Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Creationism should be taught as a theory based on belief and thus unproveable. Darwinism should not be taught unless all of its flaws and inconsistancies are also taught. Other theories could be taught as well (some believe life was seeded on Earth by aliens, for example). However the Darwiniacks refuse to call Evolutionism a theory anymore and don't want any debate on the subject. Just like the eco-wackos they can't handle open debate so they try to silence critics and bury their heads to legitimate shortcomings in their theories.
CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
The flaws and inconsistencies are taught, by the way... when was the last time you took a physical/evolutionary anthropology class?? Just because there are a few flaws that haven't been worked out doesn't automatically mean there is a creator.
If the 'other theories' are scientific, testable and consistent then yes, they should be taught. As it is, there is no viable scientific alternative to Evolution as of yet. If one should come up, I suppose we'll discuss it then.
Darwinism should not be taught unless all of its flaws and inconsistancies are also taught.
What "flaws and inconsistencies" do you speak of here? When creationists use those terms, they usually mean a handful of long debunked creationist falsehoods such as the "lack of transitional forms" or "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics." Certainly you would agree that there is no educational value in teaching falsehoods. Right?
In point of fact, evolution as taught today is taught quite fairly, to include a discussion of what is still not known and what areas of investigation are still being pursued. If any student wants to get deeper into the subject the resources to explore evolution's most profound unsolved questions are readily available and heavily discussed in specialized courses on evolution, but of course I mean the real unsolved questions, and not the creationist straw men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon
Other theories could be taught as well (some believe life was seeded on Earth by aliens, for example).
Well, that would be no wackier than teaching creationism. Unfortunately, panspermia is not a competing theory with evolution. It is a competing theory with terrestrial abiogenesis... but itself still assumes abiogenesis occurred, just somewhere else in the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon
However the Darwiniacks refuse to call Evolutionism a theory anymore and don't want any debate on the subject.
Sadly, here you have stepped over the line into patent ignorance regarding what scientists teach, and it is founded on the traditional and persistent creationist ignorance regarding what "theory means."
Evolution is absolutely and explicitly taught as both a fact and theory, because (like gravity) it is both. The fact of evolution is that all organisms on the planet have descended with modification from one or a very few original ancestors. The theory of evolution is that natural selection is the primary mechanism that explains that fact.
This particular Universe was created when a singularity rapidly expanded and cooled. That much we do know for sure - because it is the only explanation that fits the facts.
What occurred prior to that is hard to describe, since even time itself did not technically exist yet. Perhaps God lit the match, perhaps not. I choose to believe in a Creator - but I know that Creationism is not science. I know that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a Creator, nor any that proves the absence of one (which cannot be done). So in the absence of proof, I can believe what I like in the Realm of Belief.
But this is where you go wrong. When I see a fact that contradicts my beliefs, and sufficient proof of that fact - I adjust my beliefs to fit reality. This is only logical and rational.
You do not behave logically or rationally. When faced with a fact that contradicts your beliefs, you ignore reality in favor of your belief. That is not logical or rational. Your deep-seated psychological need to believe in a literal Genesis (under threat of Hell , no less) prevents your programmed brain from accepting any fact, no matter how well proven, that contradicts your views.
As Nietzsche put it: Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies.
At any rate, not understanding the particulars of how it happened does not mean that "godddidit."
"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world."
Creationism should be taught as a theory based on belief and thus unproveable.
Then it has no place in science class.
Quote:
Darwinism should not be taught unless all of its flaws and inconsistancies are also taught.
"Darwinism" isn't taught. Evolutionary biology is taught, and that includes corrections to Darwin's ideas. This is already the case.
Quote:
Other theories could be taught as well (some believe life was seeded on Earth by aliens, for example).
That's not evolution.
Quote:
However the Darwiniacks refuse to call Evolutionism a theory anymore and don't want any debate on the subject
What? They most certainly do call it a theory, but they are using the scientific meaning of the word, which is more akin to "explanation."
Evolution IS a FACT, just like gravity is a FACT. Both have scientific theories to explain how they work.
The problem with debating it is that the Creationists do not have any facts to support their ideas, and are otherwise intellectually dishonest about it altogether. They've been caught lying and quote mining countless times.
"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world."
Yeah right. I understand there are scientists that disagree, but the evidence is very much against them.
"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world."
This was the reply I expected, if you do not think as I do, you are less than me.
You should have expected it. See the post from Memphis above.
There are always minority wackos that don't agree with the majority, so your posts doesn't prove anything except there are "scientists" (I notice a lot of them were not physicist) that disagree with the vast majority of physicists, including those considered the smartest and best.
You should have expected it. See the post from Memphis above.
There are always minority wackos that don't agree with the majority, so your posts doesn't prove anything except there are "scientists" (I notice a lot of them were not physicist) that disagree with the vast majority of physicists, including those considered the smartest and best.
And more of the same...
What about the following would you disagree with?
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology. Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.
Funds are allocated based on evidence. If you have a valid theory, it can, and is often funded.
However, in a day and age where we are cutting NASA to the bone, as well as many other scientific endeavors from federal funding, we've got to be smart about where we spend what we have.
Most scientific research is funded by private universities and institutions, not the government, BTW.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
