should creationists be allowed in science?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by steeven91, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    And mediums will channel him to get his latest theories.
    Randi would turn in his aether.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    That's a separate issue, but a great thread subject on its own.
    If that's what you think, why not post it?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Creationism and Christianity should be allowed to be taught in the school system, While I was in Spain when I was 9 years old, both subject were taught like Math or history, and it was your choice to take them or not, (we all took them). We should not allow the government to tell us what is acceptable or not to teach our children, the School system is teaching about alternative ways of life to our children ( and this as education is alright), but they are not allowed to teach about Christ and Creationism, but they do teach about Buddha and other religions, explain to me the difference between our system and a Nazi Educational System, Nazis taught their children about the superiority of their race vs other races, German people had no choice, well we have no choice, our children are brain washed in whatever the government wants, and don't tell me this is liberal, because a real liberal government allows for the children to learn about Christ, Buddha, Shinto, Alternative ways of life, etc,and everything else. This is just plain Nazism in a different form. Until this is not change, Homeschooling will continue getting strength in America...
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    With consequences to your intellectual development clearly evident here.
    In the US, "we" are the government, the government school is ours, and we decide what is acceptable or not to teach children in it.

    By the way, how would you respond to the following situation?

    A visiting student teacher, doing their practice teaching in a backcountry three room school, finds that the grade school kids in the classroom are adding fractions by adding the numerators and the denominators, like this:

    \( a/b + c/d = (a+c)/(b+d) \)

    Inquiry reveals that the teacher involved, who is responsible for multiple grades, is instructing them to do that - that's how the teacher has always done it.

    The visitor takes the teacher aside, and after a conversation they agree to teach the addition of fractions in a "new way". The visitor teaches for a month, practicing, and then leaves for the next assignment.

    A couple of months later, the visitor is passing through on their way back to the university and stops in: and discovers that the kids are still adding fractions the "old way". Inquiry reveals that the teacher and the classroom had taken a vote, and decided they liked the "old way" of adding fractions better.

    Your response - ?
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2011
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    In the UK, we have faith schools, and state schools, and private schools.
    Religious faith is studied alongside other subjects in all of them.
    In the faith schools, pupils are taught in their religious studies that God created the world, and in their scientific studies they are taught evolution.
    That's what I was taught, and I accept both of them.

    No ordinary British schools teach "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. The reason being that it isn't science, it's religion.
  9. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    I agree with Kremmen

    I have no problem with creationism being taught, but it should be a part of "Religious Studies".

    Evolution needs to be taught. Since it is a part of science, it should be taught as part of the science curriculum. Creationism should be clearly labelled "Religion - Not Science."
  10. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Creationism and Evolution are both religion, I don't care what the Evolutionist think this is not a Science or part of science at all.
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    You don't seem to care about facts, then, because it is.
  12. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    The difference between religion and science.

    Religion is internally generated. That is, its origin is from between the ears of certain people - often called prophets.

    Science is externally generated. It comes from empiricism. That is, from observations and experiments carried in the real world - not just inside the human mind.

    Creationism came from the ideas of various people. Evolution as a scientific theory (and remember that the word 'theory' has a very different meaning in science) came from a large number of observations, coupled with many experiments, all carried out in the real world.

    Darwin was familiar with the idea of evolution, but did not subscribe to it until he had carried out extremely extensive studies of the real world, including those he did while naturalist on the voyage of the Beagle. His theory of evolution by natural selection was externally generated, and was based on solid evidence.
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    actually all of this is simply a creation made between your ears

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. You can watch evolution happen - study it, make tests of it and analyze the results. You can then apply those results to real-world problems (i.e. antibiotic resistance, pest control) and use them to solve those problems.

    Religion requires that you just _believe._
  15. greenboy Registered Senior Member


    I worked as a researcher in a major University, and you will be surprised the amount of Data not included in researches because they are not supporting the original Hypothesis. You will be surprised...

  16. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    I am sorry

    But you can not see evolution happening, Antibiotic resistance is not evolution developing resistant to an antibiotic, you can spend the rest of your life and that bacteria will not change into another kind of life, will be the same bacteria, the same with pest control the surviver will create a new population resistant to whatever chemicals you are spraying but are the same specie of animals and plants they never change. For a real evolution to happen. For evolution to happen you have to have genetic Diversification, BUT when you are spraying poison or Isolating a population or giving an antibiotic to a group of bacterias guess what you are doing?, you are getting rid of the diversification of that specie ergo destroying their possibilities to "evolve" For an organism to evolve have to go to changes the changes have to get dominant in a population and then changes to another form of life. But what we are seeing is changes in an organism and then stay the same organism you dont get from a bacteria a virus or another form of different life. You get the same bacteria.... Evolution ergo inter media forms ergo changes in a new form of life, and there is not a simple ex. about this... What you guys are calling evolution is just diversification and specialization of an specific specie... nothing else.

  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Categorically wrong.

    You cannot first postulate a new mutation, then wipe out those individuals not carrying that mutation, and then claim no evolution can take place. Evolution has taken place, by the act of eradicating wild-type individuals and replacing them over the long term with genetically distinct individuals. This is evolution, kid.

    Okay: you're talking gibberish here.

    First off, so long as a population becomes reproductively distinct from another, this is speciation and evolution. It's been observed in Meditterranean lizards, for one thing, which are now able to eat vegetable matter instead of being obligate carnivores. It is quite likely that such a group would be reproductively isolated from their progenitors, post-zygotically, since they might well have trouble eating the same foods. No survivorship of hybrids, and death. Evolution.

    Also wrong. New bacteria lines frequently have altered morphology and aberrant physiology. New species, categorically.
  18. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    To Green Boy

    Another of the lies promulgated by creationists is that evolution has never been observed. In fact, many, many examples of different kinds of evolution have been observed happening.

    Here is one example :

    This example is cichlid fishes in Africa living in a freshwater lake, that have evolved "fat lips" over the period of 100 years, and no longer interbreed with their parent stock in the wild - which by definition means they have evolved into a new species. All while being studied by naturalists.
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    That is a lie! The naturalists' backs were turned, out of propriety.
  20. yaracuy Banned Banned

    . All they have to do is go through university and graduate with a Ph.D. with honours in the relevent discipline and then look for a job,


    If do not have a Ph.D but I am graduate in a science field , can I work in science ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    BUT they are confusing people calling diversification of a specie evolution the fact is a fish is a fish nothing else. And Mutations? well there is not a single mutation that we know beneficial for the organism, not a single one...
  22. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Not a single beneficial mutation?

    What of the one you almost certainly share, that carries tolerance to lactose into adulthood? Most orientals do not have this mutation, and cannot properly digest milk. However, as a caucasian with the lactose tolerant mutation, I can, and so can you.

    Here is a longer list of known beneficial mutations in humans.

    Green boy, you really must learn to stop believing creationist literature. Those guys are not scientists, who work in an honest way from data to theory. Creationists are ignorant yobbos who start with their conclusion and carefully "massage" the data to make it fit. Dishonest.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2011
  23. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    No burn them Witches!. Burn them!.

    (In a Monty Python search for the Holy Grail styled manner)


Share This Page