Science vs. Creationism

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

One of many things being taught in Science Classes is that Mankind evolved from Apes. This is taught as fact though there is no proof. There are many other examples of what science states as fact, without adequate 'scientific' proof. Doesn't that make those theories?

Actually, it is known as "the theory of evolution." Much scientific and fossil evidence exists to support the theory, but scientists fully recognize that it is still theory. It is considered by science as the best and most supported (by physical evidence) way to explain many aspects of the diversity of life on Earth at the present time. Scientific theories themselves evolve as new evidence comes to light, through additional exploration, improvements in technology, and further questioning.

[Menehune Man]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

ahhh but does it belong in a Science classroom? that was my specific statement.

By listening to yours and others arguments, I have changed my mind and agree that Creationism should not be taught in Science classes.

[Menehune Man]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

Actually, it is known as "the theory of evolution." Much scientific and fossil evidence exists to support the theory, but scientists fully recognize that it is still theory. It is considered by science as the best and most supported (by physical evidence) way to explain many aspects of the diversity of life on Earth at the present time. Scientific theories themselves evolve as new evidence comes to light, through additional exploration, improvements in technology, and further questioning.

Do you agree that it is being taught as fact?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

Do you agree that it is being taught as fact?

Can't rightfully say, as I haven't been in the inside of a science class in a few years. But considering the thousands of classes and science teachers in this country, I'd suspect some are cautious about being clear that it's a theory, while others probably push it as scientific fact, even if they don't come right out and say it - teachers know that they can be influential, and their own personal values will come into play.

Is that agreeing with you? Not really - but I guess I'm saying that it's possible in some cases, but not as a simple "yes" or "no." (I'm not really a lawyer - I just argue like one sometimes!)

At the same time, please understand that, whatever I personally believe, I won't tell you that you are "wrong" to accept the story of Genesis as literal. That's an issue of faith, not science.

[sinjin]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

One of many things being taught in Science Classes is that Mankind evolved from Apes. This is taught as fact though there is no proof. There are many other examples of what science states as fact, without adequate 'scientific' proof. Doesn't that make those theories or beliefs?

Man and apes share a common ancestor. Man did not evolve from apes. There is much evidence to support this. Proof is impossible.

A scientific theory is a statement that conforms to all available evidence and has not been falsified. Since any scientific theory could be falsified, a theory is as good as it gets. Theories don't evolve into laws or proofs.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

Theories don't evolve into laws or proofs.

A very good point. Theories are not generally proven or disproven; though they can become discredited in the face of additional evidence.

[lurkah]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

Theories don't evolve into laws or proofs.

Didn't the theory that the earth was flat evolve into a proof that showed otherwise?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

Didn't the theory that the earth was flat evolve into a proof that showed otherwise?

The belief that Earth was flat existed before the scientific concept of "theory" (as it is now defined by the scientific community) did. In the sense that we are presently discussing "theory," flat-earth-ism can't be called one.

Unless you call it "Intelligent Pancake Theory."



Which reminds me of the question: How many ships did Columbus have on his famous voyage?
Answer: Four; the Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria, and that other one that sailed off the edge.

[sinjin]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

Didn't the theory that the earth was flat evolve into a proof that showed otherwise?

It was a belief held by illiterates, not a scientific theory that the world was flat. The Greeks knew the world was a sphere well BCE.

An aside. Many people believe that Chris Colombus set out to prove the world was round when most believed the world flat. 1492 is the year the globe was invented I believe. Plenty of people knew the world to be round before CC went off. They just didn't know how big.

[lurkah]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

The belief that Earth was flat existed before the scientific concept of "theory" (as it is now defined by the scientific community) did. In the sense that we are presently discussing "theory," flat-earth-ism can't be called one.

However, I believe that flat-earth-ism appeared as "scientific theory" to those who absolutely refused to sail with old Chris whom they fervently believed would be sailing off the edge of the earth to meet his doom.

Don't argue with me. I was there in a previous life.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

However, I believe that flat-earth-ism appeared as "scientific theory" to those who absolutely refused to sail with old Chris whom they fervently believed would be sailing off the edge of the earth to meet his doom.

And centuries from now, we will all be thought of as fools for believing in the "science" of today. Assuming we don't use said science to prevent future generations from evolving...

[Menehune Man]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

In science classes... the creation of our solar system, this universe and the rest of all that's out there, were started by various explosions. The "Big Bang Theory". Okay, but if no other possibility is taught then the students assume that's all there is. And that theory in no way explains why there were explosions or in otherwords... "What started it all". So these scientific theories being taught may not explicitely be called fact, but they're not leaving any room for alternate views. This is just my opinion and how it all appears to be in our schools.

I'm not trying to be difficult and also hope I don't offend anyone.

[Pedro]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

And centuries from now, we will all be thought of as fools for believing in the "science" of today. Assuming we don't use said science to prevent future generations from evolving...

One day after man has travelled to mars and conquered the outer regions of space, they will come back and land on a planet called "EARTH" (which they left behind) and unearth a building with office cubicles inside thinking it was some sort of prison, there they uncover a computer and learn about some of the theories we have layed forth and laugh thinking we were a very primitive race, and date us back to their belief of the stone ages.

[timkona]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

As an amatuer astronomer/backyard physicist, I think that the Big Bang is rooted in judeo/christian beliefs that naturally presume a "beginning".

Some, at the highest levels of academia, think that the presumption of a beginning is the biggest stumbling block to understanding the bigger picture.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

As an amatuer astronomer/backyard physicist, I think that the Big Bang is rooted in judeo/christian beliefs that naturally presume a "beginning".

Some, at the highest levels of academia, think that the presumption of a beginning is the biggest stumbling block to understanding the bigger picture.

I remember this comic strip where this professor is trying to formulate the creation of the universe with a chalkboard full of computations. In the middle of all this number crunching he writes: Then a miracle occurs...then more computation.

That's kinda like our big bang theory. All this physics of formation then suddenly POW!!! BIG BANG and viola a universe! Like POOF magic!! So much for scientific notation.