Georgia wants to remove "evolution" from the curricula

[THE BADGER:]

Don't bother trying to take evolution out of the curriculum, it's a stupid idea to take a valid idea out of the curriculum.

 

Why is it that only evolution can be taught and not creation. To you they are both ideas. Why not teach both and let the child decide for themselves.

 

Adding Creationist nonsense to the curriculum? Sheesh... There are what? Twenty 'arguments' for it. They can be presented and refuted within the week - comfortably.

 

If they're were only "20 arguments" as you say than wouldn't you think that evolution would be a law now and not still just be a theory? No one can prove that evolution, or creation for that matter, is real. There is evidence supporting both sides.

[El Sitherino]

name me some evidence that proves creationism.

 

 

and no, you can't teach creationism because it is religious, the school is not allowed to force religious beliefs upon students, by making them study it's forcing.

evolution is a theory because it applies to it's own rules. it's an ever adapting thing. that's the whole purpose to evolution, things change.

 

If you actually studied evolution you'd realize that.

[THE BADGER:]

name me some evidence that proves creationism.

 

Name me some evidence that proves evolution exist? You can't, thats why it's a theory. And a theory can be proved. Thats why there is laws. Laws were once theory's. It's just technology has not allowed us to prove it or disapprove it. Just like at one time the whole world thought we were the center of the universe. And adding creationism to a schools curriculum is not forcing religion on anyone. It is simple showing both sides of the spectrum. Isn't teaching only one side forcing children to only believe in evolution? Your forcing them by saying evolution is the only way possible that we are here on earth. And separation of church and state was not intended to allow for the removal of God in everything that has to do with the government. But thats another debate I guess.

 

Oh... and don't assume that just because I don't believe in evolution that I have not studied it. You thought just because I questioned it that I am ignorant to it, shame on you.

 

Here is a snippet of a website I thought was interesting:

 

http://www.ldsmag.com/lineuponline/030107chances.html

 

When people find out I am a pretty recent convert, they often ask me why I converted. The answer has mostly to do with a heart-changing experience with the Holy Spirit. But there is another point that bears considering: before I became a member of the church I rarely spent much time thinking about the Big Questions.

 

One of the most important, of course, is: why do we exist? Why are we here and what is our purpose?

 

To answer this, we must first define what “here” means. The largest definition is “the universe.” The universe was either created by a supreme being with extreme intelligence or it developed randomly by chance. There are no other possibilities. If you believe that some intelligence created the universe, you, therefore, believe in some kind of God.

 

 

What are the chances that our universe was created by accident?

 

The more scientists ponder this issue the more convinced they become that the chances are minuscule, approaching zero.

 

A fascinating recent article in Wired magazine notes that scientists are increasingly turning to theologians and philosophers to get answers to the Big Questions. Pure science, it seems, is not the objective reality many of its high priests claim. Some of the most forward-thinking scientists admit they simply don’t have enough information to back up the often-repeated claim that science can declare victory over superstitious thinking linked to religion.

 

To quote the article: “In recent years, Allan Sandage, one of the world’s leading astronomers, has declared that the big bang can be understood only as a ‘miracle.’ Charles Townes, a Nobel-winning physicist and co inventor of the laser, has said that discoveries of physics ‘seem to reflect intelligence at work in natural law.’ Biologist Christian de Duve, also a Nobel winner, points out that science argues neither for nor against the existence of a deity.” (Note 1)

 

This article was truly groundbreaking. It appeared in one of the most cutting-edge modern publications and quoted some of the leading scientists of our day. And of course this only scratches the surface on the changes going on in the scientific world regarding religious thought.

 

For years, the world’s greatest sophisticates loved to point out how our existence was simply a result of fickle chance. The universe, they said, accidentally came into being and so did we humans. But some of the best scientists are now beginning to realize that such “advanced” thinking is remarkably short-sighted.

 

Dr. Hugh Ross in his book “The Creator and the Cosmos” compares the accidental creation of our universe to the possibility of a Boeing 747 aircraft being completely and flawlessly assembled as a result of a tornado striking a junkyard. If just one material was wrong, the whole “aircraft” would fall to pieces. In fact, the universe was created with just the right materials at just the right time.

 

Ross describes 35 scientific parameters for the universe to exist. For example, if the gravitational force were larger, stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and if it were smaller stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite. Ross says the only reasonable conclusion is that somebody must have planned the construction the universe. (Note 2)

 

Paul Davies went from promoting atheism to concluding that “the laws [of physics]…seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.” Davies went on to say: there “is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.” (Note 3)

 

I can come to only one conclusion: the universe exists because a Creator created it. I am “here” in this universe because this Creator put me here. Then, I must ask, how did I become a human being on this Earth.

 

 

What are the chances that I accidentally evolved from some lower organism in a primordial soup without the involvement of this Creator?

 

I have some serious reservations about the theory of evolution. Given the two choices of the Biblical accounts (with additional knowledge from modern-day revelation) and evolution, I continue to choose the former. But a majority of scientists today don't agree with me and stick to evolution. Fine, let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that evolution is correct. Then, what are the chances that it took place without a Creator’s involvement? An increasing number of scientists are beginning to recognize the chances of evolution without the involvement of a supreme being are minuscule, approaching zero.

 

Dr. Jerry R. Bergman, a biologist, points out that the body has an estimated 75 trillion cells. How long would it take for these cells to be assembled in their current shape randomly? The amount of time approaches infinity, considerably longer than the existence of the Earth. His conclusion: “Complex ordered structures of any kind (of which billions must exist in the body for it to work) cannot happen except by design and intelligence.” (Note 4)

 

Molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculated that if you were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond with it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions would be one in 10 to the 100,000,000,000. Again, the Earth has not existed long enough for those chances to bear fruit. (Note 5)

 

Geneticist James A. Allan points out that for man to accidentally evolve from apes, an awful lot of mutating, genetic drift and natural selection had to have taken place. At the very least, the earth would have needed a pool of 150 billion pre-humans. The fossil record indicates there were probably no more than a few million pre-humans, far fewer than the pool necessary to provide for accidental evolution without divine guidance. (Note 6)

 

The more honest evolutionists know this. Given the limited amount of time that the Earth has existed, they know it is not reasonable for them to suppose that we human beings, with all of our complexities, randomly came about. So many of them recently have begun to speculate about asteroids or space ships with advanced life forms crashing onto Earth millions of years ago. Is that any more wild or far-fetched than believing in God?

 

Note 1: “The New Convergence,” Wired Magazine, By Gregg Easterbrook, December 2002.

 

Note 2: “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (NavPress, 2001)

 

Note 3: References are Paul Davies, “God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983, pp 3-42, 142-143; Paul Davies, “Superforce” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243; Paul Davies, “The Cosmic Blueprint” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), p. 203)

 

Note 4: “In Six Days,” edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000).

 

Note 5: “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (NavPress, 2001)

 

Note 6: “In Six Days,” edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000), p. 131

 

 

EDIT: Oh.... and I'm am not saying that evolution does not excised. We can see some sort of evolution all the time, be it erosion of land or or adaptation of a animal looking for food. But thats the way God intended it to be. But I do not believe the evolution that you may be referring to,

pond scum>reptiles>apes>humans. I know I skipped a few steps.

 

EDIT 2: And why when creationism was removed from public school curriculum nobody said a thing, but when someone spoke up about evolution being the only thing taught in public schools everyone is upset?

[ET Warrior]

What I want to know is, what exactly would they say in a course about creationism?

"A God/gods created everything.

 

Test tomorrow, class dismissed"

 

And all your evidence for creationism really doesn't prove christian creationism, nor does it disprove the random chance. It in effect merely points out how little we know and how much more we have to learn.

 

You say that scientists turn to theologians for answers, but that is because we don't have the technology to answer them yet. Scientists used to BE theologians, they thought up answers to things we couldn't understand at the time and yet now we take for granted as common knowledge (Gravity, The Earth is round, planetary orbits, etc.).

 

Often creationists cite the human eye as evidence of intelligent design, since there are imperfections that make it so only a few minor things have to go wrong and it won't work, but to me that's more evidence against intelligent design. If you were making a human eye and you had infinite powers, would you not make it as foolproof as you could? So that half of it could be broken and it would still have some functionality? Especially when creating creatures whose most important sense is sight.

[THE BADGER:]

What I want to know is, what exactly would they say in a course about creationism?

A God/gods created everything.

 

I don't know, not my job to write the curriculum. But thats is creationism.

 

And all your evidence for creationism really doesn't prove Christian creationism, nor does it disprove the random chance. It in effect merely points out how little we know and how much more we have to learn.

 

Thats was the point. That we don't know if either is true, but why only teach one side of the spectrum? Just because one is a little more easier to believe does not prove it's right.

 

 

Often creationists cite the human eye as evidence of intelligent design, since there are imperfections that make it so only a few minor things have to go wrong and it won't work, but to me that's more evidence against intelligent design. If you were making a human eye and you had infinite powers, would you not make it as foolproof as you could? So that half of it could be broken and it would still have some functionality? Especially when creating creatures whose most important sense is sight.

 

The whole human body is frail. We were not meant to be perfect.

A unintelligent being would make the eye perfect, along with the rest of the body. Stay with me here.....If He made us perfect than we wouldn't need Him. Our body's are not meant to last forever. Well they were in the beginning, but sin removed that. I'm sorry I'm rambaling...

 

All I am saying you can't prove something to be true without proving another wrong. Evolution is just a theory, but the human race accepts it because its easier to believe for some reason.

[jack "odc" one.]

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

Ross describes 35 scientific parameters for the universe to exist. For example, if the gravitational force were larger, stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and if it were smaller stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite.

It's just a well balanced universe. And noone can really say WHAT would happen with larger or lesser gravitational force.

But simply thought (and according to "our known gravitational force"), by a less gravitational force stars, planets objects would/could be larger and vice versa. It's possible that it is mainly just changing the "critical" mass.

 

Paul Davies went from promoting atheism to concluding that “the laws [of physics]…seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.” Davies went on to say: there “is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.”

Again, maybe it's "just" a well balanced system.

 

Dr. Jerry R. Bergman, a biologist, points out that the body has an estimated 75 trillion cells. How long would it take for these cells to be assembled in their current shape randomly? The amount of time approaches infinity, considerably longer than the existence of the Earth. His conclusion: “Complex ordered structures of any kind (of which billions must exist in the body for it to work) cannot happen except by design and intelligence.”

No body has 75 million cells ad hoc, firstly we all grow from only 1 cell, to what we are when we die. And how many cells must a dinosaur have had?

 

Molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculated that if you were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond with it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions would be one in 10 to the 100,000,000,000. Again, the Earth has not existed long enough for those chances to bear fruit.

What is the point of this statement?

 

Geneticist James A. Allan points out that for man to accidentally evolve from apes, an awful lot of mutating, genetic drift and natural selection had to have taken place. At the very least, the earth would have needed a pool of 150 billion pre-humans. The fossil record indicates there were probably no more than a few million pre-humans, far fewer than the pool necessary to provide for accidental evolution without divine guidance.

In fact a lot of mutation, genetic drifting and natural selection has happened, with or without "pre-humans". It's only likely that this has happened with apes/pre-humans too. And it's very likely that there where many different "stages" of pre-humanity, and many sure didn't make it. I don't think it was like only ONE kind of apes developed into pre-humans and so on.

 

I see a tendency here to interprete "us" and the whole universe, the existence of it all a special thing, "a big machine" if you want. I think this is mainly because some fo us don't want to feel lost, want to have a meaning, an answer to the question.

I have basically no problem with that, but

A) If 'creation' has occured, then all this cannot be just created, there are many facts speaking against it, so it only could have been initiated, like "turning the big machine on", so as if we start an experiment to see what happens.

B) If 'creation' has occured, then this process of "creation" was surely NOT intended to "make" humans in the first place, mostly it it was done because of creation itself or to "create" a universe.

C) If 'creation' has occured, then it was NOT done by a 'god', i rather would call it another (higher? more developed? ancient? "alien"?) life-form and also most likely NOT just by ONE of "them".

 

Of course that is only a way to see 'creation', or to think of how there can be a "rational" possibility for it. And i rather see it that way than accept a whole, for me questionable, religion for it. For me 'creation' is only catched up by religion, the principle of it can exist without religion. And surely it is not like everythinig was "created" like it is now (or nearly like it is), like i said, it could/would have been more a kind of "initiating things" and the idea of evolution still has to take place.

[El Sitherino]

I was saying you don't understand evolution because you say it's still just a theory, if you studied evolution you'd realize it's subject to it's own rules, thus it can only stay a theory because it's constantly changing.

 

If you want proof of evolution I suggest you consult Skinwalker. He has an abundance of fun links ^_^

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

Why not teach both and let the child decide for themselves.

 

One is a convergance of evidence in multiple disciplines science comprised of tested hypotheses. The other is comprised of mythologies as told in several hundred mythologies of the world's religions. Which version of creation does one teach and what evidence does one use to source the curriculum in order to offer validity?

 

 

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

If they're were only "20 arguments" as you say than wouldn't you think that evolution would be a law now and not still just be a theory?

 

Evolutionary theory isn't a law primarily because it is comprised of many observations that cannot be reduced to a single, simple statement. This is what happens with scientific laws, and such is the case with "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" when discussing the Laws of Conservation of matter.

 

That doesn't divert from the idea that evolution is a fact. It has occured on this planet and every discipline of science contains observable evidence that points to the same conclusions.

 

 

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

No one can prove that evolution, or creation for that matter, is real. There is evidence supporting both sides.

 

Then I must agree with InsaneSith when he implied that you are not educated on the subject of evolution. This is a real problem in today's society and American public schools. There is a plethora of evidence supporting evolution and absolutely none which supports any of the several hundred creation mythologies. In otherwords, there is a scientific explanation for how things came to be on this world, not a magical one.

[toms]

ok, so we have:

 

Evolution: Theory supported by 100s of independently verifiable facts, but not conclusivly "proveable" as it is a theory not a law.

 

Particle Physics: Supported by 100s of independently verifiable facts, but not conclusivly "proveable" as we don't have the technology.

 

Gravity: Supported by billions of observable instances, but we can't 100% prove that next time we drop something it will fall.

 

Creationism: Nice story supported by almost no independently verifiable facts and contradicted by a number of well recognised facts.

 

Tolkien's version of creation: Nice story supported by almost no independently verifiable facts and contradicted by a number of well recognised facts.

 

Matrix Theory: We are all inside a computer simulation but don't know it. Interesting theory supported by no independently verifiable facts, but a few well supported hypotheses.

 

So which of the above rate being taught in schools? All? None? Those with the supporters that shout the loudest? The newest? The oldest?

Those that have a reasonable chance of being true?

[CapNColostomy]

Isn't Georgia also the state that caught all that flak for having a statue of the ten commandments in a courthouse? Didn't they have to remove this oh-so-threatening and offensive statue eventually as well? Well what's good for the goose, is the old expression that comes to mind here.

[THE BADGER:]

Isn't Georgia also the state that caught all that flak for having a statue of the ten commandments in a courthouse? Didn't they have to remove this oh-so-threatening and offensive statue eventually as well?

 

No thats in Alabama.

 

Which version of creation does one teach and what evidence does one use to source the curriculum in order to offer validity

 

Good point. I have never thought of it that way.

 

"matter can neither be created nor destroyed"

 

So far technology has not allowed us to make something out of nothing.

 

I was saying you don't understand evolution because you say it's still just a theory, if you studied evolution you'd realize it's subject to it's own rules, thus it can only stay a theory because it's constantly changing.

 

I was saying that it will always be a theory because neither side will try to disprove the other. It's always I'm right and your wrong. Why can't we fuse science and religion together. Working together we could find a answer to the big question.

 

You say that evolution cannot be proved. Why not since there is so much evidence that supports it? Evolution doesn't change so fast that we cannot keep up with it.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

You say that evolution cannot be proved. Why not since there is so much evidence that supports it? Evolution doesn't change so fast that we cannot keep up with it.

I didn't say such a thing. I said it will always stay a theory because it is always changing itself, thus it can never become a law. it doesn't matter how fast it changes, a theory can only be accepted as a law when it is proven and found unchanging.

[toms]

a law is something that can be proven/solved - such as e=mc(squared)

 

evolution isn't a single rule/law that can be proved/solved it is a combination of individual rules/laws put together to form a theory that matches all available evidence.

 

Just because it is a theory doesn't mean it is hypothetical, a "scientific" theory is different to a general speculative theory (eg: a consipiracy theory).

 

Even if we had a million times more evidence to support evolution it would still just be a "theory".

 

Theory [1]: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This would be a scientific theory, such as evolution.

 

Theory [2]: Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

Theory [3]: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

These would be speculation based on limited knowledge, a different kind of theory.

[SkinWalker]

Well the retards in Georgia at it again.

 

A trial began today to determine whether the sticker that the creationist nutters put in state biology books violates the separation of church & state. The sticker reads, ""This textbook may discuss evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans."

 

This is indicative of the quality of education that already exists in the Peach State. First, evolution is not a controversial subject among scientists. To biologists and anthropologists, its the bedrock of all their work. Second, evolution does not explain the "origin of living things." It merely describes how living things give rise to new species of living things, not how life began.

 

If these nutters win their fight to keep their stickers in biology books, I want stickers put in bibles that read, "This book may discuss magic, superstition, and mythical beings and may not be an actual account of history, since there are many christians to whom inerrency of the "word" is a controversial subject...."

 

Their argument is that there "alternative theories" to evolution. The problem is, there really aren't.

 

 

Click here to see how some states handle the topic of evolution. Missouri, for instance, filed a bill in 2004 requiring equal time for "Intelligent Design" whenever evolution was taught. What boneheads. What pseudoscience.

[Hiroki]

Wow...how did I miss this thread for so long?

 

Actually, many Christians use the Adam and Eve story as more of a metaphor...not as the literal fact of how life was created. I believe God started off a creation process, let it run on its own for a bit, but then started to guide it at some point to its current state.

 

Why? Because in the several hundred million years of life the Earth has had, the string of sentient human species that suddenly popped up, despite some of the devastation that happened to the earth at the time, does seem like it had a helping hand.

 

And when you consider how most species took millions upon millions of years to evolve and change, the hominid family did do it rather quickly. Okay, very quickly. It also seems like a bit of divine intervention to me.

 

Where humans made in God's image? I think so. The story of the tree of knowledge perhaps represents man's lust for knowledge, his greed, his desire to always have more, and never be content. That can corrupt even the purest heart and soul.

 

Also, though this may seem like a bit of a long shot for some, it said God created us in a expanse of 6 days ( He rested on the 7th. ) Well, God has existed for Eternity right? How long is a day for somebody who has lived for all time? A million years sound good to anybody else?

 

When you take all of this into mind, I think it doesn't deduct, but enhances the thought of God's amazing power. Rather than just go BLAM! It's done, he took his time, and made sure he did it right. That is what I believe, in any case.

[Spider AL]

So as regards the thread topic, Hiroki, are you in favour of creationism being taught in lieu of evolutionary science, or what?

[El Sitherino]

I think everyone in that state should be beaten for making such a big deal out of a f**king school class, it's 36weeks, get over it. -_-

[wassup]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I think everyone in that state should be beaten for making such a big deal out of a f**king school class, it's 36weeks, get over it. -_-

 

For some reason (I wouldn't know, I don't have a child), some parents today are very uptight and protective of their children. Not neccessarily a bad thing, but like everything else, there are certain times and circumstances at which it can be harmful. It is regretful that these people are not letting their children discover the world for themselves through personal experience and individuality, and instead trying to dictate their children's lives. The overly-exaggerating media is partly to blame, among other factors.

[Hiroki]

Originally posted by Spider AL

So as regards the thread topic, Hiroki, are you in favour of creationism being taught in lieu of evolutionary science, or what?

 

Well, I think it should be an optional course in school. And when taught, it should be taught as something along the lines of my post above. Many of the story's in the Bible should be told for what they are, moral guidelines, and lessons for Christians. Not as literal events.

 

Some of the stories in the Bible are true, such as the story of Jesus and many of the wars discussed in it, but some are merely there to teach the Christian way, I believe.

 

Hehe, off topic, and no offence…but I love how you Brits spell ‘favor’ 'armor' and such.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Hiroki

Well, I think it should be an optional course in school.

 

Bull.... if students of public school want to hear mythical origins of creation, they can enroll in their religion's equivalent of christianity's bible study.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

Why can't we fuse science and religion together?

 

Because science is a convergance of evidence. Religions are an exclusion of evidence.

 

In science, all disciplines converge on some basic truths and support one another's ideas, concepts, and theories.

 

With religion, there are many faiths and denominations, each professing to be the one true belief and they ignore or reject that which criticises or disproves their individual doctrines. Religions are not convergent in their perspectives.

 

But science would accept religion if it would only revise itself in the face of evidence. But then it wouldn't be religion anymore... it would be science.

 

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

You say that evolution cannot be proved. Why not since there is so much evidence that supports it? Evolution doesn't change so fast that we cannot keep up with it.

 

Evolution is proved. Over. And over. And over.

 

One need only obtain an education that includes rudimentary biology (or pay attention to it).

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Hiroki

Well, I think it should be an optional course in school. And when taught, it should be taught as something along the lines of my post above. Many of the story's in the Bible should be told for what they are, moral guidelines, and lessons for Christians. Not as literal events.

 

church is for learning the bible, you wanna learn creation go to church or whatever your beliefs dictate.

Just my personal opinion. But I think both sides have stupid people being total jackasses :x.

[Spider AL]

Hiroki:

Well, I think it should be an optional course in school. And when taught, it should be taught as something along the lines of my post above. Many of the story's in the Bible should be told for what they are, moral guidelines, and lessons for Christians. Not as literal events.

I respect the moderation inherent in your stance, but surely school is a place to learn the sciences and arts, and church/sunday school is the place to be taught aspects of religion?

 

I love how you Brits spell ‘favor’ 'armor' and such.

Yes, I too love the fact that we spell words from our own language correctly.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Yes, I too love the fact that we spell words from our own language correctly.

 

Bleh. Go have a fag.

 

 

 

[Loopster]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Hiroki:

Yes, I too love the fact that we spell words from our own language correctly.

 

Always a desirable thing.