It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Hello all,

I scanned through all these posts and, unless I missed it (please let me know if I did), there seems to have been no explanation of the two most fundamental pieces to this debate.

1) The word theory as it applies in science
2) The criteria for a theory to become a scientific theory

1) It seems that many of the pro-creation posters are concentrating of the argument that Evolution is only a theory.

The meaning of "theory" as you use it is this:
Common usage: used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis; it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.

Correct?

There is a profound difference between this meaning of "theory" and the meaning of a SCIENTIFIC theory


A scientific theory is based on evidence. Any scientific explanation that describes how something works MUST always be referred to as a theory as it can be revised or added to as more data becomes available .

The name theory in scientific terms does not imply that there is question as to its validity but only to its completeness.

We can never claim to know EVERYTHING about any given subject.


Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, as described above.

NOT just a "theory".

2) To be a valid scientific theory a theory must be a:


testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena ... capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation


... it must be testable ...

The Theory of Evolution is very, very testable ... do some research and you will see years upon years of records about these tests.

The theories of Intelligent Design and Creationism must satisfy this very important criteria before they can be compared to the Theory of Evolution.

Until Intelligent Design and Creationism have gone through the rigourous scientific testing that the Theory of Evolution has, they can ONLY be philosophies ... and nothing more.

Personally, I would love to see I.D. and Creationism taught in schools as a philosophical class. But that is the only class they deserve, at this time, to be in.

I challenge all of the pro-creation posters here to give us evidence, that can be TESTED, towards the validity your philosophies.

For my own part I offer this piece of evidence for evolution:

Ancient Walking Whales Shed Light on Ancestry of Ocean Giants

oh yeah ... and the platypus ...




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
oh come now. We teach history class as if its true history, while almost everything you read in there is a lie. Thats how our schools work anyhow. Its a system of indoctrination not education.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Originally posted by wytworm
[I get it. You feel misunderstood. Broken angel. Ok. Can we move on? Sigh...]


Well then maybe you could explain it to me, because i don't "get it". What are you saying with that statement ? I don't feel "misunderstood" you chose to group me into the circle of creationists without reading my first post. And rather than admit that you made a mistake, you just keep holding on to that bone.



[You said it was the most important part. I engaged you on that asking for details. Put up or shut up. I repeat. Important to what? ]



It is the important part to me, just as your belief is the important part to you. You know what you do and don't want your children taught in school, that would be your right. Just as what i do or don't want mine taught in school is my right.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


What i meant was: Less whining about how everyone is trying to pigeon hole you and more to the point of the thread please.

I think you are confusing me with that other guy. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit your mistake. It really is not the point and detracts from your post.


You know what you do and don't want your children taught in school, that would be your right. Just as what i do or don't want mine taught in school is my right.


This is the real premise of the whole argument. You claim rights that supersede your children's rights. Does this not imply that you see children as property?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
You know what's funny? This isn't a problem at all in the European school systems. I'm definitely sure about the Dutch system. We were taught evolution, and were taught about the evidences of it. No creationism, not even in religions class (in which we were actually taught about the major religions, not only Christianity)



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
thats not funny, its reasonable. your country wasnt founded by all the religious zealots that were kicked out of england! Puritans so uptight the english kicked them out "take your pimp shoes and go!"



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
But the U.S. was not founded on religion. It was founded on separation of church and state.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by vehemes terra eternus
 


That's not evolution, that's adaptation. Totally different concept.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Chris McGee
 



Lucy the Australopithicus was SUPPOSED to be an intermediate, but, it was FINALLY asserted that she was an extinct ape, NOT a human ancestor!.



Homo Habilis

The usual evolutionary story upset (summary)
The most common ‘neat’ story of human evolution has australopithecines (such as ‘Lucy’) evolving into Homo habilis, which evolves into Homo erectus, which evolves into Homo sapiens. Australopithecines have no clear connection to humans, but museums, popular articles and text-books for schools and universities commonly claimed that Homo habilis linked them with humans (Homo erectus and Homo sapiens). While one camp of paleontologists argued that Homo habilis was not a valid taxon, being a waste bin of mixed ape and human fossil bits, other evolutionists clung to H. habilis as being valid. Now even those who still claim it was valid are putting it aside. That effectively leaves a gaping hole in the story of human evolution, with nothing left to link humans with apes.




Now we have a cute, smaller, spider-monkey-looking creature from Spain, who some scientists are saying IS an ancestor to THE common human and ape ancestor.


The goalposts KEEP getting moved;
Man and ape


And Horza;

Where is an image of the walking whale?
Or another, different article?

[edit on 28-5-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


So, there was a mistake made in the classification of a genus which was later corrected by further research. Would you like to comment on Pierolapithecus catalaunicus or any of the evidence presented here?

To switch things around a little, it would be nice if you could present us with some evidence of creationism.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Chris McGee
 


new ape ancestor

Not everyone's convinced
Because ape fossils from the middle Miocene are so rare, not all palaeontologists agree about the place of P. catalaunicus in the ape family tree.

While the Spanish team puts it at the key branch point between the great apes and the smaller lesser apes, one Canadian palaeoanthropologist was not convinced.

David Begun of the University of Toronto told Science the fossil's facial features would link it to the African apes, the group that eventually led to chimpanzees and humans.


That's the same cute, spanish monkey I was referring to;




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


You of course realise that the section of that article you quoted states that there is a small disagreement over where in the evolutionary chain this would fit but that both sets of scientists agree it was an ancestor of humans?

I'd still like to hear your take on the other evidence including:


Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent.


Any evidence you can present in support of creationism would also be appreciated. We've so far seen a fair amount from the evolutionists side and it would help to understand your case if you could show some evidence from the creationists side.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Atheists do not want religion shoved down their throats in the form of creationism or I.D. being taught in public schools.

Christians do not want godless non-theism shoved down their throats in the form of non-theisitic evolution being the only acceptible theory of earth's origins to be taught in public schools.

The two theories refuse to co-exist.

The solution is to make sure that neither one gets taught in public schools.

It has already been pointed out that you can still have biology without teaching non-theistic evolution.

It would be the fair and politically correct thing to do.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightmare
Atheists do not want religion shoved down their throats in the form of creationism or I.D. being taught in public schools.

Christians do not want godless non-theism shoved down their throats in the form of non-theisitic evolution being the only acceptible theory of earth's origins to be taught in public schools.

The two theories refuse to co-exist.

The solution is to make sure that neither one gets taught in public schools.

It has already been pointed out that you can still have biology without teaching non-theistic evolution.

It would be the fair and politically correct thing to do.



ID /Creationism is not testable therefore not a theory. Next?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You know what's funny? This isn't a problem at all in the European school systems. I'm definitely sure about the Dutch system. We were taught evolution, and were taught about the evidences of it. No creationism, not even in religions class (in which we were actually taught about the major religions, not only Christianity)


Thats because you weren't in the grip of the Christo facists! Seriously, its a fundamentalist sect that surfaces periodically in the US and gets shoved back into place.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You know what's funny? This isn't a problem at all in the European school systems. I'm definitely sure about the Dutch system. We were taught evolution, and were taught about the evidences of it. No creationism, not even in religions class (in which we were actually taught about the major religions, not only Christianity)


Thats because you weren't in the grip of the Christo facists! Seriously, its a fundamentalist sect that surfaces periodically in the US and gets shoved back into place.


Can we shove a little harder?

100% separation of church and state supporter. NO religion in my government.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm
ID /Creationism is not testable therefore not a theory. Next?


Hmm... definitions please!!!

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
the·o·ry Audio Help /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


Well now, with that definition I shall point out that, yes, Creationism is a theory .. as is evolution.

Your "theory" that it isnt.. is.. well... a theory. Odd how that works huh? Of course, based on what you say, your theory is not testable so.. not a theory.. which would then make it an.... dum dum dum... opinion. And we all know what they say about opinions right?????

Either way, Lightmare has it right.. neither should be taught in school. Period. End of discussion. Classes can be taught without either of those two subjects brought into the lessons - hello, my biology class in 10th grade never discussed Creationism or Evolution. So it is possible.

Next??



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
EEK! Double post!!

[edit on 28/5/08 by ValhallasValkyrie]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
HOLY SMOLY!! Triple post?! Coming to in surround sound stereo!! >.<

VV

[edit on 28/5/08 by ValhallasValkyrie]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join