Design can be backed up with solid proof, then it could be taught along side Evolution.

When those theories can prove that the world was created in just 6 days, using more than wild supposition and various interpretations of the bible, then it could be considered a valid subject. As long as those theories expect you to believe everything based on faith alone, it can't be taken seriously.

And yet, Science imply a bit of faith...not everything can be prove...at least not yet.

Hume state that science was inductivist therefore can lead to errors...

I do believe in Darwin evolution theory and natural selection, for me there is not other way to explain the diversity in planet earth.

I think creationism don´t reject the evolution theory as whole. But support that the first species were put on earth by god and then evolution took place...(am I right?)

And yet, Science imply a bit of faith...not everything can be prove...at least not yet.

Hume state that science was inductivist therefore can lead to errors...

I do believe in Darwin evolution theory and natural selection, for me there is not other way to explain the diversity in planet earth.

I think creationism don´t reject the evolution theory as whole. But support that the first species were put on earth by god and then evolution took place...(am I right?)

A lot of it depends on who you talk to. What they were brought up to believe and what they've been taught.

That is why there are differing opinions about how it all began (on the Creationism/Intelligent Design side). That is why there are now people that believe in "the young earth theory" and those that believe in the "old earth" theory. There are those that actually believe that people used to live for 1,000+ years, and that ever since "The Flood", our lifespans have been shrinking (despite evidence to the contrary).

As you mentioned, science hasn't been able to prove everything, yet. Science has proven so much though, and continues to solve the mysteries that were once attributed to divine beings.

(Does anyone still believe that Thunder and Lightning are the work of angry gods living in the clouds ? Does anyone believe that eclipses of the sun and moon are signs that the gods are unhappy with us ?)

Given time, I'm sure science will be able to answer, with proof, most if not all of our questions regarding our existence on this one tiny speck of dust floating through the universe. Unfortunately, most of us do not live 1,000+ year lifespans anymore and therefore won't be around when those questions are finally answered.

Wow, this is a balanced thread! Just like the OP, a real scientific title. "15 Answers to creationist nonsense", oh yeah, that's really scientific.

Like I always say, you can believe what you want to believe. Then when it comes to supporting that belief that you are un-willing to change, you can be as biased and unbalanced as you like.

I'll leave you guys to it...

I started this thread to generate a little rational discussion and did not mean to ruffle anyone's feathers. The genisis for the thread was that Scientific American article and by no means do I, personally, suscribe to everything outlined within.

My two satangs: A person's faith is that which is his alone and nobody has cause to judge.

Agreed

Exactly why the whole thnig should be kept out of schools, let youngsters find out what it is on their own. Unlike my early school years where priests would visit class regularly on their recruiting missions.