Should Creationism/Intelligent Design Be Taught in the Science Classroom?

[Nathan]

No, but neither should evolution be taught. What should be taught is science in a manner that is fair to both sides. What gets me is that both sides often want the other to be banished from the schoolroom, and replace that with the opposing side. It's hypocrisy. If both sides could learn to work together, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

My $0.02.

This is something I have an issue with. Neither should Evolution be taught? Evolution is science. In Biology, for example, Evolution has to be taught. Again, modern Biology depends upon Evolution being true. It works under that... erm... well-founded, scientifically and empirically tested and proven... assumption. And any Biologist will tell you that.

So why shouldn't Evolution, a science which is the basis for much of modern Biology and Medicine and such, be taught in the science classroom (which was my question)?

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

Not necessarily. Remember, Evolution is not an origin theory, so one could still ask "what made those simple living organisms that evolved into us?"

The latest theories are that as the earth was cooling it was battered by very large comet's that melted on the hot surface and the water (from the melted comet's) collected in small area's and then the steam (from the cooling lava) helped form the first bacteria that eventually grew and later evolved into other microscopic organisms and then into algae and then invertebrates and finally vertebrates.

The jump from bacteria and algae to the invertebrate animal's happens only after enough oxygen had collected in the air (form the bacteria and algae) to form an atmosphere.

[Nathan]

The latest theories are that as the earth was cooling it was battered by very large comet's that melted on the hot surface and the water (from the melted comet's) collected in small area's and then the steam (from the cooling lava) helped form the first bacteria that eventually grew and later evolved into other microscopic organisms and then into algae and then invertebrates and finally vertebrates.

The jump from bacteria and algae to the invertebrate animal's happens only after enough oxygen had collected in the air (form the bacteria and algae) to form an atmosphere.

Which I believe is the most tested hypothesis at the moment and the one I personally think will end up being the best fit.

[BonzoLikeDrumer]

Which I believe is the most tested hypothesis at the moment and the one I personally think will end up being the best fit.

And it make's since as there are fewer and fewer comet's in/around our system than there was then. We have not had a big one hit earth for a very long time and the odds's are low that one will ever hit earth again.

Now an asteroid is a different story as there is a big belt of them not to far from earth and many hit us everyday. Most never make it to the ground and the one's that do are very small so there is little to fear from them. Every hundred years or so we get hit by an asteroid as big as a football field and the big one's, a 1/2 mile across every million years or so.

It's most likely that the larger asteroid's have been all but sucked up by the gas giant planet's Jupiter and Saturn in the first two billion years or so of the earth's existence and that is a good thing.

[kaiser]

I have no problem with the theories of Evolution & Creation being taught in the same class as long as it's not a Science class. Science is fact which does not apply to either here. Theory is not fact & there's no such thing as "some fact", that is a corruption of true Science. As far as I'm concerned Creationism & the Theory Of Evolution are both religions in the true sense of the word, religion meaning a system of belief regardless of a deity being involved or not. Both should be taught in a class called "my agenda fantasy is better than your agenda fantasy 101".

[Nathan]

I have no problem with the theories of Evolution & Creation being taught in the same class as long as it's not a Science class. Science is fact which does not apply to either here. Theory is not fact & there's no such thing as "some fact", that is a corruption of true Science. As far as I'm concerned Creationism & the Theory Of Evolution are both religions in the true sense of the word, religion meaning a system of belief regardless of a deity being involved or not. Both should be taught in a class called "my agenda fantasy is better than your agenda fantasy 101".

So I guess you don't believe in the Theory of Gravity, Heliocentrism, E=MC², Theory of Relativity, Atomic theory (if Relativity and Atomic Theory weren't facts we would never have had to worry about nuclear weapons), Spherical Earth, etc.

Reread my OP. You have a severe lack of understanding of what a Scientific Theory is.

And I will repeat it:

Biology and Medicine depend upon the FACT OF EVOLUTION. These areas of science would not exist at all in their modern form without Evolution being true.

So you are wrong.

[kaiser]

So I guess you don't believe in the Theory of Gravity, Heliocentrism, E=MC², Theory of Relativity, Atomic theory (if Relativity and Atomic Theory weren't facts we would never have had to worry about nuclear weapons), Spherical Earth, etc.

Reread my OP. You have a severe lack of understanding of what a Scientific Theory is.

And I will repeat it:

Biology and Medicine depend upon the FACT OF EVOLUTION. These areas of science would not exist at all in their modern form without Evolution being true.

So you are wrong.

Those you just mentioned are no longer theories but are NOW fact. Evolution remains a theory & until it becomes a fact a theory it remains. It just may become fact but as of now it isn't. Convenient estimations are not fact. Biology & medicine depend on fact... that's where your sentence should have ended.

[Nathan]

Those you just mentioned are no longer theories but are NOW fact. Evolution remains a theory & until it becomes a fact a theory it remains. It just may become fact but as of now it isn't. Convenient estimations are not fact. Biology & medicine depend on fact... that's where your sentence should have ended.

I don't believe this.

Need I remind you that 99.9% of relevant scientists worldwide accept Evolution (including 95% of all Scientists in the US)?

Sources:

http://www.religious...rg/ev_publi.htm (relevant section under heading "1997: Gallup Poll comparing scientists with the general population")

List of Statements from Scientific Organizations

Claim CA111: Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism. (talkorigins.org)

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

I'm gonna quote the entirety of that last one here:

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

Again, you're wrong.

[kaiser]

You don't have to believe it, you're exercising your right to believe what makes the most sense to you. That still doesn't make it a fact.

You need not remind me of anything. They could believe unicorns played a part in evolution, it doesn't mean I'm subsribing to it. You say "scientists" like it has an infallibilty to it. You may as well throw the pope in there too because I don't believe he's infallible either. I'm not a fanboy of scientists or religous leaders, hanging onto their every word to legitimize my own beliefs. The last time I checked both are human & error, or so I thought.

The last time the heads of church & the heads of science were in accordance with one another was in their shared belief that the world was flat. It took a guy with no agenda other than finding another source for spices to prove them both wrong. That worked out well for both didn't it. If that's not a fact, am I lying?

I wish I could live another 400 hundred years just so I could witness the so called genuises of the 20th & 21st centuries have their primitive self serving beliefs disproved. That's purely speculation on my part, but I have "faith" that will become fact.

[Nathan]

I don't "believe" Evolution. There's so much evidence in support of it that I KNOW it. And I only accept that which can be proven (such as Evolution, which has been proven).

If you want to be willfully ignorant of the facts, that's fine. But, seriously, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Evolution has been proven. It has been through all the steps and processes need to be proven, and that is that. Evolution fits all the physical evidence and works just fine using reasoned logic. To deny Evolution after the accumulated knowledge and scientific advances of the last 150 years is just plain idiotic.

And if you want to "accuse me" of having "faith" in science, I must respond with the following quote from Australian musical comedian Tim Minchin's 9-minute beat poem "Storm":

"That's a good point. Let me think for a bit. Oh wait, my mistake, that's absolute bullshit. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

Evolution is, and can be, falsifiable. However, it hasn't, yet, and the mountains of evidence in support of Evolution (by gene mutation and natural selection) just keep getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger...

And BTW... Flat Earth was not stupid. It was, in fact, quite logical for those who lived in ancient times. If you simply look at Earth while you are in it, it looks quite flat. It was a logical (if incorrect) deduction. Geocentricism is much the same. Without a telescope or spaceships, ancient people had to think the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything observed in the sky (including the sun) must move around it as observed. Completely wrong, but perfectly logic and even rational.

It took the invention of the telescope to show that Flat-Earth and Geocentricism were wrong.

[kaiser]

I don't "believe" Evolution. There's so much evidence in support of it that I KNOW it. And I only accept that which can be proven (such as Evolution, which has been proven).

If you want to be willfully ignorant of the facts, that's fine. But, seriously, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Evolution has been proven. It has been through all the steps and processes need to be proven, and that is that. Evolution fits all the physical evidence and works just fine using reasoned logic. To deny Evolution after the accumulated knowledge and scientific advances of the last 150 years is just plain idiotic.

And if you want to "accuse me" of having "faith" in science, I must respond with the following quote from Australian musical comedian Tim Minchin's 9-minute beat poem "Storm":

"That's a good point. Let me think for a bit. Oh wait, my mistake, that's absolute bullshit. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

Evolution is, and can be, falsifiable. However, it hasn't, yet, and the mountains of evidence in support of Evolution (by gene mutation and natural selection) just keep getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger...

1)You don't KNOW it & that's a FACT. So much for you accepting FACTS. Accept it, you don't. Once you accept you're not as smart as you think you are everything else might just fall into place.

2) Repeating that evolution has been proven over & over again does not make it so. People repeat themselves & turn a deaf ear when they MUST believe what they're saying is true or their world just might fall apart. Religous fanatics & science fanatics share that lovely character trait. See, a common ground.

3) "So much evidence" does not equal fact. It just equals "so much evidence". There is a difference.

4) No need to get defensive. I don't really care what you believe, but you seem to really care what I & others believe whether it's the same or not. Now that's a FACT.

[kaiser]

[quote name='

And BTW... Flat Earth was not stupid. It was, in fact, quite logical for those who lived in ancient times. If you simply look at Earth while you are in it, it looks quite flat. It was a logical (if incorrect) deduction. Geocentricism is much the same. Without a telescope or spaceships, ancient people had to think the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything observed in the sky (including the sun) must move around it as observed. Completely wrong, but perfectly logic and even rational.

It took the invention of the telescope to show that Flat-Earth and Geocentricism were wrong.

[kaiser]

I never said Flat Earth was stupid, just wrong. It was taught & accepted as FACT by many at the time even though it was a theory. There was "mountains of evidence" saying it was so. It was a logical deduction... 400-500 years ago. Fast forward 400-500 years from now... where will you & your so called "FACTS" stand in the future? You're a very intelligent person Nathan but don't let your ego blind your vision to the FACT that you know something that you in FACT don't. I accepted some time ago not to speak in absolutes when I in FACT know very little about this universe like everyone else. Once I accepted that, hell, more knowledge came my way because I became open minded to things I may not have fit my world view before. That is the spirit of an explorer & any scientist worth his salt is an explorer & not someone bound to his own personal beliefs.

Now how the hell did my type set become all slanted lol? It was not intentional. That's a question left to greater minds than my own. Nathan?

[Electrophile]

You have an open tag somewhere. Go back over your HTML.

[kaiser]

You have an open tag somewhere. Go back over your HTML.

Thank you lol . I didn't know if my type set evolved on it's own or through intelligent design. I guess neither but the hit of a wrong button.

[greenman]

I never said Flat Earth was stupid, just wrong. It was taught & accepted as FACT by many at the time even though it was a theory. There was "mountains of evidence" saying it was so. It was a logical deduction... 400-500 years ago. Fast forward 400-500 years from now... where will you & your so called "FACTS" stand in the future? You're a very intelligent person Nathan but don't let your ego blind your vision to the FACT that you know something that you in FACT don't. I accepted some time ago not to speak in absolutes when I in FACT know very little about this universe like everyone else. Once I accepted that, hell, more knowledge came my way because I became open minded to things I may not have fit my world view before. That is the spirit of an explorer & any scientist worth his salt is an explorer & not someone bound to his own personal beliefs.

Thats not true, flat earth "theory" was not the result of anything like the modern scientific process, indeed experiments from as far back as ancient greece had suggested the world was round and it was generally the uneducated masses that believed in a flat earth.

What many people fail to understand and the creationists try to exploit is that scenetific use of language and everyday use vary considerabley. Within sceience its accepted that nothing can ever be proove as 100% true so a fact is considered to be something with overwhelming evidense. The same with the use of the word theory, within science a theory can be prooven to the degree its considered a scentific fact, within everyday lanugage the word theory is often used to mean something closer to a hypothesis(proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon not yey tested).

Personally I think that creationish has no place at all in schools, its a knowingly dishoniest movement that adds nothing positive to soceity. Christianity on the other hand should be taught along with other major religions.

[kaiser]

1) I never said or implied that that the exact methods or standards that were applied then are exactly the same as now. My point is that what is theory and taught as fact can one day can be shown to be completely wrong over time. People, whether they are scientists or whomever, should never be stuck on one point of view when their is an element of doubt. The Theory of Evolution leaves room for doubt as does Creationism. Neither are fact & shouldn't be taught or referred to as such until proven to be fact. Wait for the results, what's the rush?

2) Ancient civilizations did believe the world was round, it's even stated in Genesis. It was during the Dark Ages that Scientists & the Catholic Church declared the Earth flat & that those ancient "primitive" civilizations were wrong. That sounds very 21st century to me. The more things change...

3)I speak the english language, not the scientific language. A "fact" is a reality or an actuality, not "overwhelming" evidence. Who's playing loose with definitions here? I for one am not "overwhelmed" by the evidence. "Scientific fact"? Why not "religous fact" for those who would like to push that term, & there are those who want to. I'll just stick with the word "fact" without any prefix's. It seems to be the only one that has "overwhelming" truth to it.

4) I don't know if creationism is less or more dishonest than evolutionism. Just because one man's lie has more truth to it doesn't mean they're not both lies.

[greenman]

1) I never said or implied that that the exact methods or standards that were applied then are exactly the same as now. My point is that what is theory and taught as fact can one day can be shown to be completely wrong over time. People, whether they are scientists or whomever, should never be stuck on one point of view when their is an element of doubt. The Theory of Evolution leaves room for doubt as does Creationism. Neither are fact & shouldn't be taught or referred to as such until proven to be fact. Wait for the results, what's the rush?

As I said in my post I think you mistake the common and scientific uses of "theory" and "fact", nothing can ever be 100% prooven as true.

2) Ancient civilizations did believe the world was round, it's even stated in Genesis. It was during the Dark Ages that Scientists & the Catholic Church declared the Earth flat & that those ancient "primitive" civilizations were wrong. That sounds very 21st century to me. The more things change...

You see a pattern here? the Church back a popularist theory and support it with dubious evidense and its a good example of why we should dobut modern scietific theory?

3)I speak the english language, not the scientific language. A "fact" is a reality or an actuality, not "overwhelming" evidence. Who's playing loose with definitions here? I for one am not "overwhelmed" by the evidence. "Scientific fact"? Why not "religous fact" for those who would like to push that term, & there are those who want to. I'll just stick with the word "fact" without any prefix's. It seems to be the only one that has "overwhelming" truth to it.

In reality abolsute truth doesnt exist, I can say the sky is blue but we can't say for sure that it isnt red and that I only see it as blue because of an alien mind control device every human has impanted, the vast number of possibilities mean that 100% truth is unachieveble. If its unachieveble then how can there be an exact boundry between "fact" and "overwhelming evidense".

4) I don't know if creationism is less or more dishonest than evolutionism. Just because one man's lie has more truth to it doesn't mean they're not both lies.

I'm sure those who back the theory of evolution have used some dishoniest tactics but really creatism is dishoniest to its very core playing of the laymans lack of knowledge and trying to get though legal loopholes.

As I said though creationism isnt christianity, just just a small number of hardline christians mostly in the US. I went to a catholic school here in the UK for example and scienece and relgion were never mixed in the same way they try to.

[kaiser]

The terms "scientific fact" & "religious fact" are nothing but distortions of the word "fact". There would be no need to distinguish between those 2 terms & the word "fact" if that wasn't the case. A fact is a fact simply enough. It's one of the few black or white words, as is the word truth, or funnily enough, the words black & white. There is nothing remotely vague about those words. For someone to use the terms "scientific fact" or "religious fact" is pushing an agenda, I believe, for their own personal gain in whatever form that takes place (money, advancement, self glorification, preservation, etc).

I just don't like bullshit & I resent a con from whatever direction it's coming from. I believe there are honest people in both the scientific & religous fields who really do believe in what they're doing, & are doing it for the greater good of people in general regardless if it's completely accurate or not. However I think most others, or at least those pulling the strings, play on the gullibility of people & manipulate people's own sense of vanity knowing full well that people will swallow distortions if it results in peace of mind for them to make sense of their lives. That goes in equal parts for religion & science, not to mention politics. It's human nature.

In regards to creationism/evolutionism, if there was factually a defining answer that mankind had/has come upon, this thread would not exist. There would be no need for there to be.

[greenman]

The terms "scientific fact" & "religious fact" are nothing but distortions of the word "fact". There would be no need to distinguish between those 2 terms & the word "fact" if that wasn't the case. A fact is a fact simply enough. It's one of the few black or white words, as is the word truth, or funnily enough, the words black & white. There is nothing remotely vague about those words. For someone to use the terms "scientific fact" or "religious fact" is pushing an agenda, I believe, for their own personal gain in whatever form that takes place (money, advancement, self glorification, preservation, etc).

I just don't like bullshit & I resent a con from whatever direction it's coming from. I believe there are honest people in both the scientific & religous fields who really do believe in what they're doing, & are doing it for the greater good of people in general regardless if it's completely accurate or not. However I think most others, or at least those pulling the strings, play on the gullibility of people & manipulate people's own sense of vanity knowing full well that people will swallow distortions if it results in peace of mind for them to make sense of their lives. That goes in equal parts for religion & science, not to mention politics. It's human nature.

In regards to creationism/evolutionism, if there was factually a defining answer that mankind had/has come upon, this thread would not exist. There would be no need for there to be.

As I said though if you being scientific then "truth" connot exist so its easy to see why within science the world fact is mayeb used slightly differently although I'm sure there are any number of things the latyman would consider facts that have less evidense to back them up.

I think you underestimate mankinds tendancey towards relgion and superstion if you think many of the most defining discovers for evolution havent already been made.

I hate being conned by anyone aswell but I really don't see much of it coming from the scentiofic side of this debate, unlike say climate change there isnt the same corrupting influence from politics and business.

[kaiser]

As I said in my post I think you mistake the common and scientific uses of "theory" and "fact", nothing can ever be 100% prooven as true.

You see a pattern here? the Church back a popularist theory and support it with dubious evidense and its a good example of why we should dobut modern scietific theory?

In reality abolsute truth doesnt exist, I can say the sky is blue but we can't say for sure that it isnt red and that I only see it as blue because of an alien mind control device every human has impanted, the vast number of possibilities mean that 100% truth is unachieveble. If its unachieveble then how can there be an exact boundry between "fact" and "overwhelming evidense".

I'm sure those who back the theory of evolution have used some dishoniest tactics but really creatism is dishoniest to its very core playing of the laymans lack of knowledge and trying to get though legal loopholes.

As I said though creationism isnt christianity, just just a small number of hardline christians mostly in the US. I went to a catholic school here in the UK for example and scienece and relgion were never mixed in the same way they try to.

1) I don't mistake it, I just know what the words "fact" and "theory" mean. Scientists are either to stupid to know what it means or crafty enough to distort the words in their favor. You pick.

2) I agree. The Church either had no faith in their own scriptures or sold out their beliefs to appease those growing in influence (scientists) at the time. The scientists themselves were either ignorant, naive, or full of themselves on their theory. I'd say it was a bit of all three. It goes to show not much has changed with the church or scientists to this very day. They walk hand in hand with their seperate bullshit.

3) Absolute truth does exist. It's our perceptions that are the liabilty. Truth simply "is". We muck it up & get it all wrong.

4) Um, yeah! Plimsoul man from the UK comes instantly to mind as far evolutionists & it only took 50 years to "disprove" that "fact" & those scientists who called it a hoax from the beginning were ridiculed by their own scientific community & in some cases had their funding cut because they stood by their views. They were the few & not the many but it doesn't get talked about much because who wants to remember such ugliness.

There are creationists who do the same. Instead of sawing off a monkey's jawbone & jamming it onto a human skull they'll make outrageous claims that Jesus rode dinosaurs & what have you.

The world is freakin' nuts Aliens, take me away...

[greenman]

1) I don't mistake it, I just know what the words "fact" and "theory" mean. Scientists are either to stupid to know what it means or crafty enough to distort the words in their favor. You pick.

What does the word theory mean then?

[kaiser]

What does the word theory mean then?

To speculate on a group of facts into a cohesive unit. More simply, a hunch.

[djzoso]

let the kid or parents choose

[kaiser]

Seperate the facts of a theory individually & they are all still facts. Putting them all together does not necessarily equal fact. It could, it could not. That's the problem with the Theory of Evolution. Individually the facts are there but added together it does not equal a proven "fact". Over the course of a century it seems every few years groups of scientists have purported to have found the "missing link" to support their theory. It hasn't worked out yet where all the facts have lined up to create a whole fact, thus it still being a theory. That pisses evolutionists off to no end. To either be so close or completely off the mark must be torture. However, which do you think they're going to promote, being close or completely off?

Patientce is a virtue .