Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution

Religions > Atheism > Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jason Spaceman"
Date:	17 Dec 2003 06:12:35 AM
Object:	Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution

From the article:
---------------------------
The knowledge base of science has grown at an exponential rate since
the Scope's trial. Evolutionary theory has evolved itself from
Darwin's "adaptation by use," through Neo-Darwinism's "adaptation
through mutations," to today's "punctuated equilibrium" and its
"hopeful monsters." The latter teaches giant mutations that appear all
at once. This theory was developed because former evolutionary
theories could not explain the total non-existence of transitional
forms.
Why not allow both to be taught in our public schools? Show the
strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Let the students use critical
thinking to weigh the evidence. I think that evolution is so weak that
its defenders must censure intelligent design for fear of the truth.
Let science be science, and experiment by considering all the facts.
It is not fair to our children's development to limit their education.
Aren't evolutionists exhibiting a double standard when they are
intolerant of another viewpoint?
---------------------------
Read the rest at http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/12/16/build/education/id-opinion.php?nnn=3
or
http://tinyurl.com/zm9v
J. Spaceman
.

User: "Lawrence Seib"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 02:34:25 PM

"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message news:<hT_Db.42534$dP1.166111@newsc.telia.net>...

"tim gueguen" <tgueguen@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Sj_Db.736393$pl3.92617@pd7tw3no...

"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:u3ZDb.42484$dP1.166022@newsc.telia.net...

"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0312170418.79d14ebd@posting.google.com...

Punctuated evolution was envisioned to explain why so many animals
change little for long periods of time. Yes there are fewer transitional
fossils, and punctuated evolution explains why this might be so.
The transitional animals are not the results of large mutations as you
denigrate them, rather they are the results of sudden environmental pressure
on a diverse gene pool.

Why not allow both to be taught in our public schools? Show the
strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Let the students use critical
thinking to weigh the evidence. I think that evolution is so weak that
its defenders must censure intelligent design for fear of the truth.
Let science be science, and experiment by considering all the facts.
It is not fair to our children's development to limit their education.
Aren't evolutionists exhibiting a double standard when they are
intolerant of another viewpoint?

It would be fine to teach both theories, in point of fact, evolution probably
uses both modes. Still there is a time and a place for the old
theories. For instance the older theories of atoms and electron orbits
are told in college.
.

User: "Vic Sagerquist"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 12:32:00 PM

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Roadrunner:

Creationism, Intelligent Design and
related concepts are not, being based on the inflexible idea that
"Goddidit."

Then you have not understood the creational premises! Some may base it
on some bible or other, I however do not.

So you made up your own creation story? OK, I guess that would be just as
valid as the bible's.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.

User: "Roadrunner"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 12:49:21 PM

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:9454679BAblastfemur@127.0.0.1...

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Roadrunner:

Creationism, Intelligent Design and
related concepts are not, being based on the inflexible idea that
"Goddidit."

Then you have not understood the creational premises! Some may base it
on some bible or other, I however do not.

So you made up your own creation story? OK, I guess that would be just as
valid as the bible's.

No, I base it on the reality of life itself. Observe, do not alter and
understand! That's ALL there is to it!

--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________

The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.

User: "Vic Sagerquist"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 01:28:30 PM

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Roadrunner:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:9454679BAblastfemur@127.0.0.1...

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Roadrunner:

Creationism, Intelligent Design and
related concepts are not, being based on the inflexible idea that
"Goddidit."

Then you have not understood the creational premises! Some may base
it on some bible or other, I however do not.

So you made up your own creation story? OK, I guess that would be
just as valid as the bible's.

No, I base it on the reality of life itself. Observe, do not alter and
understand! That's ALL there is to it!

What do creation and observation have to do with each other?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.

User: "Roadrunner"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	18 Dec 2003 12:32:37 PM

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:945478711vicman@127.0.0.1...

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Roadrunner:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:9454679BAblastfemur@127.0.0.1...

One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Roadrunner:

Creationism, Intelligent Design and
related concepts are not, being based on the inflexible idea that
"Goddidit."

Then you have not understood the creational premises! Some may base
it on some bible or other, I however do not.

So you made up your own creation story? OK, I guess that would be
just as valid as the bible's.

No, I base it on the reality of life itself. Observe, do not alter and
understand! That's ALL there is to it!

What do creation and observation have to do with each other?

The law of 'Start -Change - Stop' if you like.

--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________

The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	30 Dec 2003 11:56:07 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:47:22 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> posted in alt.atheism:

Then you have not understood the creational premises! Some may base it on
some bible or other, I however do not.

Creationism requires a creator. There's no objective evidence of any.
End of scientific study of creationism.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	31 Dec 2003 08:52:11 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:56:07 +0000 (UTC), Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>, Message ID:
<4ivuuv46vk9p7gfrjaacpoioq7vnf9t0tg@Pern.rk> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:47:22 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> posted in alt.atheism:

Then you have not understood the creational premises! Some may base it on
some bible or other, I however do not.

Creationism requires a creator. There's no objective evidence of any.
End of scientific study of creationism.

Nor is there any objective supporting evidence the universe was
'manufactured'.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	30 Dec 2003 11:56:03 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> posted in alt.atheism:

Evidence? I never said that creationism is a proven fact.

You said you're in favor of teaching it in science as a theory.
Theories require evidence. If you have no evidence you have nothing
to form a theory from. ("Theory" doesn't mean "assertion".)

You say you do have proof

Objective evidence.

for evolution, the burden of proof is therefore up to the
evolutionists.

Observed change in allele frequencies in breeding populations over
time prove that they occur.

So far al what has been given is assumptions and reasoning.

Observations are more than assumption or reasoning.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	31 Dec 2003 08:51:32 PM

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>, Message ID:
<hjvuuv4vhe6vm2l02rc9kgbu2me19ghnvl@Pern.rk> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> posted in alt.atheism:

Evidence? I never said that creationism is a proven fact.

You said you're in favor of teaching it in science as a theory.
Theories require evidence. If you have no evidence you have nothing
to form a theory from. ("Theory" doesn't mean "assertion".)

You say you do have proof

Objective evidence.

for evolution, the burden of proof is therefore up to the
evolutionists.

Observed change in allele frequencies in breeding populations over
time prove that they occur.

So far al what has been given is assumptions and reasoning.

Observations are more than assumption or reasoning.

To the superstitious, observations and objective supporting evidence
doesn't count.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	01 Jan 2004 01:43:20 AM

In article <0t27vvstf6fpgap7hm5r416udsq17c8vlu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>, Message ID:
<hjvuuv4vhe6vm2l02rc9kgbu2me19ghnvl@Pern.rk> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> posted in alt.atheism:

Evidence? I never said that creationism is a proven fact.

You said you're in favor of teaching it in science as a theory.
Theories require evidence. If you have no evidence you have nothing
to form a theory from. ("Theory" doesn't mean "assertion".)

You say you do have proof

Objective evidence.

for evolution, the burden of proof is therefore up to the
evolutionists.

Observed change in allele frequencies in breeding populations over
time prove that they occur.

So far al what has been given is assumptions and reasoning.

Observations are more than assumption or reasoning.

To the superstitious, observations and objective supporting evidence
doesn't count.

They got their scriptures. Don't confuse them with facts.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782

- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	02 Jan 2004 04:56:42 PM

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 07:43:20 +0000 (UTC), johac
<jhachm@remove.ixpres.com>, Message ID:
<jhachm-C0AF93.23472231122003@news-central.ash.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;

In article <0t27vvstf6fpgap7hm5r416udsq17c8vlu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:56:03 +0000 (UTC), Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid>, Message ID:
<hjvuuv4vhe6vm2l02rc9kgbu2me19ghnvl@Pern.rk> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> posted in alt.atheism:

Evidence? I never said that creationism is a proven fact.

You said you're in favor of teaching it in science as a theory.
Theories require evidence. If you have no evidence you have nothing
to form a theory from. ("Theory" doesn't mean "assertion".)

You say you do have proof

Objective evidence.

for evolution, the burden of proof is therefore up to the
evolutionists.

Observed change in allele frequencies in breeding populations over
time prove that they occur.

So far al what has been given is assumptions and reasoning.

Observations are more than assumption or reasoning.

To the superstitious, observations and objective supporting evidence
doesn't count.

They got their scriptures. Don't confuse them with facts.

Exactly.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	30 Dec 2003 11:56:01 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:49:21 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> posted in alt.atheism:

So you made up your own creation story? OK, I guess that would be just as
valid as the bible's.

No, I base it on the reality of life itself. Observe, do not alter and
understand! That's ALL there is to it!

You've observed a universe being created?
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	30 Dec 2003 11:56:02 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:34:25 +0000 (UTC),

(Lawrence Seib) posted in alt.atheism:

Or on grainy resolution.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "Mark VandeWettering"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 10:29:24 AM

In article <u3ZDb.42484$dP1.166022@newsc.telia.net>, Roadrunner wrote:

"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0312170418.79d14ebd@posting.google.com...

From the article:
---------------------------
The knowledge base of science has grown at an exponential rate since
the Scope's trial. Evolutionary theory has evolved itself from
Darwin's "adaptation by use," through Neo-Darwinism's "adaptation
through mutations," to today's "punctuated equilibrium" and its
"hopeful monsters." The latter teaches giant mutations that appear all
at once. This theory was developed because former evolutionary
theories could not explain the total non-existence of transitional
forms.

Why not allow both to be taught in our public schools? Show the
strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Let the students use critical
thinking to weigh the evidence. I think that evolution is so weak that
its defenders must censure intelligent design for fear of the truth.
Let science be science, and experiment by considering all the facts.
It is not fair to our children's development to limit their education.
Aren't evolutionists exhibiting a double standard when they are
intolerant of another viewpoint?

Excellent point! I totally agree!

The only excellent point you have is under your cap.
Mark
.

User: "PeteM"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	18 Dec 2003 12:19:06 PM

Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au>
posted

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as
Roadrunner<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

I can't helped you people were not able to get yourself to criticize
information given at schools. I in fact did. It seems then that the
schoolsystem did not succeed in brainwashing me. Your turn.....

You do not seem to have learnt anything basic either. Like, for
example, what a theory is.

Tell us then. What's a theory?
--
PeteM
.

User: "PeteM"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	23 Dec 2003 05:31:53 AM

Budikka <budikka1@netscape.net> posted

PeteM <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<aJLizEBwCf4$Ew34@priv
a
cy.net>...

Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.

a
u>

posted

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as
Roadrunner<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

You do not seem to have learnt anything basic either. Like, for
example, what a theory is.

Tell us then. What's a theory?

So by that definition ID is a theory (noting that the compiler uses the
word "especially" to flag non-essential parts of his definition).

It was quite easy to look this up at Dictionary.com. I'm sorry you
apparently lack the wherewithal to do it.

I looked it up in my OCD instead. This included the definitions
(omitting non-essential parts):]
- "a supposition or system of ideas explaining something"
- "a speculative view".
by both of which ID is a theory.

Not that this has anything at all to do with you, but the point is
that the ill-educated such as Roadrunner and creationism's leading
light(weight), the professional liar, Kent Hovind seem to think that
when the word "theory" is used in a scientific manner,
it is used in
the same sense as it is in general usage.
This is yet another belief
of theirs in a long, long list of beliefs, which is quite wrong.

So when you wrote "ID is not a theory" you actually meant "The theory of
ID is not scientific", for some suitably chosen meaning of "scientific".
Clearly, anyone who wishes to challenge your claim is going to direct
their attack at the implied predicate "scientific". And yet you
carefully suppressed it from your original claim. Do you consider that
was a help to rational discussion?
--
PeteM
.

User: "Geoff Offermann"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	23 Dec 2003 06:26:46 AM

"PeteM" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Q0hwcKASbC6$EwUz@privacy.net...

Budikka <budikka1@netscape.net> posted

PeteM <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<aJLizEBwCf4$Ew34@priv
a

snip

Tell us then. What's a theory?

So by that definition ID is a theory (noting that the compiler uses the
word "especially" to flag non-essential parts of his definition).

No, ID is not a theory. Among other flaws, it can make NO predictions
about natural phenomena. Once you invoke the metaphysical, you throw
that possibility right out the window.

It was quite easy to look this up at Dictionary.com. I'm sorry you
apparently lack the wherewithal to do it.

I looked it up in my OCD instead. This included the definitions
(omitting non-essential parts):]

- "a supposition or system of ideas explaining something"

- "a speculative view".

by both of which ID is a theory.

There is a scientific definition of "theory" and a vernacular definition.
When seeking to use it in the scientific context, it would behoove one to
use the scientific definition. In science, a theory is not a "supposition"
or a "speculative view". A theory is an explanation for the occurence of
observed phenomena that has been confirmed to a large degree by independent
observation.

So when you wrote "ID is not a theory" you actually meant "The theory of
ID is not scientific", for some suitably chosen meaning of "scientific".

Both.
.

User: "Earle Jones"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	23 Dec 2003 05:44:23 PM

In article <Q0hwcKASbC6$EwUz@privacy.net>, PeteM <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

Budikka <budikka1@netscape.net> posted

PeteM <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<aJLizEBwCf4$Ew34@priv
a
cy.net>...

Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.

a
u>

posted

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as
Roadrunner<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

You do not seem to have learnt anything basic either. Like, for
example, what a theory is.

Tell us then. What's a theory?

So by that definition ID is a theory...

*
Well ID could be a theory, except it has not been repeatedly tested, is
not widely accepted, and cannot be used to make predictions about any
phenomena.
ID is a speculation -- at best, a hypothesis.
earle
*
.

User: "Lenny Flank"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	23 Dec 2003 07:32:10 PM

Earle Jones wrote:

In article <Q0hwcKASbC6$EwUz@privacy.net>, PeteM <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

Budikka <budikka1@netscape.net> posted

PeteM <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<aJLizEBwCf4$Ew34@priv
a
cy.net>...

Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.

a
u>

posted

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as
Roadrunner<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

You do not seem to have learnt anything basic either. Like, for
example, what a theory is.

Tell us then. What's a theory?

So by that definition ID is a theory...

You mis-spelled "religious doctrine".
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	25 Dec 2003 09:45:27 AM

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:32:10 +0000 (UTC), Lenny Flank
<lflank_nospam@ij.net>, Message ID: <3fe8ec97$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;

Earle Jones wrote:

In article <Q0hwcKASbC6$EwUz@privacy.net>, PeteM <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

Budikka <budikka1@netscape.net> posted

PeteM <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<aJLizEBwCf4$Ew34@priv
a
cy.net>...

Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.

a
u>

posted

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as
Roadrunner<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

You do not seem to have learnt anything basic either. Like, for
example, what a theory is.

Tell us then. What's a theory?

So by that definition ID is a theory...

You mis-spelled "religious doctrine".

I.E., *****.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Budikka"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	22 Dec 2003 08:17:13 AM

PeteM <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<aJLizEBwCf4$Ew34@privacy.net>...

Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au>
posted

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as
Roadrunner<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

You do not seem to have learnt anything basic either. Like, for
example, what a theory is.

Tell us then. What's a theory?

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena"
It was quite easy to look this up at Dictionary.com. I'm sorry you
apparently lack the wherewithal to do it.
Not that this has anything at all to do with you, but the point is
that the ill-educated such as Roadrunner and creationism's leading
light(weight), the professional liar, Kent Hovind seem to think that
when the word "theory" is used in a scientific manner, it is used in
the same sense as it is in general usage. This is yet another belief
of theirs in a long, long list of beliefs, which is quite wrong.
Budikka
.

User: "Peter H. Proctor"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	22 Dec 2003 09:36:39 AM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:17:13 +0000 (UTC),

(Budikka) wrote:

Tell us then. What's a theory?

The key thing about theories is that they are "falsifiable".
That is, you can do an experiment the results of which can prove a
theory wrong.... Falsifying theories ( because they are incomplete
or wrong ) is the major mechanism by which science works.
"Creationism" (e.g.) is not falsifiable and is thus not a
theory like evolution, which is. BTW, fame and a dozen nobel
prizes await the scientist who falsifies evolution. To date,
nobody has been able to do so. This is not because nobody hasn't
tried. To date, all that has resulted is refinement of the
details. You-all creationsts are welcome to take your shot. Let
us know when you come up with something.
Dr P
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	30 Dec 2003 11:56:06 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
<pegasus@privat.utfors.se> posted in alt.atheism:

So the evidence of creationism is ...
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "Dirk Murcray"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 12:34:19 PM

(Jason Spaceman) wrote in message news:<b9401f8a.0312170418.79d14ebd@posting.google.com>...

Because facts are facts regardless of contemporary notions of
"fairness" and the truth is not determined by popular opinion.
<snip>
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 04:25:58 PM

(Jason Spaceman) wrote:

I'm actually not against that, per se. But, since there is no actual
scientific theory of divine creation (last call for papers,
creationists!), I oppose teaching creationism in a science class. That
would be as absurd as teaching music in a math class (perhaps less so,
since more links math and music, not to mention that there IS such a
thing as music theory).
It's gotten to the point where I wonder what exactly do people mean when
they ask that "both be taught." I mean, it takes all of fifteen minutes
to read Genesis. Then what?
.

User: "Wolf333"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 10:25:26 PM

"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:n3m1uvcd8crd95v3cadon345sjv27qq9uh@news.supernews.com...

jspaceman@linuxquestions.net (Jason Spaceman) wrote:

I'm actually not against that, per se. But, since there is no actual
scientific theory of divine creation (last call for papers,
creationists!), I oppose teaching creationism in a science class. That
would be as absurd as teaching music in a math class (perhaps less so,
since more links math and music, not to mention that there IS such a
thing as music theory).

It's gotten to the point where I wonder what exactly do people mean when
they ask that "both be taught." I mean, it takes all of fifteen minutes
to read Genesis. Then what?

12 years of hand waving and denial, while the rest of the world surpasses in
US in science?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	18 Dec 2003 12:09:06 PM

"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:n3m1uvcd8crd95v3cadon345sjv27qq9uh@news.supernews.com...

jspaceman@linuxquestions.net (Jason Spaceman) wrote:

What I think would be useful to teach in a science class is a
historical discussion regarding the series of scientific developments
that lead to the outright rejection of various biblical notions, for
example, how geologists determined that the world was not
created in 4004 BC, as bishop Usher had claimed.
Richard
Richard
.

User: "Jason Spaceman"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 05:37:48 PM

Couple of points, the tinyurl URL in my original post is wrong, it
should be http://tinyurl.com/zmbu As some of you may have noticed, the
tinyurl URL in my original article leads to Mountain Equipment Co-Op's
cycling shoes page, hehehe. I was looking at Xmas gifts to myself
just before I posted the original article and I guess I must've
accidentally copied and pasted the wrong URL in. :-)
I didn't write that Op-Ed piece on the Montana Forum web page. I came
across it last night and thought it might be of interest to some, and
that some may enjoy tearing the author's arguments to shreds.
Especially where he equates punctuated equilibrium with 'hopeful
monsters'. From what I remember Gould spent a few pages in The
Structure of Evolutionary Theory addressing misrepresentations of PE,
including creationists who equate it with Goldschmidt's "hopeful
monsters" theory.
J. Spaceman
.

User: "John C. Randolph"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	02 Jan 2004 08:36:57 AM

Jason Spaceman wrote:

Why not allow both to be taught in our public schools?

Because we've decided to separate religion from government in this
country, and the public schools are a function of the government.
Evolution is science, creationism is religion.
If you want to set up a religious school which chooses to disregard
facts, go right ahead.
-jcr
.

User: "Meteorite Debris"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 03:18:59 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:12:35 +0000 (UTC) the ET form known as Jason
Spaceman<jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

From the article:
---------------------------
The knowledge base of science has grown at an exponential rate since
the Scope's trial. Evolutionary theory has evolved itself from
Darwin's "adaptation by use," through Neo-Darwinism's "adaptation
through mutations," to today's "punctuated equilibrium" and its
"hopeful monsters." The latter teaches giant mutations that appear all
at once. This theory was developed because former evolutionary
theories could not explain the total non-existence of transitional
forms.

Why not allow both to be taught in our public schools? Show the
strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Let the students use critical
thinking to weigh the evidence. I think that evolution is so weak that
its defenders must censure intelligent design for fear of the truth.
Let science be science, and experiment by considering all the facts.
It is not fair to our children's development to limit their education.
Aren't evolutionists exhibiting a double standard when they are
intolerant of another viewpoint?
---------------------------

Read the rest at http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/12/16/build/education/id-opinion.php?nnn=3

The writer makes the mistake of thinking that cretinism and ID is a
scientific theories. I have yet to see a fundy church present an
evolutionary alternative alongside the Genesis myth in the interest of
"fairness".
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.

User: "Desertphile"
Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach creation science and evolution	17 Dec 2003 02:30:45 PM

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:12:35 +0000 (UTC),

(Jason Spaceman) wrote:

Lamarkian, not Darwinian.

through Neo-Darwinism's "adaptation through mutations,"

Adaptation through selective pressure and natural selection, not
mutations.

to today's "punctuated equilibrium" and its "hopeful monsters."

PunkEak does not include "hopeful monsters."
Golly: three errors in one sentence, right off the bat. Perhaps *THAT*
is why Creationism isn't "taught" in real schools.

The latter teaches giant mutations that appear all
at once.

Define "giant."

This theory was developed because former evolutionary
theories could not explain the total non-existence of transitional
forms.

Then how do you (or the author of this tripe) explain all of the known
transitional and intermediate fossils?

Why not allow both to be taught in our public schools?

Becuase Creationism is occult prattle and therefore not something one
"teaches:" it is something on inculcates. Why not also "teach"
geocentrism in public schools?

Show the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

There is no "strength" to Creationism.

Let the students use critical thinking to weigh the evidence.

Students are ignorant, and for the vast majority are unable to think
critically.

I think[sic] that evolution is so weak that
its defenders must censure intelligent design for fear of the truth.

You must also "think" that heliocentrism is "so weak" that scientists
fear the truth of geocentrism.
In other words, you (or the author) are not very intelligent.

Let science be science, and experiment by considering all the facts.

We did: science won, Creationism lost.

It is not fair to our children's development to limit their education.

Agreed. It is also not fair to "our children" to inculcate them with
occult nonsense such as Creationism.

Aren't evolutionists exhibiting a double standard when they are
intolerant of another viewpoint?

Yes, they are NOT. Is it a "double standard" to not "teach"
geocentrism? Do you *REALLY* assert that children should be taught
that Earth is flat and round like a pancake, and then teach them that
Earth is an oblate spheroid, and then expect them to pick and choose
what to believe?

Read the rest at

Why?
--
http://desertphile.org
Scientology is to "religion" what the tobacco industry is to health care.
.

Page 3 of 4

Post reply

Schools won't teach science of evolution
Survey Indicates Science Teachers Feel Pressure to Teach Nonscientific Alternatives to Evolution
Science Magazine: 15-20% of H.S. Biology Teachers Teach Creationism
Op-Ed: To teach science, try focusing on Intelligent Design
TOBS: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach
"...using Scripture to teach science is a 'plague on our society.'"
Highschool science used to teach Atheism
Op-Ed: Teach science, but keep the faith

"Logic is Overrated" - What movies like "Gothica" teach America's youth...
Re: US Army could teach POW treatment with video game
Letter to the Editor: Teach both ideas in school biology class
Re: Teach the controversy
Op-Ed: Teach the controversy
Op-Ed: Teach the controversy
I can teach anyone how to get what they want out of life.

NEWER

pg.3802 pg.2110 pg.1170 pg.648 pg.358 pg.197 pg.108 pg.59 pg.32 pg.17 pg.9 pg.5 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER