[b]Creation vs. Evolution[/b]

[SkinWalker]

Creation vs. Evolution

 

Recently, the question of Evolution being taught in public schools arose in Texas, but the context was primarily in regards to updating textbooks to reflect current research and correcting the mistakes of previous editions.

 

Still, there was a considerable push by several fundamentalist Christian groups to include "Creation" or "Creation Science" as alternative "theories" to the theory of evolution. I, personally, found disagreement with their ideas for several reasons:

1. [*] the idea that creation or creation science is a "theory" is ludicrous, since that would mean that it adheres to the definition of theory: being a set of hypotheses that can be tested and can potentially be falsified, making the theory able to predict other things in nature; [*] the idea that church and state should be separate so as not to exclude minority religions is vital; [*] multiple concepts for a single discipline could create confusion in students and perhaps a lack of trust in authorities to teach; and [*] the theory of evolution provides us with at set of hypotheses, many of which have been tested time and again, and allows scientists and researchers to make predictions that bear out with further study.[/list=1]

 

The concept of 'creation' is very likely one that was created by man in order to explain the universe and answer the questions who, why, where and how. As human mythology goes, it has it's place, but we cannot dismiss that the universe is knowable and that we can explain it given enough observation and testing.

 

This is the newest thread to debate all sides of the "creation versus evolution" subject to include creation science, intelligent design, micro/macroevolution, big bang, etc. There are other threads resting within the Senate, but this will be the most current and all-inclusive.

[Rainer511]

I don't typically like to comment on anything that I don't feel totally confident in. I don't know too much about the Apologetics for Biblical Christianity in this area, so unless I decide to research this a bit I doubt I'll do much commenting here. However...

 

the idea that creation or creation science is a "theory" is ludicrous, since that would mean that it adheres to the definition of theory: being a set of hypotheses that can be tested and can potentially be falsified, making the theory able to predict other things in nature;

 

If you define the scientific method as a means of finding truth then you can't prove anything that you have done yesterday. The past itself is not observable, and the past is not repeatable, that is unless we someday make a time machine.

EDIT: Opps forgot to say something here, This obviously goes hand in hand with creation, creation is no more or no less scientific fact by definition of the scientific method than evolution is. I just that I needed to say that.

 

I have heard good points for evolution and I've heard some excellent points for creation as well. Although I believe in creation, I think it should be said that there are Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution. That is believing that God used evolution to create the world, and that the biblical account for creation is merely an analogy for evolution. But then there are also Christians who won't even listen to claims that evolution is valid because they place that into the category of things that we just cannot understand. Although there may be things that fall into that category I think its best to try and understand things before claiming that it isn't understandable. Take Galileo for example, I think at many times the Church is far too closed minded.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I think I might have been on the border of bashing Christians right there depending on how you read it. I strongly believe in Biblical Christianity mostly on the basis that I've seen too much evidence supporting it in other areas, but I've done no reading in evolution vs. creation. Any defenses I could give would be ones I've heard from a teacher which whom I don't hold as accountable for information because I've found he is very closed minded. (or at least the answers he gives me makes him seem that way)

 

I keep trying to end this, then decide to comment once again. Anywho, I think it should be said that someone supporting either side, evolution or creation, should go into it open-mindedly. If you start a debate, and you have already decided for yourself the outcome, the debate is pointless.

[Tyrion]

Evolution is a scientific theory. Just because it could potentially conflict with Christianity, does that mean it cant be taught? If, in a religion, there was something that said that magnets are really the powers of spirts, does that mean you cant teach to the children that magnets are made because of magnetism?

 

It's just another theorectical concept of how we were created. Considering that it's a part of science(if the parents wont allow thier children to learn about evolution, then why even let them be taught science?).

 

Besides,how else will thier children learn of it? They dont excactly have schools to teach evolution, unlike Christian private schools and the such.

 

(P.S. the way you use the scientific method for evolution is just simply hypothosize when you put microrganisms in a different environment from which you found them in. Then just record the results. )

[Rainer511]

(P.S. the way you use the scientific method for evolution is just simply hypothosize when you put microrganisms in a different environment from which you found them in. Then just record the results. )

 

Good point, let me correct myself. I do believe in evolution to a degree, to not would just be idiotic. All changes we have recorded have been within a species. You can't observe such changes between species unless you recorded your info over long periods of time. This still means that you can't prove that it happens using the Scientific Method. Even if you prove that evolution between species happens using the scientific method, you still can't prove that evolution is how we came about. It could be said that although the earth was created with apparent age, animals were given the potential to evolve. I'm not trying to use this to disprove evolution, because if that were so I could do the same with creation. Rather I'm trying to show that the Scientific Method is useless in finding the truth about matters of the past.

 

It's just another theorectical concept of how we were created. Considering that it's a part of science(if the parents wont allow thier children to learn about evolution, then why even let them be taught science?).

 

Besides,how else will thier children learn of it? They dont excactly have schools to teach evolution, unlike Christian private schools and the such.

 

In the public schools I think good points for Creation and Evolution should be given and then let the child decide for himself. And the same should be true for the private school (impling that it isn't, at least from my experience). I tell you now that there is one teacher I have that shadowboxes evolution to the point that if you based evolution off of his account of it no one would believe in evolution.

[Tyrion]

In the public schools I think good points for Creation and Evolution should be given and then let the child decide for himself. And the same should be true for the private school (impling that it isn't, at least from my experience). I tell you now that there is one teacher I have that shadowboxes evolution to the point that if you based evolution off of his account of it no one would believe in evolution.

 

Well, thing is, if you wanted to include christian points, then you have to add alot of the other religion points. Which they do,I suppose. In my history books they've talked about Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and some others. Of course, not in full detail, but enough to understand the basis. Anything it doesnt covers can be covered in the churches or temples of the religion.

 

Good point, let me correct myself. I do believe in evolution to a degree, to not would just be idiotic. All changes we have recorded have been within a species. You can't observe such changes between species unless you recorded your info over long periods of time. This still means that you can't prove that it happens using the Scientific Method. Even if you prove that evolution between species happens using the scientific method, you still can't prove that evolution is how we came about. It could be said that although the earth was created with apparent age, animals were given the potential to evolve. I'm not trying to use this to disprove evolution, because if that were so I could do the same with creation. Rather I'm trying to show that the Scientific Method is useless in finding the truth about matters of the past.

 

Good point,too. Yes, it is rather pointless to think about what happend before written history. Considering the best we could do with the scientific method is just hypothesize. Cant really experiment in the past,now can we?

 

I think that most dont see the evoulution as an absolute truth(it's rather foolish to think anything's absolute these days). The closest we can do to get to the past is using fossils and the raditation testing(name escapes me at the moment).

[Rainer511]

Well, thing is, if you wanted to include christian points, then you have to add alot of the other religion points. Which they do,I suppose. In my history books they've talked about Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and some others. Of course, not in full detail, but enough to understand the basis. Anything it doesnt covers can be covered in the churches or temples of the religion.

 

But your history class won't teach you any points about creation. I would suggest a cosmology class then? Instead of just presenting one theory about origin, devote a class to it giving points for each theory of origin.

 

I disagree with your comment that history books covered those religions though. Let me restate that, I don't believe they cover them well enough so that the student could have any understanding of it, not even the basics (from my experience anyway). This is getting far off topic though, the debate is Evolution vs. Creation, not what should or should not be taught in schools.

[Homuncul]

SkinWalker:

Still, there was a considerable push by several fundamentalist Christian groups to include "Creation" or "Creation Science" as alternative "theories" to the theory of evolution. I, personally, found disagreement with their ideas for several reasons:

 

Totally unacceptable I think. Children should be tought what's more certain and accurate, so developing their rational thinking and common sense. By going this far we can already start dismissing mathematics, physics and history in schools.

 

Rainer911:

You can't observe such changes between species unless you recorded your info over long periods of time. This still means that you can't prove that it happens using the Scientific Method

 

Scientific method is not bound with time limits other than ones that are possible with big crunch (if one's to happen).

 

Even if you prove that evolution between species happens using the scientific method, you still can't prove that evolution is how we came about.

 

The evolution theory in todays enhanced interpretation if proved scientifically (if not considering that it's already proven) would mean that evolution is exactly how we came about.

 

I'm not trying to use this to disprove evolution, because if that were so I could do the same with creation. Rather I'm trying to show that the Scientific Method is useless in finding the truth about matters of the past.

 

Aaaaahhhhh! Hearing this over and over again. Please let's not talk about metaphysics and epistemology as it was not the topic for debate. Facts and rational thinking is required in Senate Chambers not baseless assumptions.

 

If you define the scientific method as a means of finding truth then you can't prove anything that you have done yesterday. The past itself is not observable, and the past is not repeatable, that is unless we someday make a time machine.

 

Please, stop stabing me. We're not in here to question scientific method, cauze if you are I challenge you.

 

Opps forgot to say something here, This obviously goes hand in hand with creation, creation is no more or no less scientific fact by definition of the scientific method than evolution is. I just that I needed to say that.

 

Prepare to fight.... Oh *remembers that anger leads to hate and so on*... Prepare to answer your words.

 

I strongly believe in Biblical Christianity mostly on the basis that I've seen too much evidence supporting it in other areas

 

Please I beg you show me one.

 

but I've done no reading in evolution vs. creation

 

Well maybe you should have, cauze there are too many flaws in your thinking on these matters. If you're interested in comment, I'll give one, but I'm sure it will be also given (if not given already) by an army of senators-evolutionists. Beware.

 

If you start a debate, and you have already decided for yourself the outcome, the debate is pointless.

 

It is not until you have reasonable ideas that might survive criticism.

 

the way you use the scientific method for evolution is just simply hypothosize when you put microrganisms in a different environment from which you found them in. Then just record the results

 

Scientists wouldn't start it all if they weren't for a bit sure that they can recreate such complex invironment.

 

P.S. Scientific method is not strictly about experimental testing, making predictions ad all. It's about better explanations. How many more words of proof do you need to hear from other people. If you dig hard on it, you can see for yourself. What you read in the news paper or heard from some fundamentalists and believed it

 

Rainer511 ponted right that it's pointless to start the debate. And the reason for it is mere ignorance from both sides. Read books first, post second! I believe Skin's idea was to push to that.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Rainer511

If you define the scientific method as a means of finding truth then you can't prove anything that you have done yesterday.

 

The fact of the matter is you cannot prove anything in science. Not absolutely, that is. The proofs we discover in science are the survival of hypotheses that undergo rigorous testing.

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

The past itself is not observable, and the past is not repeatable, that is unless we someday make a time machine.

 

Not entirely true. The past, or snapshots of it, are very observable throught the evidence it leaves behind. If I excavate a village, I might find features such as hearths, walls, trash pits or shell middens as well as artifacts such as pot sherds, tools, flint knaps, etc. These artifacts and features will speak volumes if they're excavated correctly.

 

The same goes for examining the mDNA of hominid remains from Sudan. Dating methods could reveal ages as old as 100,000 to 150,000 years and the mDNA could be compared with the mDNA on record for other finds. By this method, the history of man can be followed geospatially and temporally.

 

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

creation is no more or no less scientific fact by definition of the scientific method than evolution is. I just that I needed to say that.

 

Creation offers little to no scientific fact, basis or methodology. It relies on unbounded religious doctrine (not singling out any religion... most offer various creation myths) and/or documents that cannot be revised and often cannot be questioned.

 

Science, on the other hand, constantly undergoes revision and is bounded by laws of physics (no omnipotent beings to fall back on). Very often, scientists will question each other relentlessly, even ruthlessly, in order to test a hypothesis.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Homuncul

Rainer511 ponted right that it's pointless to start the debate. And the reason for it is mere ignorance from both sides. Read books first, post second! I believe Skin's idea was to push to that.

 

One of the things that I like about debating via message board on the internet is the propensity for it to turn into a learning adventure.

 

Typically there are 2 or 3 hardlined posters on either side of a forum debate that will seldom be convinced of the others' side. But there are many more who are softlined posters who are sitting on the fence... or those who simply follow the debate without posting at all (lurkers... that's right, I see you ).

 

Regardless of where you sit, you learn. To keep up with the other side of the argument, you will have to educate yourself. In so doing, you educate others by posting what you find. This is why you will see me leave a reference or two at the ends of my posts every so often.

 

The idea of creation is very foreign and ludicrous to those of us who are well-versed and understanding of epistomology (the study of knowledge), the hard sciences (biology, physics, chemistry) and the human sciences (anthropology, archaeology, psychology, etc.).

 

But to those who are not so well studied, or to those who have been raised in a religious culture, creation is as much an accepted fact as the periodic table to the rest of us.

 

It's okay... we can save them. Have you heard the word of Hydrogen today?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Rainer511

You can't observe such changes between species unless you recorded your info over long periods of time. This still means that you can't prove that it happens using the Scientific Method.

 

False. The Scientific Method merely requires reproducable results confirming the predictions made by your theory. In no way does this exclude looking into the past.

 

Originally posted by Rainer511

In the public schools I think good points for Creation and Evolution should be given and then let the child decide for himself.

 

Certainly. Good points should be made... Which will leave Creation far away from Biology classrooms...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I'm trying to show that the Scientific Method is useless in finding the truth about matters of the past.

 

Oh oh...

 

I guess this means we'd better release from prison anybody who has ever been convicted of a crime through scientific investigation (e.g. forensic evidence).

 

Why would you possibly think that studying evidence avaliable in the current day is a 'useless' method of determining the past?!

 

A building is found burnt to the ground. A trail of footprints are found that lead to and from the building. These footprints lead to the house of a boy. In the boys bedroom are 100 boxes of matches, posters of burning buildings all over the walls, scribbled notes all over the floor which read 'I like to burn buildings to the ground' and on his calender he has penciled in for the day before 'Burn a building down'.

...would you say in this case it isn't possible to determine with a VERY HIGH certainty what caused the building to burn down?

(Of course I've made this particular case so outrageous to emphasise the point, that in realty you would have to consider whether the boy was being set up somehow!!)

 

 

Of course a time machine would be ideal! When you happen to come across one, let us all know and we can go for a quick spin through history. (Although someone had better not forget the bloody plutonium. The flux capacitor can be a right pain-in-the-arse to fire up otherwise..!)

 

...but until then, I'd rather keep my mind within the realms of reality and search for the truth using the most efficient, effective and unbiased method known to mankind ... Science...

[Homuncul]

...but until then, I'd rather keep my mind within the realms of reality and search for the truth using the most efficient, effective and unbiased method known to mankind ... Science...

 

I'm crying, cauze I'm so happy. An Oscar, give him an Oscar, please!

[Eldritch]

*presents shiny gold Oscar statuette to ClosetheBlastDo*

You deserve it, man.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

 

Well - this is so - I mean, I just didn't expect this!

 

I would like to thank the Academy, my family (I love you Mum), my friends...

[Master_Keralys]

the idea that creation or creation science is a "theory" is ludicrous, since that would mean that it adheres to the definition of theory: being a set of hypotheses that can be tested and can potentially be falsified, making the theory able to predict other things in nature;

the idea that church and state should be separate so as not to exclude minority religions is vital;

multiple concepts for a single discipline could create confusion in students and perhaps a lack of trust in authorities to teach; and

the theory of evolution provides us with at set of hypotheses, many of which have been tested time and again, and allows scientists and researchers to make predictions that bear out with further study.

 

Your very ideas are biased in nature. When Christians advocate the teaching of "creation", what would actually be taught is that there are other theories, namely intelligent design. This theory states that there are an inordinate number of evidences that indicate that life by its very nature is designed. this is a fully verifiable theory, at least to the extent that any scientific theory regarding the origin of life. Such proofs as irreducible complexity and the Anthropic Principle are not easily dismissed, but are frequently ignored by the evolution crowd. Moreover, the evolutionists frequently dismiss anything that doesn't line up with their theory as "bogus" or "hokey religions" .

 

Secondly, the separation of church and state has nothing to do with this argument, however much certain parties want people to think so. In reality, any scientific argument which can be defended intelligently is worth being investigated - and taught, so that students can come to their own, informed conclusions.

 

Finally, the very basis of science is that there is more than one theory. Rather than breeding confusion, this teaches one to think critically and try to find the correct solution - not the majority answer. The multiplicity of scientific theories is the only thing that guarantees a progression of science, for it forces scientists to constantly be refining and bettering the existing theories in competition with each other.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I must actually agree with Master_Keralys here (surprise surprise!!)

 

I certainly would not describe creationist theory as 'ludicrous'. I know many VERY intelligent and sensible people who believe in creationist theories...

 

I would however call SOME creationist theorys 'ludicrous'.

Theory's like the earth is only 7000 years old, or dinasour fossils were placed by the devil to tempt us into disbelieving in God - for example!

 

...but I'm not willing to dismiss it out of hand altogether. (Sorry Homonocul, I know your heart is bleeding again - but I just can't repress the inner agnostic!)

 

 

What I was mainly fighting against in my last post was the idea that science CAN'T give real answers about the past.

Put it this way - if creationist theory IS true, then the evidence should still back it up.

i.e. just because a being called God might be (thoretically) involved, doesn't mean studing evidence is suddenly 'useless'!

 

As far as I'm concerned, evolution has FAR more scientific backing than creationism - and therefore I consider it FAR more likely to be the truth...

[Homuncul]

Master_Keralys :

This theory states that there are an inordinate number of evidences that indicate that life by its very nature is designed. this is a fully verifiable theory, at least to the extent that any scientific theory regarding the origin of life. Such proofs as irreducible complexity and the Anthropic Principle are not easily dismissed, but are frequently ignored by the evolution crowd. Moreover, the evolutionists frequently dismiss anything that doesn't line up with their theory as "bogus" or "hokey religions" .

 

The "theory" of intellegent design doesn't prove anything except one thing: that humans do very much like to mix their own would-like-to-bes with scientific reasoning. Saying that evolution theory is absurd because our universe constants are well tuned (by god) to support life is as baseless as trying to argue creation itself (we only still argue it because the majority of population is convinced in creation by the church or whatever). These are good ideas of course, but the same and old what-if-god could be simply directed to what-if-many-worlds por ejemplo or some other ideas. I'm not disagreeing with having scientific faith here for it is obvious that no scientific creativeness is possible without one. I only try to point that we have to choose one (that is better) and dismiss the other unless we can unify them in some way which is highly unlikely to happen. science doesn't say universal things, it says what's here and now. Here and now it is evolution.

 

Finally, the very basis of science is that there is more than one theory. Rather than breeding confusion, this teaches one to think critically and try to find the correct solution - not the majority answer. The multiplicity of scientific theories is the only thing that guarantees a progression of science, for it forces scientists to constantly be refining and bettering the existing theories in competition with each other.

 

Noone I guess would ever argue that. Good point.

 

Secondly, the separation of church and state has nothing to do with this argument, however much certain parties want people to think so. In reality, any scientific argument which can be defended intelligently is worth being investigated - and taught, so that students can come to their own, informed conclusions.

 

I..... agree. And would like religions to be studied at schools but not propogaded as true.

 

So I've finnished with one... let's take another one:D

 

CloseTheBlastDo:

...but I'm not willing to dismiss it out of hand altogether. (Sorry Homonocul, I know your heart is bleeding again - but I just can't repress the inner agnostic!)

 

But why, you just have to keep them in mind with other fault tolerent experience.

 

Let's entertain ourselves. In layman terms knowledge is recognition that something is true (*agnostics say bulls**t*) on sufficient objective and subjective basis. There are 4 possible results of cognition process:

 

1. Opinion (this is what we all have and proud to share but which gives no knowledge at all)

2. Guess (which is a a vision of result intangibly and which brings no knowledge at all)

3. Faith (which is conscious and willing recognition of something as true just because they said so, excluding any objectivity. It is also divided into religious faith: supernatural and noncritical vision of the world, scientific: a push lever for science, and idealistic: the most dangerous one, agressive, fanatic and illusory)

4. Knowledge (what to say?)

 

I'm not really argueing here I mind you and ask the question (and to everybody else of course). Considering what was said with how many points can you dismiss evolution theory as not THE KNOWLEDGE. Then let's do the same with creation.

 

EDIT: And Blasdo, I've run out of blood because of you, and I want yours: you see a beautiful lady staring at you with empty eye lids, you beware of her, she can do terrible things when angry, and she's terribly angry at you.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

you see a beautiful lady staring at you with empty eye lids, you beware of her, she can do terrible things when angry, and she's terribly angry at you.

 

Man - she's right here next to me now!

And your right, she does look a bit miffed!! I'm gonna be careful what I type...!

 

In layman terms knowledge is recognition that something is true (*agnostics say bulls**t*) on sufficient objective and subjective basis

 

We used to know that the atom was the smallest particle in existence. We used to know that the effect of gravitational attraction between two bodies happens instantaniously (whereas we know now that it is limited to the speed of light).

 

The truth is the truth. But our knowledge of the truth as human beings has changed, is changing now and will always change over time.

My agnostic view is only trying to respect this 'truth'.

 

I've said this before though - there is not a massive difference between our viewpoints - and I totally respect yours.

I would only add a few words to your statement above:

 

In layman terms knowledge is recognition that something [has the best chance to be] true on sufficient objective and subjective basis...

 

..oh oh - your femme fetale friend is looking at me funny again...!

 

Considering what was said with how many points can you dismiss evolution theory as not THE KNOWLEDGE.

 

No, I can't think of one solid point which refutes evolution.

 

At the end of the day...

 

I think evolution is the truth.

I DON'T think (irrational) creationist theory is the truth.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that something won't be dug up tomorrow which might possibly force me to re-think my viewpoint.

 

It also doesn't mean that I think all creationist theory is utter cack that isn't even worth listening to.

Not ALL creationist theory actually claims that evolution is false. Not ALL creationist theory is in fact irrational. At least by my definition...

 

There is a big difference between a wrong theory, and a ludicrous theory.

 

e.g. Aristotle came up with the theory of four basic elements which made up all matter in the universe. (Earth, Wind, Fire and Water).

 

The theory was wrong - but I would not call it a ludicrious theory. In fact as a theory, it was quite a good one. It made specific predictions that could be logically quantified and tested...

[Master_Keralys]

This is wierd, but CloseTheBlastDo and I agree way to much. Just because a theory doesn't line up with your personal conceptions doesn't mean its inherently wrong. In fact, in every way, intelligent design is just as valid a theory as evolution. It does make predictions that can be verified or falsified.

 

In fact, the biggest problem with evolutionary theory right now is that most scientists are looking to prove evolutionary theory. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Good science tries to disprove theories. You can find all the evidence you want to prove a given theory; you're looking for it! You can even make whatever evidence you do find fit your theory when you're trying to prove it.

 

A better methodology is to try to disprove it. Come up with an experiment that will show your theory to be blatantly false if it's not exactly right. That's what Einstein did with general relativity. That's what scientists today should be doing. They're not.

 

As a side note, I recommend Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial to any and all evolutionists. It's not just Christian propaganda, it's good hard science, and it makes good reading. It is also good for both sides of a debate to be equally well informed. Just as evolutionists expect those of us on the other side to be informed about what their theory really says, not the propaganda; we expect the same of them.

 

Anyone who reads it will also learn a lot, regardless of conclusions they come to in the end.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

 

I recommend Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial to any and all evolutionists.

 

 

That book definelty sounds interesting.

 

I would say I'll definetly get to reading it, but unfortunately I've already said that for about 10 other books! But I never get round to it these days...

 

Anyway, your absolutely right. If evolution IS correct, it will withstand any experiment or rational inspection. Whether the experiment or inspection is intented to prove it or disprove it is irrelavent.

 

And it is often MUCH easier to disprove a theory than prove it!

 

 

...but also let's not lose sight of the first point SkinWalker made right at the beginning of this thread.

 

What do we teach our Kids?

 

Now, this is a moral question, and as such is not really a matter of rationality.

 

I think as long as you make it clear to kids that ANY theory, or ANY human knowledge is, to a certain or lesser extent, fluid, then I don't think it's WRONG to teach either theories.

...what I would see as wrong is refusing to talk AT ALL about either.

 

...although I DO think it can be argued one theory can be - perhaps - given more emphasis than another not only on a rational basis, but a popular basis.

 

...I know, just because most people in a given area believe in Evolution over Creationism, doesn't make Evolution right and Creationism wrong. I know.

 

But trying to teach kids the complexities of how we know truth is probably at bit much at that age.

 

And if you teach both as equally 'true', that's just plain confusing.

 

I don't really claim to have the answer on this one really to be honest...

[Master_Keralys]

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

I don't really claim to have the answer on this one really to be honest...

 

I don't think anyone does. But I think that to teach them how the world really works, you have to point out that the one theory isn't either true or the only theory. Which is common in public schools today, especially at the grade and middle school levels.

 

In order to create a generation of thinkers and leaders, not just reciters and followers, we have to teach critical thinking. Now, I'm not talking saying both are true: I'm saying we should be honest and tell them that we don't know.

 

Which is dangerous, because then we admmit that we're not infallible. You get the point...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I understand the point.

I'm not sure where we draw the line though...

 

Let's say we preface every 'evolution' or 'creationist' lesson with:

 

'Now kids, this isn't for certain, but...'

 

 

Ok - fine.

 

But now, do we do the same when we teach kids that the earth isn't round, just because some people in the world insist it's flat?

 

DON'T get me wrong - I'm not saying analogies between flat / round earth camps and evolution / creationistic camps are fair - OR that creational or evolution theories are lacking in evidence ANYWHERE NEAR the extent of flat earth theories - FAR from it...

 

But the point - in principle -still remains.

 

Also, it's worth considering how 'opposing' the theories are too.

 

I think it's fair to say 'Flat earth' and 'Round / globe earth' theories are pretty much opposite!

 

However, Creationist and evolution theories actually HAVE many aspects in common - depending on the individual theories.

 

...for example, Adaption vs. Evolution...

 

None of this answers the question of what is RIGHT to teach of course - just added thoughts really...

[Darth Eggplant]

Little Doorway Revolver

the Elevator it needs mending

can not use the Stairs,

they lead Nowhere

and the Escalator lost it's keys

Revolver, Revolving Door

can not stand still

in the Revolving Door

time won't allow that

Revolving Door;

 

The endless circle

going nowhere fast

going everywhere,

Future, Present, Past

have to use the Revolving Door,

where we are next to the Dinosaur;

 

The Computer behind us

Revolving Door

over there I see a Dodo bird

Revolving Door

a Fedora hat in the Forties,

then a Fedora hat in the Eighties;

Depression in the Thirties,

Recession on the Television

catch it all in a blur,

a glimpse

Revolving Door;

 

A look at Darwin's Chimp

and an order of Fish and Chips

remembering yesterday:

We were the Fish

a Fish Fry to end all,

a Fish Fry to begin anew

Ashes to Dust,

Dust to Fish;

We are Fish again

Revolving Door;

 

Hello,

Goodbye Wheel

Henry planting ideas;

on the Highway passing

the Henry Ford Plant

eating Vegetables

eating Meat

life in a Cave wall in a cliff;

life in a Condominium apartment

All things change; all changing,

all things staying the same;

never changing

Revolving Door;

 

Life in Continuum

continuation of life

the Revolving Door,

can I get off this cycle?

Yes, but of course.

Only onto the next one however

Revolving Door;

Life you see is a viscous game

when you are a Universal Cog

little Doorway,

Revolver.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

...in the voice of Homer Simpson...

 

MMMMMM - DEEP!!