Bill Nye Vs. Ken Ham Debate

[michaelskis]

Tomorrow night Bill Nye (The Science Guy) will be debating Ken Ham (Founder of the Creation Museum) regarding the origins of life. It will be streamed live online HERE.

I have a meeting tomorrow night, but I plan on finding a rebroadcast of the debate to watch as I always find this type of stuff very interesting. I personally have not formed an opinion on each of them beyond I think that they will both add to a discussion that has been going on for quite a while, and I anticipate will continue to go on for quite some time. In some ways, I think that they both are likely to have some truths, but I don't know if we will ever 'know' who is correct. They both have 'theories' regarding the origins of life.

Will you be watching? What are your thoughts on evolution and creation theory?

 

[Hink]

Tomorrow night Bill Nye (The Science Guy) will be debating Ken Ham (Founder of the Creation Museum) regarding the origins of life. It will be streamed live online HERE.

I have a meeting tomorrow night, but I plan on finding a rebroadcast of the debate to watch as I always find this type of stuff very interesting. I personally have not formed an opinion on each of them beyond I think that they will both add to a discussion that has been going on for quite a while, and I anticipate will continue to go on for quite some time. In some ways, I think that they both are likely to have some truths, but I don't know if we will ever 'know' who is correct. They both have 'theories' regarding the origins of life.

Will you be watching? What are your thoughts on evolution and creation theory?

I would imagine any educated viewer will make short work of this "debate". I like Bill Nye mainly because he has been so vocal with people that pretend like science is a lie.

I apologize, but this is like debating if water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. You can get a guy that says it isn't, but that doesn't really matter, because it is.

 

[Maister]

I won't be watching, nor am I particularly interested in this "debate". At this point I've pretty much heard all the significant arguments concerning the evolution/creation debate. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed with Bill Nye for even agreeing to do this. I mean there's no way for him to 'win' this "debate."

 

[btrage]

Creationism is a joke.

 

[dw914er]

Will you be watching? What are your thoughts on evolution and creation theory?

One is based on the scientific method, and utilizes evidence and information collected to form a theory, and one does not, but instead builds an argument from theology. It takes two things that are not equal, and tries to debate them as if they were. As such, I think that this will do little to stop nay-sayers of science.

 

[michaelskis]

One is based on the scientific method, and utilizes evidence and information collected to form a theory, and one does not, but instead builds an argument from theology. It takes two things that are not equal, and tries to debate them as if they were. As such, I think that this will do little to stop nay-sayers of science.

I think that you make an interesting point and it brings into question of how much of the bible is fact and how much is fiction... even more so how can we even tell the difference and what are the repercussions not only on Christian and Jewish faith, but all faiths?

 

[Hink]

I think that you make an interesting point and it brings into question of how much of the bible is fact and how much is fiction... even more so how can we even tell the difference and what are the repercussions not only on Christian and Jewish faith, but all faiths?

Personally, I believe most is fiction, or at least sensationalize fact. But that shouldn't matter. The Bible is meant to act as a guide to your life. It tells stories of people doing amazing things, putting humanity before themselves, and living a life that we should strive for. The people who want to ignore reality to make the book real though, are only hurting their cause. This pushes people further from religion.

I still find it amazing how you can have a religious country and have church goers number get reduced. Why is that? Because a lot of people believe in a higher being, but don't like the hypocrisy and outright misinformation that is put out by religious zealots.

 

[Linda_D]

Tomorrow night Bill Nye (The Science Guy) will be debating Ken Ham (Founder of the Creation Museum) regarding the origins of life. It will be streamed live online HERE.

I have a meeting tomorrow night, but I plan on finding a rebroadcast of the debate to watch as I always find this type of stuff very interesting. I personally have not formed an opinion on each of them beyond I think that they will both add to a discussion that has been going on for quite a while, and I anticipate will continue to go on for quite some time. In some ways, I think that they both are likely to have some truths, but I don't know if we will ever 'know' who is correct. They both have 'theories' regarding the origins of life.

Will you be watching? What are your thoughts on evolution and creation theory?

From your posts, I've concluded that you are a Catholic. If that's not true, then I apologize for my assumption. If you are a Catholic and believe in Church teachings then this should not even be an issue.

The Catholic Church has absolutely no problem with the theory of evolution and hasn't had a problem with it since the early 1890s when the Pope at that time accepted Darwin's theory by separating science and faith. Evolution has been taught in the biology classes at Catholic middle and high schools and in Catholic colleges and universities since that time while the story of Creation has been taught in religion classes as the very poetic explanation of how life and the world began as told by people of faith but only very limited knowledge of how the world they lived in worked. In other words, for Catholics, evolution vs creationism is a non-issue or ought to be. One deals with what is observable and deducible while the other deals with what is unknowable and taken on faith.

 

[imaplanner]

I won't be watching, nor am I particularly interested in this "debate". At this point I've pretty much heard all the significant arguments concerning the evolution/creation debate. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed with Bill Nye for even agreeing to do this. I mean there's no way for him to 'win' this "debate."

That's how I feel about it.

 

[Planit]

I would imagine any educated viewer will make short work of this "debate". I like Bill Nye mainly because he has been so vocal with people that pretend like science is a lie.

I apologize, but this is like debating if water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. You can get a guy that says it isn't, but that doesn't really matter, because it is.

I won't be watching, nor am I particularly interested in this "debate". At this point I've pretty much heard all the significant arguments concerning the evolution/creation debate. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed with Bill Nye for even agreeing to do this. I mean there's no way for him to 'win' this "debate."

Ditto

 

[Maister]

Another problem is when Nye decided to debate Ham, he's really only going to be able to address the 'young earth' variety (i.e. the earth is only 6,000 years old) of creationists. Leaves out a host of other more nuanced views that admit both the possibility of divine origins and natural mechanisms, such as evolution.

Why didn't he invite the Flat Earth Society as well as Ham?

 

[wahday]

One of the frustrating things to me about this discussion is the way the term “theory” is batted around. A theory in science is based on observable evidence that leads to a particular assumption. This differs from someone who says they have a “theory” which is really just an idea not based on observable and measured facts. This is not the same kind of “theory.” I have a theory, for example, that the world as we know it is really an enormous turd, expelled by a giant space hog who ate some bad chow mein. But try as I might, the schools here don’t seem to be willing to teach it alongside evolution. Which I find unfair. I mean, they are both “theories” so what makes one more believable than the other?

I think this definition of what a Scientific Theory actually consists of is very useful:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

Its not that I don’t find the Bible, as an enduring spiritual reference, to be valid or useful to mankind. But I believe it was written by mortals who only knew so much at the time it was crafted. Plus, much of the bible falls into a variety of literary forms, including the poetic. So, literal translation is problematic to me. And if you are going to be literal about it, basing interpretations on the English translation of it is probably going to come up short. But really, if G_d is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. how could anything expressed within the limitations of a human language come close to capturing the complexity of existence? That point alone creates serious problems for the literal interpretation of liturgy.

FWIW I find it interesting that, generally speaking, the Jewish faith embraces evolutionary theory and does not view it as contradictory to the story of Genesis. This from formal statements by bodies like the Rabbinical Council of America.

 

[michaelskis]

From your posts, I've concluded that you are a Catholic. If that's not true, then I apologize for my assumption. If you are a Catholic and believe in Church teachings then this should not even be an issue.

The Catholic Church has absolutely no problem with the theory of evolution and hasn't had a problem with it since the early 1890s when the Pope at that time accepted Darwin's theory by separating science and faith. Evolution has been taught in the biology classes at Catholic middle and high schools and in Catholic colleges and universities since that time while the story of Creation has been taught in religion classes as the very poetic explanation of how life and the world began as told by people of faith but only very limited knowledge of how the world they lived in worked. In other words, for Catholics, evolution vs creationism is a non-issue or ought to be. One deals with what is observable and deducible while the other deals with what is unknowable and taken on faith.

Yes I am Catholic and I don't disagree with evolution. Personally, I believe in a combination of the two. For example, the first 6 days, I wonder if they were really 6 days or 600 million years. I have a very open mind about the whole thing and don't think either side is absolute fact. Maybe something closer to the idea of intelligent design or something.

There are friends of mine that believe that the bible is absolute and I have friends (and family) that really don't believe anything in the bible and use inconstancies in the bible as a way to disprove the existence of God.

Overall, I think it is a very interesting discussion that they will be having and I would be interested to see on what points the tie sides agree.

 

[Mastiff]

For example, the first 6 days, I wonder if they were really 6 days or 600 million years. I have a very open mind about the whole thing and don't think either side is absolute fact.

Since death didn't come to the world, according to the bible, until after original sin (Gen 3:3), you have an issue of overpopulation. Imagine how many bunnies would be around after 600 million years if nothing ate them or they didn't die of old age?!

Small breeds mature at 5 months, gestation is a little over a month, and litters are 4-16... let's just say six.

In one year a pair of bunnies will make 12 capable of procreation. So, 12 to the power of 600 million?! :-c

 

[michaelskis]

Since death didn't come to the world, according to the bible, until after original sin (Gen 3:3), you have an issue of overpopulation. Imagine how many bunnies would be around after 600 million years if nothing ate them or they didn't die of old age?!

Small breeds mature at 5 months, gestation is a little over a month, and litters are 4-16... let's just say six.

In one year a pair of bunnies will make 12 capable of procreation. So, 12 to the power of 600 million?! :-c

There are a lot assumptions there, especially since bunnies were not "created" until the 6th day.... The same day as man. Furthermore, "man" was created in His image, and therefore immortal until the original sin. None of the other animals were granted the same. (Genisis 2:17)

 

[ColoGI]

I won't be watching, nor am I particularly interested in this "debate". At this point I've pretty much heard all the significant arguments concerning the evolution/creation debate. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed with Bill Nye for even agreeing to do this. I mean there's no way for him to 'win' this "debate."

"Debating" pseudoscience gives legitimacy to something that should be ignored.

To oppose something is to maintain it.

Let creationism die an ignominious death. There is nothing to debate.

 

[imaplanner]

One of the frustrating things to me about this discussion is the way the term “theory” is batted around. A theory in science is based on observable evidence that leads to a particular assumption. This differs from someone who says they have a “theory” which is really just an idea not based on observable and measured facts. This is not the same kind of “theory.” I have a theory, for example, that the world as we know it is really an enormous turd, expelled by a giant space hog who ate some bad chow mein. But try as I might, the schools here don’t seem to be willing to teach it alongside evolution. Which I find unfair. I mean, they are both “theories” so what makes one more believable than the other?

I think this definition of what a Scientific Theory actually consists of is very useful:


Its not that I don’t find the Bible, as an enduring spiritual reference, to be valid or useful to mankind. But I believe it was written by mortals who only knew so much at the time it was crafted. Plus, much of the bible falls into a variety of literary forms, including the poetic. So, literal translation is problematic to me. And if you are going to be literal about it, basing interpretations on the English translation of it is probably going to come up short. But really, if G_d is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. how could anything expressed within the limitations of a human language come close to capturing the complexity of existence? That point alone creates serious problems for the literal interpretation of liturgy.

FWIW I find it interesting that, generally speaking, the Jewish faith embraces evolutionary theory and does not view it as contradictory to the story of Genesis. This from formal statements by bodies like the Rabbinical Council of America.

The people who misuse the term "theory" are the same ones who don't understand it and, more importantly, seem to have no desire to understand the scientific method. It wouldn't frustrate me except for its continued misuse in policy making. Creationism is maybe a hypothesis, and even at that it is not a scientific hypothesis since it can not be scientifically evaluated.

 

[Mastiff]

There are a lot assumptions there, especially since bunnies were not "created" until the 6th day.... The same day as man. Furthermore, "man" was created in His image, and therefore immortal until the original sin. None of the other animals were granted the same. (Genisis 2:17)

Then why would there be a prescribed all vegetarian diet prior to original sin? (Gen 1:29-30)

But, yes, bunnies on the sixth day, so just 8,281,797,450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them.

 

[michaelskis]

Then why would there be a prescribed all vegetarian diet prior to original sin? (Gen 1:29-30)

But, yes, bunnies on the sixth day, so just 8,281,797,450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them.

You missed the part about man being made in His image. Before original sin bunnies would die, man would not.

 

[btrage]

And this is why I hate religion.

 

[78rpm]

Some people just use religion for ulterior motives. It was Ken's excuse to leave Queensland and settle with Petersburg.

 

[Maister]

Yes I am Catholic and I don't disagree with evolution. Personally, I believe in a combination of the two. For example, the first 6 days, I wonder if they were really 6 days or 600 million years. I have a very open mind about the whole thing and don't think either side is absolute fact. Maybe something closer to the idea of intelligent design or something.

There are friends of mine that believe that the bible is absolute and I have friends (and family) that really don't believe anything in the bible and use inconstancies in the bible as a way to disprove the existence of God.

Overall, I think it is a very interesting discussion that they will be having and I would be interested to see on what points the tie sides agree.

Since death didn't come to the world, according to the bible, until after original sin (Gen 3:3), you have an issue of overpopulation. Imagine how many bunnies would be around after 600 million years if nothing ate them or they didn't die of old age?!

Small breeds mature at 5 months, gestation is a little over a month, and litters are 4-16... let's just say six.

In one year a pair of bunnies will make 12 capable of procreation. So, 12 to the power of 600 million?! :-c

There are a lot assumptions there, especially since bunnies were not "created" until the 6th day.... The same day as man. Furthermore, "man" was created in His image, and therefore immortal until the original sin. None of the other animals were granted the same. (Genisis 2:17)

Then why would there be a prescribed all vegetarian diet prior to original sin? (Gen 1:29-30)

But, yes, bunnies on the sixth day, so just 8,281,797,450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them.

You missed the part about man being made in His image. Before original sin bunnies would die, man would not.

Who needs to watch the Nye - Ham debate when we have here the Best Debate Evar!!!!:lmao:

Can't wait for Ham to zing Nye with .....if we supposedly descended from monkeys as you claim how come there are still monkeys around today that didn't change into humans?

 

[michaelskis]

Who needs to watch the Nye - Ham debate when we have here the Best Debate Evar!!!!:lmao:

Can't wait for Ham to zing Nye with .....if we supposedly descended from monkeys as you claim how come there are still monkeys around today that didn't change into humans?

I don't know enough about either side to have a real debate. I will watch the You Tube rebroadcast.

 

[DVD]

Who needs to watch the Nye - Ham debate when we have here the Best Debate Evar!!!!:lmao:

Can't wait for Ham to zing Nye with .....if we supposedly descended from monkeys as you claim how come there are still monkeys around today that didn't change into humans?

It's the how many rabbits would there be debate of 2014!:lmao:

I've always wanted to point out to the creationists that maybe the scientific theories are right and that is God's will. Maybe the way God created man was not just in a puff of logic, but over time (or what would seem like time to us). Maybe God made the Big Bang happen? Sorry, I don't know why monkeys are still around other than to entertain us and fling poo at your theories.

 

[michaelskis]

It's the how many rabbits would there be debate of 2014!:lmao:

I've always wanted to point out to the creationists that maybe the scientific theories are right and that is God's will. Maybe the way God created man was not just in a puff of logic, but over time (or what would seem like time to us). Maybe God made the Big Bang happen? Sorry, I don't know why monkeys are still around other than to entertain us and fling poo at your theories.

Maybe... That is one the things that drive me crazy, some people think that it needs to be one or the other... Why can't it be both.

 

[dw914er]

Maybe... That is one the things that drive me crazy, some people think that it needs to be one or the other... Why can't it be both.

No one said that it could not be both... but one part of it is supported by scientific evidence and the theory was deduced through the scientific method, and the other part is applying ones theistic belief to suit the context of that evidence. Is it possible that God made this happen? Sure, but from an objectionable standpoint, there is no scientific basis or merit for the conclusion (divine intervention), which is why it's hard to add that detail for the concept of evolution, and more importantly, the teaching of that subject for a science class. It is more of a study of anthropology than biology/physics.

 

[ColoGI]

Sure, but from an objectionable standpoint, there is no scientific basis or merit for the conclusion (divine intervention), which is why it's hard to add that detail for the concept of evolution, and more importantly, the teaching of that subject for a science class.

I don't think its an objectionable standpoint at all. It isn't objectionable to say that a creationism hypothesis can't be falsified, so it can't be shown scientifically.

Basic science isn't objectionable, unless it falsifies your beliefs I guess.

 

[dw914er]

I don't think its an objectionable standpoint at all. It isn't objectionable to say that a creationism hypothesis can't be falsified, so it can't be shown scientifically.

Basic science isn't objectionable, unless it falsifies your beliefs I guess.

I meant to say objective, not objectionable. Adding divine intervention as a cause for evolution is a subjective stance, based on applying religious beliefs rather than facts or evidence.

 

[ColoGI]

I meant to say objective, not objectionable. Adding divine intervention as a cause for evolution is a subjective stance, based on applying religious beliefs rather than facts or evidence.

;o)

Useful mistype.

BTW, schools that teach creationism have stupid students:

"In each subject area, the...[taxpayer-funded voucher] schools [teaching creationism] had far fewer proficient students than the other voucher schools"​

Maybe if Texas teaches Creationism for long enough and drives all the smart people out, they can secede!

 

[imaplanner]

;o)

Useful mistype.

BTW, schools that teach creationism have stupid students:

"In each subject area, the...[taxpayer-funded voucher] schools [teaching creationism] had far fewer proficient students than the other voucher schools"​

Maybe if Texas teaches Creationism for long enough and drives all the smart people out, they can secede!

I recently read an article about how there are alot more public schools teaching creationism than people realize, and that there are even way more private schools getting taxpayer dollars that teach creationism. It's incredible. There is literally a signiicant percentage of America that is stuck in the 1800's and refuses to accept even basic science or empirical fact. And they are dragging this country down with them.

And then there is this (lawsuit of alleged harassment and just plain derpiness in a pubic school) https://www.laaclu.org/press/2014/012214.htm

 

[ColoGI]

I recently read an article about how there are alot more public schools teaching creationism than people realize, and that there are even way more private schools getting taxpayer dollars that teach creationism. It's incredible. There is literally a signiicant percentage of America that is stuck in the 1800's and refuses to accept even basic science or empirical fact. And they are dragging this country down with them.

And then there is this (lawsuit of alleged harassment and just plain derpiness in a pubic school) https://www.laaclu.org/press/2014/012214.htm

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer​

I'm shocked to hear that there are more than a couple schools teaching creationism, and would be happy to join a lawsuit stopping this travesty. Especially if these schools are outside of Dixie-Texas.

There is an interesting suit going on in Colorado right now - a conservative county south of Denver has hired lawyers, lobbyists, and firms to insert conservative school board members to steal taxpayer money to funnel it to religious schools as "vouchers" via "choice". Lots of money wasted on lawyers right now.

 

[Planit]

Here's a quickie recap:

http://gawker.com/the-highlights-from-bill-nyes-debate-with-creationist-1516466064


I love some of Nye's quotes in the text and the last line of the article is brilliant!

 

[michaelskis]

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer​

I'm shocked to hear that there are more than a couple schools teaching creationism, and would be happy to join a lawsuit stopping this travesty. Especially if these schools are outside of Dixie-Texas.

There is an interesting suit going on in Colorado right now - a conservative county south of Denver has hired lawyers, lobbyists, and firms to insert conservative school board members to steal taxpayer money to funnel it to religious schools as "vouchers" via "choice". Lots of money wasted on lawyers right now.

Why can't they teach both after all, they are both theories and show two opposing concepts.

I did not watch the debate last night since my night meeting ran late.

 

[btrage]

Why can't they teach both after all, they are both theories and show two opposing concepts.

I did not watch the debate last night since my night meeting ran late.

Because creationism is not a scientific theory. It has no testable hypotheses.

 

[Hink]

Why can't they teach both after all, they are both theories and show two opposing concepts.

I did not watch the debate last night since my night meeting ran late.

If you teach both you give traction to both. One has a testable theory, one is a guesstimate. I don't think our public schools should teach guesstimates.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Because creationism is not a scientific theory. It has no testable hypotheses.

This.

People need to stop pretending like faith can be science. The basis for creationism is religious text exclusively. The science of creationism as a legitimate alternative theory to evolution is a false dichotomy and fallacy in informal logic. It is an appeal to ignorance... "my theory is legitimate because there is no evidence contradicting it, making it as legitimate as your theory based on tested hypotheses." Plus, the creationism hypothesis cannot be tested, thus making it scientifically invalid. Let's put this in planning & development terms... You are preparing an environmental assessment or EIA under NEPA & related acts. One of the requirements is the evaluation of alternatives to the project. You can't just put anything in there--these alternatives must be legit & testable using facts & data. Science classes are about science and logical reasoning, not faith.

Let faith be faith and science be science. They are not the same, but it does not preclude you from believing in both. The science of evolution, by its nature, seeks understanding of creation. They are working their way backwards to find the scientific basis of how we came to be. They are trying to answer the "how" moreso than the "who."

Personally, I feel like evolution gives the intelligence of the "intelligent designer" a bit more credit given that evolution over time is far more complex than simply blinking things into existence. Was there a "finger of god" trigger at critical points in evolution? We don't know that. But from a scientific perspective, I don't think it is particularly important to answer that question in order to better understand our natural realm aside from determining environmental causes.

 

[Maister]

Why can't they teach both after all, they are both theories and show two opposing concepts.

They may both be 'theories' in name but only one of them is a provable/disprovable scientific theory upon which empirical evidence can be evaluated or debated. Placing them in the same category of "theory" without making that important distinction creates the impression that one places them on the same footing and should accord equal credence to both. Giving equal credence to both because they are "theories" from a logical standpoint is not unlike saying "either the earth is flat or it's round, guess that makes it a 50/50 proposition, may as well flip a coin to decide which position is correct"

Teaching the completely non-scientific "theory" of creation has no place whatsoever in a public school science curriculum (except perhaps to point out it has no basis in science).

 

[michaelskis]

Because creationism is not a scientific theory. It has no testable hypotheses.

I hear a lot of people say that it is not a scientific theory because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

The part that I keep getting hung up on with evolution is the 4th step. Evolution has a bunch of opposing data and a bunch of supporting data out there in terms of carbon dating half lifes, DNA structuring, (Cows are genetically closer to dolphins than they are horses). Then there is the biggie... life creates new life... but what got the ball rolling in the first place. In terms of the creation of a new species, evolution would indicate that it is a slow and progressive process, but there are a lot of scientists that note that the fossil record is not there. (hence the missing link and transitional species)

I am not saying either side is absolute and in my mind they are both nothing more than theories that will continue to be explored and never proven.

They may both be 'theories' in name but only one of them is a provable/disprovable scientific theory upon which empirical evidence can be evaluated or debated. Placing them in the same category of "theory" without making that important distinction creates the impression that one places them on the same footing and should accord equal credence to both. Giving equal credence to both because they are "theories" from a logical standpoint is not unlike saying "either the earth is flat or it's round, guess that makes it a 50/50 proposition, may as well flip a coin to decide which position is correct"

Teaching the completely non-scientific "theory" of creation has no place whatsoever in a public school science curriculum (except perhaps to point out it has no basis in science).

I guess I look at it in a broad context... not quite sensus plenior, but with the realization that there is crossover of subjects. For example, Shakespeare can teach us just as much about the politics of that time period as he can teach us about theater and classic literature. There are stories behind nursery rhymes are often with morbid and secretive meanings, that are representative of the times. (Ring Around the Rosie...) Just look at the connections between geography, science, philosophy, and sociology.

This is one of my beefs with modern education... to much is compartmentalized. Why must this be isolated from other possible factors. Just because science can't prove that there is a God, does that mean he doesn't exist?

 

[btrage]

I hear a lot of people say that it is not a scientific theory because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

The part that I keep getting hung up on with evolution is the 4th step. Evolution has a bunch of opposing data and a bunch of supporting data out there in terms of carbon dating half lifes, DNA structuring, (Cows are genetically closer to dolphins than they are horses). Then there is the biggie... life creates new life... but what got the ball rolling in the first place. In terms of the creation of a new species, evolution would indicate that it is a slow and progressive process, but there are a lot of scientists that note that the fossil record is not there. (hence the missing link and transitional species)

I am not saying either side is absolute and in my mind they are both nothing more than theories that will continue to be explored and never proven.

Evolution is a fact. The explanation for evolution is best explained by Darwin's law of natural selection. It has also been tested via many other means.

You can't test for creationism. It's a religious construct and should be taught at home, in parochial schools and at church, not in a public classroom.

 

[michaelskis]

Evolution is a fact. The explanation for evolution is best explained by Darwin's law of natural selection. It has also been tested via many other means.

Prove it.

 

[btrage]

Just because science can't prove that there is a God, does that mean he doesn't exist?

Not at all. But it shouldn't be discussed in a PUBLIC classroom.

Prove it.

Prove what?

 

[michaelskis]

Not at all. But it shouldn't be discussed in a PUBLIC classroom.

Just so I understand, you feel that any reference to God or faith should be removed form public education?

Prove what?

That evolution is absolute fact and not a scientific theory.

 

[Hink]

Just so I understand, you feel that any reference to God or faith should be removed form public education?

Any reference to God in anything other than discussing faith or different religions, then yes. Religion should not be taught in public schools. It should be taught at churches.

 

[btrage]

Just so I understand, you feel that any reference to God or faith should be removed form public education?



That evolution is absolute fact and not a scientific theory.

No. But there is a big difference between referencing a religion or religious belief, and teaching a belief.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but.....fossils, artificial selection and DNA comparisons.

Just face it dude, you are descended from monkeys.

 

[dw914er]

Why can't they teach both after all, they are both theories and show two opposing concepts.

Because one has no scientific basis. It is disingenuous to talk about both "theories" as being equal because they are not. As I said before, you are applying a theistic belief to suit the context of the evidence collected for evolution (I see that it happened, but it was because of God). It is a social construct, not a scientific one.

 

[michaelskis]

In this, I will agree to disagree. I view it like teaching the crusades as part of history. There have been several times in history that science has been proven to be wrong. The world is not flat, the sun does not go around the earth, and it is possible for us to travel to the moon.

Evolution is only a theory and should not be presented as fact or the only option.

 

[btrage]

In this, I will agree to disagree. I view it like teaching the crusades as part of history. There have been several times in history that science has been proven to be wrong. The world is not flat, the sun does not go around the earth, and it is possible for us to travel to the moon.

Evolution is only a theory and should not be presented as fact or the only option.

Well evolution being a fact were my words. In the scientific world, evolution is considered a theory, which has been supported by much scientific research. Creationism is not a theory by any means, at least in the scientific world. Is it a religious theory? Sure. But you can't equate the two, which is what you're trying to do.

We might as well teach Scientology and Xenu if that is how it should be. Because that's a theory too.

 

[AG74683]

I recently read an article about how there are alot more public schools teaching creationism than people realize, and that there are even way more private schools getting taxpayer dollars that teach creationism. It's incredible. There is literally a signiicant percentage of America that is stuck in the 1800's and refuses to accept even basic science or empirical fact. And they are dragging this country down with them.

And then there is this (lawsuit of alleged harassment and just plain derpiness in a pubic school) https://www.laaclu.org/press/2014/012214.htm

http://io9.com/a-map-showing-which-u-s-public-schools-teach-creationi-1515717148

That map is pretty decent.

I don't understand the real point of that debate. Let people believe what they want.

Fact is, evolutionists and the religious rely on the same thing...faith. The evolution group has faith that their scientific methods are correct, faith in a methodical process of scientific theory...while the religious have faith in an all powerful deity. Do not fault people for what they believe in.

 

[dw914er]

In this, I will agree to disagree. I view it like teaching the crusades as part of history. There have been several times in history that science has been proven to be wrong. The world is not flat, the sun does not go around the earth, and it is possible for us to travel to the moon.

Evolution is only a theory and should not be presented as fact or the only option.

I think that your fallacy further enforces the debate. What would make you change your mind.. evidence or nothing? Science goes with evidence, as it should. Remaining blind to any evidence has no place in a science lecture.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

In this, I will agree to disagree. I view it like teaching the crusades as part of history. There have been several times in history that science has been proven to be wrong. The world is not flat, the sun does not go around the earth, and it is possible for us to travel to the moon.

Evolution is only a theory and should not be presented as fact or the only option.

I can agree with this (evolution being a theory). If creationism were a theory that could be tested and possibly proven or disproven, then I would have no problem with it being taught in public schools as part of a science curriculum. However, as has been stated before, it cannot be tested with the scientific method since it is not something that we can provide control/test subjects for, we can not repeat methods to compare findings, etc. etc.

Your examples of science proven wrong are really examples where empirical research and further study (using the scientific method and more empirical research) helped evolve our knowledge of the world and change existing theories. Theories are changeable following more study.