Evolution in our schools.

Is there good scientific evidence that the theory of creationism is valid?

I agree. Too many people make arguments knowing only a small portion of the theories, this includes both sides tho..

Can science explain the miracles spoken of in the bible? These are the things that most non-believers attack first. There are too many references in the bible that defy science.

I ask these things with an honest curiosity. I have not yet fully made up my mind on this subject.

Respectfully,
BG

No, they didn't just pop out birds. Some raptor like dinosaurs developed small feathers and hollow bones. I saw this on the Discovery channel and they showed some fossils.

See below...

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by TheBandit795]

Only when science doesn't go against it!

It is by far the best theory we have at present. There is nothing that disproves evolution, there are things that it is hard to explain, but noone has said the theory is perfected.

It is taught as a theory in schools, as others have pointed out, almost all science in schools is taught as theory. This fact is not constantly repeated as I suspect it would be rather disruptive to the students. In my experience I've found the people who claim evolution was not taught as a theory in school, are also the people who seem to know least about it, or are biased against it. Perhaps they just werent paying attention?

Ooops my bad!!! instead of quoting it I edited it.. sorry...

O.k. I just fixed it back. I hope the post is back in it's original form.


[Edited on 17-12-2003 by TheBandit795]

Who are these "minds"?
It would be interesting to know, especially since "evolution" is not the branch of science that defines a basis for the start of life. Evolution is concerned with... well... life evolving, not life starting.


Go ahead.

Oh... but this link does mention a great deal about God... so then... how will you?



There are no other options accepted by science. Since these are science classes, one should teach science. Creation stories are often covered in high school classes on comparitive religion studies. But if you're in a science class, the teacher has a responsibility to teach science, not folklore or religion.

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by SkepticOverlord]

Dr. Hugh Ross would be my first choice. Evolution is not the official category of science that is used to discuss the possible start of life but we both know it is the science that most layman will use to discuss this very matter.








I find that amusing, surely you know that �science� is not some abstract being that decides what is and is not valid? There are thousands of scientists in this world and all of them have opinions. The question for our school rooms is which of them do you choose to present.

I would like to see the theory of evolution presented to our children in truth, not half truth. Evolution is often presented in a manner that doesn�t even attempt to show the massive amounts of data that contradict it as a valid theory. If our schools would tell more of the whole story I would be satisfied with the teaching of evolution in our public schools.

God and religion do not have to come up in our school science classes to meet my criteria. I only ask that the teachers show evidence for and against evolution in their class rooms so that our children receive a better scientific understanding. The teacher doesn�t know how life evolved any better than we do, let the evidence speak for itself.

All of the evidence.

Ah... "progressive creationism", something neither creationists or scientists like very much.



So far, you've presented only one scientist. And the "body scientific" if you prefer, has widely accepted evolution as the process that best describes the majority of available evidence.



Well... if you read Kent Hovind, you could indeed think the contradictory data is massive. However, it pales in comparison to the data that supports evolution.



So far, the only "evidence" against evolution has been presented by creationists. If you know of something else, then let us know... don't keep it secret. However, there is a finite amount of time in which to teach evolution as a part of a curriculum on biology. In deciding what is presented, school science administration officials will choose from the list of accepted scientific theories, not conjecture, not fantasy, and certainly not hope.

The only thing that matters is the science itself, if the presenter of that science chooses to believe in a God who created everything that is irrelevant to the subject. You seem to want to point out the persons personal beliefs without taking the time to see why he believes what he believes.

For this discussion I�m not interested in personal beliefs. I simply want the discussion of evolution to be presented in full without overlooking its weaknesses, and there are many. Is it going to be your position that evolution does not have serious scientific problems?


Machine

Bro, what I think is more important than HOW we got here is the fact that we are, indeed, HERE. I think as a whole, people shouldn't freak out about it as much. Unless some alien race comes down, tells us they seeded our planet and show us proof, I don't think we'll EVER figure it out.

My two cents, thought I'd toss em' in.

Here's a few I could scrummage up.
These are secular scientists, they having nothing to do with Creationism or religion:

THE MYTH OF EVOLUTION
Michael Denton (MD & PhD, microbiology),Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 358.

HOW FOSSILS ARE NOT FORMED
Derek Ager (PhD, Geology), The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, (London: Macmillan, 1981), p. 27.


UNIFORMITARIANISM IN GEOLOGY
Derek Ager (PhD, Geology) The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, (London: Macmillan, 1981), p. 46-47.

MUTATIONS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS HARMFUL
John C. Kendrew, (Cambridge University, Nobel laureate for his discovery of the structure of the protein myoglobin), The Thread of Life. (Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press, 1966), pp. 106-107.

MUTATIONS DON'T PRODUCE A NEW FEATURE
Bolton Davidheiser (PhD, genetics), Evolution and Christian Faith, (Nutley, NJresbyterian and Reformed, 1969), p. 212.

MUTATIONS DECREASE SURVIVABILITY
D. S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Ronald Press, 1960, p. 186.

DATING SEDIMENTARY ROCK STRATA
O. H. Schindewolf, "Comments on Some Stratigraphic Terms", American Journal of Science, Vol. 255, June 1957, p. 394.

DATING SEDIMENTARY ROCK STRATA
J. E. Ransom, Fossils in America, (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 43.

EVOLUTION OF MAN
Lord Solly Zuckerman (MD & DSc, anatomy), Beyond the Ivory Tower, (New York: Taplinger, 1970), p. 19. On p. 64 he continues.

CIRCULAR REASONING IN DATING ROCKS
J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, Jan. 1976, p. 47.

FOSSIL RECORD: FULL BUT WITH GAPS
George T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective", Science Progress, Vol. 48, Jan 1960, pp 1, 3.

FOSSIL RECORD: FULL BUT WITH GAPS
Professor N. Heriburt-Nilsson, Lund University, Sweden, has studied the subject of evolution for over 40 years.

FOSSIL RECORD: FULL BUT WITH GAPS
Stephen J. Gould (professor of geology, biology, and history of science at Harvard), Natural History, Vol. 86(5), May 1977, p. 14.

LIMITS OF RADIOMETRIC DATING
John Thackray, The Age of the Earth, (London: Institute of Geological Sciences, 1980), p. 17.

CYTOCHROME C & OTHER PROTEIN COMPARISONS
Michael Denton (MD & PhD, microbiology), Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 306.

FOSSILS NEVER PROVED EVOLUTION
Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), "Who doubts evolution?", New Scientist, Vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831.

THE UNCERTAINTY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
John Wymer (archaeologist specialising in the Palaeolithic period), "Refreshing the evolutionary past," New Scientist, Vol. 136, 7 Nov. 1992, p. 40.

THE UNCERTAINTY OF AUSTRALOPITHECINE EVOLUTION
Pat Shipman (paleontologist, John Hopkins School of Medicine), "Baffling limb on the family tree," Discover, Sept. 1986, p. 87-93. Discover is endorsed by the AAAS.

THE UNCERTAINTY OF NEANDERTALS
Bruce Bower, "Neandertals' disappearing act," Science News, Vol 139, 8 June 1991, p. 360-363.

THE BIG BANG
Halton Arp (astrophysicist, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Munich), "Letters," Science News, Vol. 140, 27 July 1991, p. 61.

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
John Horgan, "In the beginning..." Scientific American, Feb. 1991, p. 125.

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
John Horgan, "In the beginning..." Scientific American, Feb. 1991, p. 125.
"Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry," Chemical and Engineering News, 11 Oct. 1976, p. 40.


(I left the quotes out because of the length, but you get the gist of it.)
***

My friend opposed evolution in class and the teacher told her to leave the room. The teacher wouldn't allow the objections to be voiced.
I mean, whats with that?
Sounds like a mild case of persecution to me.

Also why can't God be scientific? The bible states that God exists independent and outside of His creation. Now with the increasing popularity of Higher Dimensional theories, it seems that a higher dimensional being could exist outside of our 4 dimensions.

StationsCreation,

God can indeed be a scientific matter for discussion I left him out for now as any early mention of God almost always falls on deaf ears. I simply want others on this forum to acknowledge that evolutionary theory has many problems but they hold fast to their faith.


Machine

Of your list there SC, what do they all propose as an alternative explanation?

Are they all suggesting Creation?


Machine, what exactly are these 'many problems' you keep bleating about?

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by Kano]

I have yet to see any claim of "weakness" in the science of evolution that is not based in faith-inspired creationism.

Yes... it's easy to copy-and-paste from creationism sites. Your information can be found here:
www.christchurch-virginiawater.co.uk...
It's even more fun to take quotes from scientific journals out of context and convert them to a pro-creation stance isn't it?

So... how about a non-faith-inspired alternative to evolution? Is there one?

Well then you haven't responded to my bee post that has been posted on at least two different threads here. It isn't based on religious faith, but the claims made by the evolutionists darned sure take some faith.

It was a 42,000,000 year old bee in amber. They extracted its DNA, and then compared it to the modern bee...ALMOST IDENTICAL.

So my question still remains unanswered:

1. Either evolution takes a butt-load more time than 42,000,000 years, OR

2. We're all gonna evolve into bees, because they obviously are the bomb.

Which is it?

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by Valhall]

well, i believe that humans are constantly evolving, mentally, spiritually, and even physically. to evolve is to change, and everything changes, in a way that nothing is the same in any given moment. this is presented as fact through observation. now whether or not we evolved from apes is an entirely different theory.

Well... maybe a link would help.
But bees haven't evolved much, it's true. They're pretty efficient and nature is full of species that haven't evolve much since an optimum state has been achieved.

Try hundreds of millions of years.

The T-Rex was as far removed from his Jurasic ansesters as we are from him.

I think that theories should be presented as just that theories, otherwise they become lies in all probability.