Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[Mojo]

Its not moot, it is WRONG.

Yup. A moot point is one that doesn’t need to be decided, not one that can’t be argued.

 

[Pixel42]

Evolution doesn't work that way. It is characterized by a variable population, selection and reproduction with some mutations.

Most mutations don't give the living thing an advantage over previous generations (after all, they are random) but when one does, the new generation quickly propagates that mutation. Over the long term, it may appear that a living thing has constantly evolved in a particular direction but we don't see all of the variations that fell by the way side.

Exactly, and we can tell the difference between such a process, which has no predetermined end point, and one which has been consciously guided to an end point. The billions of years that went by without any progress at all to the supposedly intended goal (or indeed any other), the blind alleys that were abandoned, the less than optimum "end result" are all evidence that it was natural selection, not divine guidance, that was operating.

 

[jimbob]

Exactly, and we can tell the difference between such a process, which has no predetermined end point, and one which has been consciously guided to an end point. The billions of years that went by without any progress at all to the supposedly intended goal (or indeed any other), the blind alleys that were abandoned, the less than optimum "end result" are all evidence that it was natural selection, not divine guidance, that was operating.

It would be a particularly dim and malign type of "intelligent designer"

 

[psionl0]

I'm struggling to see what your criticism was in the first post of this thread then?

Stacyhs was implying that scientific theories should not be regarded as "challengeable". That evolution should be taught as a rote fact without justification.

Teaching science that way is just indoctrination.

 

[psionl0]

There is a “guiding hand”: it’s called natural selection.

You have it backwards. Natural selection does not create mutations.

 

[Mojo]

Stacyhs was implying that scientific theories should not be regarded as "challengeable". That evolution should be taught as a rote fact without justification.

Nope. You’re ignoring the context.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Evolution is fact. A set of factual observations dating back some centuries ago, and now backed by genetics. Amazingly, with some exceptions owing to convergence, the posited relationships among morphologically similar species hold in the face of a huge new body of evidence. Not bad, not bad at all. Pretty darn robust.

Evolution is what the theory of natural selection is all about.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Whether mutations are totally random or there is a "guiding hand" in the process is a moot point in science since there is no way to test for such speculation.

So it isn't science and shouldn't have a place in a science class.

 

[smartcooky]

Stacyhs was implying that scientific theories should not be regarded as "challengeable". That evolution should be taught as a rote fact without justification.

What a load of utter bollocks.....

Stacyhs was quoting from Texas GOP platform RPT 2012, some of the things she objected to in that plaform.

Stacyhs was implying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you accuse her of. If you actually read people's posts before knee-jerk responding, and if weren't so ******* hell-bent on deliberately snipping out context from posts you reply to so that you that you can make it look like they are saying the opposite of what they are really saying in order to pursue your own agenda and win internet brownie points, you would have realised that!!

 

[Mojo]

You have it backwards. Natural selection does not create mutations.

It’s the only “guiding hand” required.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You have it backwards. Natural selection does not create mutations.

Mutation is inherent in Recombination.

It is the various selection pressures that act as the guide.

 

[jimbob]

Nope. You’re ignoring the context.

What a load of utter bollocks.....

Stacyhs was quoting from Texas GOP platform RPT 2012, some of the things she objected to in that plaform.

Stacyhs was implying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you accuse her of!!

Exactly. Ignoring the context WHEN IT IS IN THE POST QUOTED is pretty poor form.

 

[Mojo]

It would be a particularly dim and malign type of "intelligent designer"

Men create gods in their own image.

 

[IanS]

Of course they should. Evolution works. The theory explains why life forms keep adapting (evolving). Computers use evolutionary algorithms to perfect the design of things - especially AI.

When it comes to living things, evolution is the way to go. Whether mutations are totally random or there is a "guiding hand" in the process is a moot point in science since there is no way to test for such speculation.

Oh dear ... well that highlight shows very clearly what your real reasons are in this thread. That's so blatent that I literally have no need to point it out to anyone else.

 

[Mojo]

Oh dear ... well that highlight shows very clearly what your real reasons are in this thread. That's so blatent that I literally have no need to point it out to anyone else.

There’s also this, which is strikingly reminiscent of a scenario for one of those “a student asked an atheist professor a question and he couldn’t answer” stories:

If a student wants to bring up a "goddidit" in a science lesson then they shouldn't be ostracized nor ridiculed for doing so. An honest answer would be that there is no scientific test that would reveal the nature of the supposed intelligence behind apparently random forces. Science is (or should be) theologically neutral.

 

[psionl0]

Oh dear ... well that highlight shows very clearly what your real reasons are in this thread. That's so blatent that I literally have no need to point it out to anyone else.

Since you can't argue that it a proven scientific fact that intelligence can not possibly have any involvement in evolution, you go for option B - attack anybody who dares point out that science says nothing on the matter.

 

[Mojo]

Since you can't argue that it a proven scientific fact that intelligence can not possibly have any involvement in evolution, you go for option B - attack anybody who dares point out that science says nothing on the matter.

Again, you’re ignoring the context, which is an attempt to portray evolution and global warming as “controversial” theories that should be challenged. Nether is remotely scientifically controversial.

 

[EaglePuncher]

Since you can't argue that it a proven scientific fact that intelligence can not possibly have any involvement in evolution, you go for option B - attack anybody who dares point out that science says nothing on the matter.

"You can't prove a negative, therefore godman may exist in his super special hiding place from where he acts like a human being, randomly guiding the fates of humans [ETA: and controlling how evolution works] except for when he doesn't."

 

[psionl0]

Again, you’re ignoring the context, which is an attempt to portray evolution and global warming as “controversial” theories that should be challenged. Nether is remotely scientifically controversial.

I agree that they are not controversial. In fact I have pretty much stated that evolution is a fact. That doesn't mean that it is a hallowed truth which must never be challenged. In science, nothing is sacred.

 

[IanS]

Since you can't argue that it a proven scientific fact that intelligence can not possibly have any involvement in evolution, you go for option B - attack anybody who dares point out that science says nothing on the matter.

Good grief - how many times do you need to be told that science is not claiming "proven Fact"? Nobody knows anything as an absolute "proven Fact". We are always talking about evidence and drawing conclusions from what the evidence shows.

In the case of evolution the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of natural process with no evidence at all of any "guiding hand" of God ...

.. the fact that you are now openly claiming that there is some sort of disagreement or some sort of doubt within biology research about whether or not the evidence shows a "guiding hand" of God, simply tells everyone here that you are indeed most definitely attempting to make a religious case for creationism.


There is no debate about that within genuine research biology, i.e. no more than there is debate about the existence of quantum processes & atomic structure (but just to be clear about that - with about 50 thousand research level quantum physicists in the world (that's a rough guess), you will always find a handful who claim to doubt or dispute absolutely anything/everything!).