LAT
Does creationism have a place at a public school?
On Tuesday, I was in Phillips’ classroom during his lunch break when Adams walked in, and a spirited discussion began.
“We’re allowing students to exercise their rights on campus,” said Adams, who later told me she challenged evolution as a young student and still believes “it’s good for students to look at different versions of how man came to be.”
“I believe they have a right” to exist, Phillips said. “But … when students are taught that science is a bunch of malarkey, and when people are trying to indoctrinate them with something that’s not true,” it’s a disservice to students and a hindrance to science teachers.
Adams said there’s a gay-lesbian club on campus, and she supports that, too.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM
No you are selling theory, the fact that things evolve slowly over time does not explain one species changing into something entirely different. Adapting is not the same as changing into a different creature all together. For a one celled animal to change into a new creature it would have to add whole new characteristics to its being including internal organs. What you observe in a virus does not even begin to explain how a kidney or vein or pancreas could have evolved.
Rose on December 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM
Evolution and creation are two separate topics.
Why do people always seem to conflate the two?
As far as I know, science gives no explanation for origins of everything.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM
The same is true of any scientific explanation of origination…or would be true is science offered a hypothesis for origins.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM
Thats not evolution. It’s natural selection.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM
Ah, but you see, I wasn’t trying to explain how a kidney could have evolved or veins, the purpose was to give a simple undeniable example of evolution and it’s affects that you apparently believe in enough to take your antibiotics after you stop feeling bad.
You want evolution to mean things just sprout wings and kidneys from nowhere to people. I want evolution to mean what it actually means.
When you actually understand it and aren’t approaching it from a “I’m gonna find anyway I can to wiggle out of accepting it” attitude with immediate reactions of an obtuse nature that just a little further critical thought could changed if you’d ever been open to understanding it in the first place, how all the things you laid out happened becomes much less complicated and much more comprehendable.
I think your opinion and statements come more emotion and “fear of what it means” than any sort of genuine study with an open mind and desire to understand. Its dripping with the scent of someone who has never approached the topic with anything but your opinion already made up and unchangeable before hand.
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM
And as far as we know, creationism explains the origins of exactly nothing.
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 3:34 PM
Addressed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html
Refuted. Next.
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM
The Big Bang.
filetandrelease on December 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM
You have described yourself perfectly. I believe that people like you cling to every little perceived evidence of the theory of Darwinism to the point that you refuse to accept any critique of what you actually are saying. The belief that given enough time a one celled creature was able to evolve into a human being is absurd and extremely illogical. The human body is far too complex to harbor such a belief.
Rose on December 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Natural selection is one of the main mechanisms of evolution.
Evolution occurs via natural selection.
Try again.
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM
It’s against the law to do terminal medical research on apes. It can be done on monkeys and other animals, but not apes. I don’t know if that’s the reason pig hearts are used, but I learned that recently and thought it was interesting.
juliesa on December 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Equivocate much? Creationists accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution has been observed. Macro-evolution has not.
“Good” Lt. why don’t you enlighten us on how evolution explains origins?
After that, you can explain how you are “good.”
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Hello Mimzey, glad to see you, actually kind of like debating with you.
You are absolutely right! I believe people seem to conflate the two because believers in creationism only see “evolution” as meaning man came from apes and all this shit just exploded out of nowhere, when that’s not the case. And through their lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution ACTUALLY is, they attempt to deny an extremely sound, testable, and provable understanding of life in our natural world because they don’t understand that THAT is not what evolution is.
The idea to man came from primates is merely an unfinished APPLICATION of the theory. It is NOT the theory. So people of scientific study that work with it everyday get pissed that the people who’s only source on their theory is the first page and a half of a religious book with nothing to follow it up on.
Creationists think their theory attempts to explain the same thing as evolution. But it doesn’t. Evolution DOESN’T attempt to say where life originated. Hence the two end up intertwined in a “battle” where neither side is fighting the same war and not really even arguing the same things. But thinking they are because they don’t understand what the other side is ACTUALLY saying.
Absolutely! But evolution, as you said, isn’t talking about origins, and creationism solely speaks of origins and has no ability to be tested in a scientific manner. So how can creationists sit there with a straight face immediately dismiss evolution on the basis of their faith? Easy, they don’t understand what evolution ACTUALLY is and choose to just see it as fairy tales where virus’s sprout wings and gills for the hell of it. When it’s not.
Mimzey, Natural Selection IS evolution. It is the whole foundation. Natural selection is the tool and catalyst of evolution. So yes, it is evolution. It’s the absolute crux of the entire theory. Things don’t just sprout wings. Natural selection slowly, extremely slowly, benefits those born with traits the move in that general direction.
Natural selection IS evolution. Fact.
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM
How is that science? Provable, repeatable? In what lab, under what microscope, through what telescope has it been observed?
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM
False.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html
Refuted. Next claim, please.
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM
If only lightening hadn’t struck that iron rich puddle…
tom daschle concerned on December 9, 2012 at 3:45 PM
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Evolution does not explain origins, nor did it attempt to.
Evolution is a fact, observed in nature and in the lab, testable, verifiable, with physical and genetic evidence supporting it, the end.
Mystical religious superstitions and myths are simply that – myths and legends. Physical evidence does not support them, and in fact refutes them.
Abiogenesis is the field of science that explores origins.
Is that the best you have?
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM
And science? What is the scientific hypothesis for origins?
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 3:51 PM
True.
“How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, ‘Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.’ Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, ‘we don’t really know how life originated on this planet.’ A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?”
So “Good” Lt.
Where did everything come from? What does science say about that?
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM
…and?
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM
You might be right if you had delivered any sort of “critique” of what I or the theory of evolution has said. But you haven’t. You can provide no evidence, no scientifically falsifiable argument, and no tangible testable explanation to support your assertions that, “The belief that given enough time a one celled creature was able to evolve into a human being is absurd and extremely illogical”, or that, “The human body is far too complex to harbor such a belief.”
Those are just FEELINGS. Your belief. And cannot be supported or tested by experimentation or observation. And derive solely from RELIGION, as opposed to science.
Mine are not based on feelings or belief. They can be supported and tested by experimentation and observation. And they are derived solely from what can be observed, seen, and tested, as opposed to the first page and a half from a 2000 year old religious book, in the half of it that can be selectively quoted and ignored by modern christians because of the “new covenant” of the New Testament when convenient anyway.
I think the evidence obviously in my favor and the “who’s basing more on closed minded preconceived notions resistant to testing or new information” award goes more fully to you, in an obvious and clear fashion.
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM
What utter guf.
But judging from your comments in this thread I am not surprised by your thoroughly empty bag of facts.
Capitalist Hog on December 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM
By magic, poofed out of nothing, breathed into existence by an incantation, from a sky being that nobody has ever seen or can show exists. And it’s the skybeing worshiped by a tribe in bronze-age Mesopotamia, but not that icky pagan one that those other heathens thought was real.
Duh.
Or, of you want a more scientific approach to this question, you can look into the field of science that studies this.
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM
What you believe is pure theory. All the supposed evidence is assumed truth. There is nothing about your belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor that is observable or testable. If you look at the supposed facts they always claim it is assumed or presumed that certain things are true. Call it what it is, a theory. How can you possibly test your theory?
Rose on December 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Thanks Genuine. You seem to be honest and put a lot of thought in your answers, and that make you a good debate participant.
Your claim that creationists dismiss evolution is too all encompassing and I have found it to not be accurate. Many don’t have a problem with evolution.
Actually natural selection is not evolution.
In order for things to evolve there has to be a net gain of information.
When a bacteria “becomes” resistant to an antibiotic, it’s not actually becoming anything. The resistance to the antibiotic was already present..otherwise the remaining bacteria would have been destroyed.
The void that is created by the diminished population of bacteria is just repopulated with bacteria with the already present resistance.
Evolution requires new information that causes changes in an organism.
That said, I’m not disputing evolution, I’m just pointing out that the bacteria/antibiotic is not a good example of it.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Good source for band names.
Zinc World
Radioactive Beach
Soup Theory
tom daschle concerned on December 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM
“How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? “
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM
The best science can offer is the big bang, and you know that. Now the big bang vs creationism, now THAT’S a fair debate. Neither provable, testable, or observable beliefs on how the universe began. Creationism vs Evolution? Not so much. Not the same ball park. Not the same game. Not even the same sport.
So why is creationism supposed to be given equal time, credence, and respect as evolution in the classroom? How is creationism given the ability to “disprove” or “contradict” evolution, over ride it?
Whether creationist theory is taught should only be brought up in lessons where the possibility of the big bang theory is also discussed. As they’re both at least somewhat equally baseless and attempt to ACTUALLY explain the same thing?
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM
This is for you.
Capitalist Hog on December 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM
There is an abundance of evidence supporting this. You’re just too afraid to look at it.
There are many, and all with more evidence than creationism (which has none).
You’re describing creationism.
Gravity is a theory.
Germ theory is a theory.
Atomic theory is a theory.
Relativity is a theory.
Light is a theory.
Are they all now null and void as well?
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Oh bull… given enough of a timescale a roomful of monkeys locked in a room with a typewriter will pound out the complete works of shakespeare… doesn’t mean it’ll happen.
Likewise, you’d think all the countless hundreds of thousands of generations of lab rats would’ve evolved a way to overthrow their subjugation by now…
Skywise on December 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Evidence for creationism:
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Thats a non answer.
In your reading of that posted field of science..what is their theory?
There can be none that can be held to scientific method because it cannot be tested or replicated or falsified.
This leaves it into the area of belief and faith.
If you have found evidence to the contrary, can you share it with everyone?
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Sadly for your mystical beliefs, it is. Reality and nature does not cease to be just because it’s uncomfortable to fundamentalist religious doctrine.
Read the article. there are several. None of them credit ‘magic from a skybeing,’ which is what I imagine your problem with it is.
Ironically, that’s where creationists continue to reside, and have advanced scientific understanding of reality exactly nowhere. Ever.
Good Lt on December 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM
http://creation.com/genetic-code-intelligence
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM
Exactly.
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Great!.
What are they and what actual evidence can you express here?
And? What do those have to do with the topic?
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Yer silly!
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM
No.
Moesart on December 9, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Still haven’t seen you address what gives you the right to deny the findings of ‘experts’ in climate science.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM
“How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? “
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Are you arguing that no scientific progress occurred from antiquity (where we get multiple origin stories regarding the genesis of the universe) until 1859 and the publication of ‘The Origin of Species’?
Good Solid B-Plus on December 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM
>
Science often offers explanations in the form of theories based on observations and math.
filetandrelease on December 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM
Agreed, but it wasn’t meant to be a rock solid all encompassing and full picture of a sprawling theory condensed onto a single sentence and example.
It was meant to be a was small, simple, relatable, understandable, and accepted in everyday life by everyone example of how the study of evolution and it’s capabilities and affects have translated into accepted behavior and belief even by “creationists”.
It has done so because it’s real, it’s true, and it’s provable. Evolution happens. Doesn’t explain how the universes began. But creationism doesn’t trump it and isn’t even in the same field. To try to equate the two is laughable and unserious when discussing real modern biology, chemistry, and general science.
Therefor, it has no place in a science classroom with evolution. Religious studies? How did the earth begin theories 101? Absolutely! But not science. That’s just wrong and self defeating.
There is just no science, advancement, or greater understanding to be gained from the study of creationism in a scientific fashion. None. So why should it be allowed in a SCIENCE class? The study of the real, tangible, and testable?
Answer? It shouldnt.
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 4:17 PM
http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:19 PM
I can do a standing jump from the floor of my house onto my desk. Using this theory of connections (i.e. we’ll just assume that all this will eventually happen), I can also make a standing jump from the floor of my house to the surface of Venus. It’ll just take some time to practice.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »