Creationism growing in European schools

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by Tubby Rower

When did creationism become an American creed?

Since almost all proponents who seriously attemopt to hinder science are US-Americans, and since 90% of the money behind it is US-American money.

quote:Originally posted by mauer

Not only that, but since when (and how) is the teaching of creationism "a threat to the human rights"!? And what in the world is the "Danger" Brasseur is referring to? Crazy Europeans.

Ever heard of freedom of religion? If even NON-religion is to become Christian religion I call that a threat.

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by sz_matyas

What Kansas and Pennsylvania (and if I recall correctly a few districts in Florida and Georgia) did was to try and declare evolution an unproven and highly debated theory (true on both counts).

Not quite false, but highly misleading on both counts!

First, it seems you do not understand how non-scientists read the word 'unproven'. They think it means 'speculative', as they suually lack the necessary understanding of what constitutes 'proof'. I do not blame them, but YOU should know that "positive proof" is impossible in science. OTOH, the Theory of Evolution is widely supported by evidence, while contrary evidence is lacking. Your statement, same as what happened in the religious states of the US, paints a misleading picture.

Second, the position of the Kasas Board of Education tried to paint the BASICS of the ToE as being 'highly debated'. This is only rue in certain media (those influenced by the Christian right), but neither in the informed(!) public and media, nor in science. Or would you care to attempt to prove otherwise? What is being debated are small details - quite a different story from what the claim was. So saying that the 'theory is being highly debated' is wrong.

quote: Because it was called a debated theory, individuals felt it was necessary to present opposing viewpoints instead of saying, "This is a highly controversial subject, but you can only hear one side".

Hm, doesn't it strike you as weird that the very SAME individuals who called it 'debated' are the ones you are talking about having feelings about how to teach it? Also, nobody ever wanted to teach only 'opne side' in science - there simiply is a refusal to teach non-sides such as religious views, which do not belong into science class.

quote: (Granted in my opinion this is better than what was occuring before and there are even a number of evolutionists who feel shut out of the debate because their theories, such as punctuated equilibrium etc. didn't make it into the accepted curriculum and school boards weren't allowing anything else in because of it tends to bring massive amounts of controversy in).

wait a second - punctuated equilibrium and creationism / ID are AGAIN on totally different scaless - one is a minor detail, the other a complete denial of the ToE. it is a nice attempt by you to muddle the waters, but if you understand the ToE, then you are ebing dishonest here, and if you do nnot understand it, why do you jaw about it before learning about it?

quote:Since teachers were filling in their own choices as the competing ideas against evolution,

let me get this very straight: there are no competing scientific ideas. get it? There are none!

There are, though, and you use this to muddle the waters as addressed above, competing theories for small parts of the ToE.

quote:
administrators felt the need to step in and avoid a lawsuit on 1st Ammendment Grounds. The result was saying that a limited form of Intelligent Design (ID) would be allowed, as it had gained some support in scientific journals as a potential alternative.

have you read the trial transscripts? the verdict? You are simply wrong - the guys and gals admitted wanting to bring creationism in on religious grounds.

quote:Creationism as such was never specifically sanctioned (though not actually barred), but ID was.

False - ID is creationism, by admittance before the court of Mr. Behe, the main proponent of ID.

quote: The conservative christian Discovery Institute represents ID, but not in the form that was sanctioned.

again wrong - why else would the BoE people refer to material printed and published by the Discovery Institute?

quote: One of the major pieces of fallout is that ID researchers have been essentially banned from publishing in American scientific journals as this was seen to open the door for allowing creationism into schools (definately overreacting and causing feuds in the scientific community in the US).

This is a blantant lie, and it is a pity you have fallen for it. Please bring proof!
Fact is that
a) ID researchers hardly ever submit to peer review journals (I specifically asked Science editors and their reply was 'there's so fwe [submissions] that I can't even give you a number)
b) their work is not up to par.

if they maanged to do proper science, they could publish, and in fact a number of papers by ID-proponents have appeared in print - as they stuck to proper scientific practice.

quote: The fight inside the school curriculum is now fierest among different branches of evolutionists as states switch back to evolution only teaching and must present a united front.

???????

allow me to aks you what those 'branches' are, and why those oh-so-"we-must-teach-all-sides" people should now NOT teach all sides of evolution?

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:My main argument here would be that (w/o declaring a "winner") kids are smart. With the goal of the education system being to teach, why not teach them both sides? Or at the very least, teach them opposing viewpoints and let them decide based on the evidence. Seriously, isn't the educational system supposed to nurture thought rather than censor information?

a) time is limited. Or would you also t4each all other creation myths? And all religious or superstitious ideas about any other scientific phenomenon? No can do
b) therefore, the curriculum must select
c) therefore, the highest value of taught issues shoulkd be selected
d) ID/creationism is junk - teaching it along with other things that should all be 'THE most important stuff to know' would imply that ID/creationism is important. OOPS!

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by mauer

See, this is the problem with you guys. I'm on the side that would allow leeway and looks at things through the lens of reality.

Allow leeway - how?

'See, 1+1 may be 2, but maybe rather is 3'. That kind of leeway? Cause that's what ID/creationism is like.....

quote: One is not scientific truth, but theory.

Sorry, mauer, but you simply do not know that the 'theory' in ToE means! That's a core problem of this issue!

In science, 'theory' means 'best explanation, based on ample data, that fits all the known facts'!

quote: The other is also a theory.

Not in the meaning the word 'theory' has in science.

quote:If it is indeed a theory based on limited evidence in the larger view of things, why teach it as THE TRUTH? I just don't understand. It's like taking a cup full of water out of the ocean and saying that there's no other life forms in the water based off of studies of that one cup. However, I digress. I'm not gonna get in a peeing contest with you cause your mind is already made up unfortunately. By "your mind" I mean lack of one nyuck nyuck Can I get a rimshot!?

I see that your knowledge of evolution is quite limited. please, take no offence - so is mine! I just happen to know a bit more than you about it. But there's the heart of the problem: sschools portray evolution the wrong way, people do notn understand it (or, worse, misunderstand it), and then ask smart questions that sadly are based on their wrong knowledge.

Fact is that the ToE (rather, to be exact, the Synthetic Theory of Evolution) is based on an enormous amount of evidence, has been confirmed over and over, and that there is not a single competing theory out there. not one! Not even a hypothesis. Zip, Zero, Zilch!

So what other side would you have taught? Creationism? Something that by its very foundation ('God did it!') is NOT SCIENCE? ID, whcih is nothing but creationism in a modern form? Last-Thursdayism? Or some other form of creation myth that CANNOT BE DISPROVEN? And that's the rub: billions of attempt have failed to show evolution wrong - all other approaches have been shown wrong.

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by sz_matyas

The problem with the theory of evolution is that the version taught in most high schools has been shown false (mainly because a number of the key observations were based on falsified data, such as the classic white versus speckled butterfly population shifts in England during the rise of the industrial revolution). Unfortunately, much of the major publications on this have been within the past 10 or so years, or more recently than most high school science textbooks.

Yep, school books suck - but do please show me a single peer-reviewed publication showing the moth thingy being false.....


it is not the fault of the researcher when teachers(!) are too stupid to understand that the researchers shows selection in action, and calls it evolution in action (which the moth research does NOT show). Rather, it is the teacher's fault!

quote:
To combat this, there have been a number of permutations of the theory of evolution, neo-darwinianism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. None of these have been falsified, yet they are mutually contradictory.

To your limited understanding of them, maybe. Not to me, as many of the so-called contradicitions simply are areas where a theory addresses a different scale of evolution than another one.

quote: As these don't have the classic experiments

which??? I do not get what you mean here. please clarify.

quote:to back them up, ID is saying that they have just as much proof for their side and can show the mathematically impossibility of almost all of these new permutations (this is not creationism, it's based on the concept of irreducible complexity and allows for the source to be anything including creation, aliens, guided luck, but says that there comes a point when random mutations would fail).

And both the mathematicla and the irreducible complexity appraoch, whcih are indeed scientific HYPOTHESES(!), have been shown false. What do you want?

quote:One key fact you seem to be missing is that ID wasn't started by christians nor was that it's original goal.

Fasle - see testimony by Mr. Behe in the Kansas trial.

quote: Also the original source of life in ID isn't clear other than it has to be an intelligence.

Fasle - see testimony by Mr. Behe in the Kansas trial.

quote: This brings in the fringes to what is a fairly sound idea and lets the press and ill informed jump out and have a field day against solid science.

So you say ID is scientific? Have you actually read up on it? Then you will be able to tell me how one can test for the 'acts of intelligence', and how one can predict from ID.

quote:Perhaps ID shouldn't be promoted in schools because of the fact that the fringes are trying to control the debate, but it should at least be put before the choices of individual school boards to look at.

The 'fringes' are the founders and mainstream, sorry to say.

quote:Remember people didn't squash all research in quantum theory simply because of the Hindu movement to claim it as their own and that it validated their religion. I feel that ID should be given the same fair shake.

ID is not scientific (though it partly uses scientific practice, so those parts are solid - nad have been solidly disproven). it is no 'other side'. The fair shake for ID is examining it from a science perspective, and junk it if it is flawed - which it is, so out with it. Thank you!

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by mauer

This episode is a rerun. I've seen it a million times before.

Indeed - so why do you continue to post things that have been shown false, incorrect, or highly inaccurate before? What is your ulterior motive?

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by Beorn

If we go back a while, a long while, there were no scientific methods and no empirical sense of things, no written traditions, no records, well there were sentient beings yet and existential questions already.

While you are certainly correct in the literal sense, I do beg to differ:

it is entirely human nature (and chimp, and gorilla etc. nature, too, btw), to search for patterns. Logical patterns, that is, patterns that allow predictions. And once you *think* you have found the pattern, it is also human nature to test. And to change the theory of how the pattern works if the test does not work out as expected. That's even older than writing - just think of rubbing sticks together to make fire - without this inbred 'basic science' people would not have been able to make fire predictably, but would have gone rubbing stick & cloth, stick & bone, rock & cat, etc. The scientific method is not something someone thought up and wrote down - only rather recently has it been put into written rules. But if you watch a baby learn about the world around it, than you will see a primitive version of it in operation. And whenever a phenomenon can't be explained by a logical approach, a 'deus ex machina' is called in - only to the kicked out once knowledge expands.

quote: I completely adhere to the principle of God as an answer (a good one at that) to make sure people don't go massively hysterical. I do believe in whoever is the cordial bearded dude in the clouds if he helps the society I live in to be more moral, have stronger fellowship values and make people smile, laugh and feel good as a way of life.

Interesting bunch of claims in there. E.g. 'religion is more moral than non-religion'. That one is, btw, wrong.

[Tubby Rower]

yeah Killer showed up and proved that he knows more!!!

[Lt. Killer M]

quote:Originally posted by Tubby Rower

yeah Killer showed up and proved that he knows more!!!

thank you for the personal attack - may I remind you that it was YOU who refused to inform himself, and at the same time still refused to accept the opinion of a few thousands of experts in the world?

If you have a problem with people having knowledge - potentially because it may be knowledge that contradicts your various comfy beliefs - then do not read, do not listen, do not ask. But please, do refrain from personal attacks as well.

[Matrix]

You're not very productive in this discussion, Killer. You, as orthodox atheist, are just as prejudiced as the orthodox christian creationists.

The theory of evolution has been proven to have it's flaws. It has been falsified, so it can't be true. At least not 100%, because we do know that organisms tend to adapt (evolve) to new environments and hazards. But ID does not rule this out. It gives an alternative to what the theory of evolution cannot explain.

It's not a scientific theory? There's a common rule in the science world: every theory is true until it has been proven wrong. So please, prove it wrong.

And don't come with the argument
"So you think an alien came down to engineer us? Puhlease!"
because then I say
"So you think our ancestors were monkeys? Puhlease!"

Please understand: I am not an adherent of ID, but after reading sz_matyas' arguments I have more respect for their ideas (not those of creationists). There's one thing I'll indulge you: as Karl Popper stated the more a theory rules out, the more powerful and useful it is. The theory of intelligent design doesn't rule out a lot, so in that sense it is easy to defend it and it is not very useful.