Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Score one for science education
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=411519[/url]
[quote]ATLANTA Jan 14, 2005 — Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."
"What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this book except evolution," said Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, who with Joseph S. Levine has authored three texts for high schoolers.
On Thursday, Miller along with fellow teachers and scientists cheered a federal judge's ruling that ordered the Cobb County school board to immediately remove the stickers and never again hand them out in any form. [/quote]
[quote]ATLANTA Jan 14, 2005 — Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."
"What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this book except evolution," said Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, who with Joseph S. Levine has authored three texts for high schoolers.
On Thursday, Miller along with fellow teachers and scientists cheered a federal judge's ruling that ordered the Cobb County school board to immediately remove the stickers and never again hand them out in any form. [/quote]
Comments
Good job Courts!
At the heart of this debate is the belief, among some Christians, that the bible is a flawless, factual book and that all activities, details and accounts therein happened just as described. The main basis for this argument is the book itself, rely on versus such as those in the book of John, which proclaim that in the beginning there was the word and the word was God (I'm paraphrasing since I don't have a bible in front of me). I have some very close friends, very smart people, who hold this belief. Taking the bible completely literally creates some serious rifts with what is believed in the natural sciences including the age of the earth, which, by tracing the genealogy laid out in the bible is believed to be less than 10,000 years old.
I accept the bible as truth, not as fact. My mother provided a great analogy, a statue of Abraham Lincoln cutting the chains of a slave can be viewed as truth, that without Mr. Lincoln, the slaves may not have been freed, but we know it is not fact. Nowhere is there an account of Lincoln actually cutting an individual slave from bondage. I view the bible in the same way, the fact that the earth was not created in seven days in no way diminishes my view of the glory of God. Matter of fact, I believe those who blindly participate in these types of public battles are weak in faith and must have some solid proof on which to base their beliefs. When that proof is challenged, their faith is shaken and therefore they must lash out to protect those beliefs, as opposed to examining them selves and trying to better understand their own faith.
As I once told a friend, faith is not belief contrary to facts; faith is a belief that grows strong in the absence of fact. This does mean that as we learn and discover, our faith must shift and change, but it in no way rules out the existence of God.
Jake
[B]Matter of fact, I believe those who blindly participate in these types of public battles are weak in faith and must have some solid proof on which to base their beliefs. When that proof is challenged, their faith is shaken and therefore they must lash out to protect those beliefs...[/B][/QUOTE]"Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves."
-Eric Hoffer
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything."
-Robert A. Heinlein
"Religions that teach brotherly love have been used as an excuse for persecution, and our profoundest scientific insight is made into a means of mass destruction."
-Bertrand Russell
I think there might be lot more to correct, but I fear it has been going just backwards because of this oil baron...
Especially considering Dubya's fundamentalist/skewing science policy.
[quote]Study finds errors rife in science textbooks
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Twelve of the most popular science textbooks used at middle schools nationwide are riddled with errors, a new study has found. Researchers compiled 500 pages of errors, ranging from maps depicting the equator passing through the southern United States to a photo of singer Linda Ronstadt labeled as a silicon crystal.
...
One textbook even misstates Newton's first law of physics, a staple of physical science for centuries.
...
The study's reviewers tried to contact textbook authors with questions, Hubisz said, but in many cases the people listed said they didn't write the book, and some didn't even know their names had been listed. Some of the authors of a physical science book, for example, were biologists.
...
Hubisz said the researchers contacted publishers, who for the most part either dismissed the panel's findings or promised corrections in subsequent editions.
Reviews of later editions turned up more errors than corrections, the report said.[/quote][url]http://www.usatoday.org/news/ndssun04.htm[/url]
Here's what I find absurd about this whole issue: Evolution is a scientific theory. It is taught in the science subject (or a branch of the science subject, biology). What some groups seem to think is that creationism should also be taught in the science subject. But creationism is not a scientific theory, fact, or anything. It is a religious belief. If it's going to be taught, it should be taught in Religious Education classes (whether those be at school or elsewhere). It doesn't look like the group who wanted these stickers wanted that, which is a step up from the usual idiocy, at least.
As for creationism itself, I don't see why people think it must exclude all scientific theories, or why scientific theories must exclude creationism. I prefer to look at it like this: God may or may not have created the Earth. If he did, why is it necessary that he created it specifically as laid out in Genesis? There's just as much chance that he made this big lump of rock, dumped some chemicals on it in such a way that they'd eventually turn into people, and thought "This'll give me a good laugh in a few billion years." After all, I bet even God gets bored. Or maybe he made the universe 13 billion years ago and let things go about their natural course, and this is the current result. But seriously though, looking at it from the point of view of "God created the Earth, Genesis was just the best theory they could come up with at the time for how he did it" fits just as well. It all comes back to what Freejack said about truth and fact, and people assuming the Bible is solid fact and nothing else. That's just as bad as a scientist not having an open mind.
Wow, that was rambly.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]the general belief of what a scientific theory is, is actually something that is held out by the evidence. Otherwise it's a hypothesis. In evolution's case the evidence is all circumstantial, but it's still a theory, not a hypothesis.
Here's what I find absurd about this whole issue: Evolution is a scientific theory. It is taught in the science subject. What some groups seem to think is that creationism should also be taught in the science subject. But creationism is not a scientific theory, fact, or anything. It is a religious belief. If it's going to be taught, it should be taught in Religious Education classes.
As for creationism itself, I don't see why people think it must exclude all scientific theories, or why scientific theories must exclude creationism. God may or may not have created the Earth. If he did, why is it necessary that he created it specifically as laid out in Genesis? There's just as much chance that he made this big lump of rock, dumped some chemicals on it in such a way that they'd eventually turn into people
But seriously though, looking at it from the point of view of "God created the Earth, Genesis was just the best theory they could come up with at the time. It all comes back to what Freejack said about truth and fact, and people assuming the Bible is solid fact and nothing else. That's just as bad as a scientist not having an open mind. [/B][/QUOTE]
If religious people want Crationism taught, then it needs to be taught in a religious atmosphere. School is not supposed to be a religious atmosphere, if my son came home from public school and said dad, today the teacher spoke how god created earth and people, Id probably be a little irritated. I dont have a problem with religion so long as its not thrust upon me or my family. In the modern day world most people are free to make their own religious choices, it needs to stay that way.
by the way, Only in Georgia...
[B] There's just as much chance that he made this big lump of rock, dumped some chemicals on it in such a way that they'd eventually turn into people, and thought "This'll give me a good laugh in a few billion years." After all, I bet even God gets bored. Or maybe he made the universe 13 billion years ago and let things go about their natural course, and this is the current result. But seriously though, looking at it from the point of view of "God created the Earth, Genesis was just the best theory they could come up with at the time for how he did it" fits just as well. [/B][/QUOTE]
Biggles ramble stumbled onto another issue with these debates, and thological debates in general, the limited ability of humans to comprehend a god that lives outside our own timeline. Whether your say God created earth 13B or 4000 years ago to see how it would turn out, ascribes a characteristic to God that very few religious persons would agree he has, a physical presence. Since time is relative, for God to follow a timeline, he must be travel at a specific speed, which in turn, means he exists physically. We as humans, have a very hard time understanding a God who is not only omnipotent and omnipresent, but also omnitemporal.
This has not only been the basis of bible vs science debates, it has also been the basis of free-will vs preordained/predestination debates within the church.
Jake
Wise observation (and I agree with the court requesting them to remove the silly stickers).
Nearly every thought... is a hypothesis, an approximation modeling reality.
When formalized and supported with proof, a hypothesis becomes a theory. Different theories continue to have different levels of proof and provability. (Those which are impossible to collect tangible proof for, are called beliefs.)
That evolution occurs... that the appearance, change and disappearance of natural species nearly always occurs via adaptation (or failure to adapt)... which generally occurs via inexact replication of diverse and mutating genes... is among those theories which are fairly solid and reliable.
To try teaching biology while specifically excluding evolution... would invite the question... of why a highly provable theory was excluded (possibly replaced with less provable ones).
Why some people might want that... does not relate to biology. Biology does not (and should not) deal with spiritual beliefs. It deals with finding the best explanations to how life works.
I have no personal doubts that there is a God, and that experience I have that is proof in my mind of his existence follows very close to what the Bible describes.
I also have great respect for scientific discoveries and there explanations in the natural world that we can describe by observation and/or inference.
I think when it comes to the text of the Bible, it is God's truth. I think he spoke through individuals and relayed those truths in the only symbols that could be understood at the time.
Genesis says the universe and the world was created, then it turns around and says it was done in seven days. Elsewhere in the very same Bible, God states through the writer that a Day is as a thousand years to God. Why? He exists outside of this creation that is bound by that time constraint. So who's to say that God's creation day isn't really a thousand years, a million, or a billion?
Einstein showed us that things are relative. When the speed of light was established as a constant, this rendered the measurement of time and space relative and NOT constant. Who's to say that Time has run at a linear rate since the Big Bang (Expansion or what have you...)?
I can believe in the creation story because it parallels what science says about the beginnings of the universe. and the evolution if you will of smaller creatures to what we know of now.
Finally, I think that all errors come out of interpretation by very fallable creatures who like to hold on to their explanation of life. :D
It is said the Universe is around 4.5 billion years old, but that is based upon a linear interpretation of time. Things in nature rarely operate in that mode.
People must remember also that the Bible was not intended to be a history of the Universe book. It has history in it yes, but it's first and foremost purpose is to tell the story of salvation and redemption of creation back to God after the fall.
There could very well be (and I do believe) a lot of history not included both at the beginning, as well as along the way.
Well anyway...
It comes down to simple choice...
Do you believe God started the Big Bang, put evolution in place, and just let the system run on it's own with the occasional tweak, or do you believe that in a Universe who's natural state is Decay, that it somehow miraculously organized itself into galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atomic elements, sub atomic particles, etc all on it's own?
My personal choice is creation, although I doubt ANYONE who is earthly bound will EVER be able to understand the whole picture without God, and in some other form other than these crude earthly beings we are now in life.
How can the creation be greater than the creator, much less be equal to him?
If there is no creator, and all this happened by chance, and we exist in an exquisit dimension that allows for all the neccessary things that had to happen for life to exist etc, then I will have been a fool and died, and become nothing again.
On the other hand, if God exists, and I accept him I will have gained a great perl of immeasurable value...
The cards should be put on the table, and let the player decide what they believe.
;)
Cabl3 Guy, I can't begin to describe how offensive that is, on so many levels, but since that was probably your intent, I'm just ignoring it.
[B]In place of those stickers I would prefer and even handed look at both Creationism and Evolution and let the students decide.[/B][/QUOTE]
Evolution should be taught in science as the scientific theory that it is. There is no place in science classes for teaching creationism as it is not science, it is religion. It should be taught in the religious education classes. That way the students are aware of what the primary scientific theory is, as well as the common religious belief on the subject in western countries. Funnily enough, that is how it is done here, and so far I haven't seen any parents of christian or non-christian students running around screaming "They're filling my child's head with rubbish!" No, I've seen kids who are firm enough in their own knowledge of religion and sceince to decide what they believe for themselves.
[QUOTE]Do you believe God started the Big Bang, put evolution in place, and just let the system run on it's own with the occasional tweak /.../ ?[/QUOTE]
Since in discussion, it may benefit to know where another stands... no. I don't have religious beliefs.
I would be willing to debate the issue in greater detail... unless I knew that debating religious beliefs *will* lead to 50 pages of argument, and eventually produce nothing (except perhaps personal animosity).
So I think... we should spare ourselves much trouble... and use that time for things which are productive, beneficial and enjoyable.
[QUOTE]or do you believe that in a Universe who's natural state is Decay, that it somehow miraculously organized itself /.../ all on it's own?[/QUOTE]
Not really.
Both the concept of the universe being a self-powering system... and religious concepts of creation... have so plentiful unresolved contradictions with observable world that... about the existence of the universe... I don't consider it feasible to believe anything.
On matters where proof is not forthcoming, my personal preference is to assume nothing. Whether life has an objective purpose... does not matter to me, since I have no objective way of detrmining the true purpose of life.
Lacking anything better, I try to create my own purpose. Try understanding what I am, consider what I appreciate... formulate wishes, desires and goals. Work to achieve what I perceive as beneficial. Revise my goals when they seem mistaken, or when change feels necessary.
[QUOTE]I think when it comes to the text of the Bible, it is God's truth.[/QUOTE]
Without entering the actual argument (which I have every desire to avoid, for reasons described above)... please permit me to say that in most religion-related debates... this is one point from which contradiction and animosity can easily arise.
Because to imply one religion as truthful basing on its founding text... can easily be interpreted as implying other world views as untruthful... which can be considered a direct challenge for people holding those views... to adopt a position which is equally easily perceived as incompatible with compromise.
[B]Evolution should be taught in science as the scientific theory that it is. There is no place in science classes for teaching creationism as it is not science, it is religion. It should be taught in the religious education classes. That way the students are aware of what the primary scientific theory is, as well as the common religious belief on the subject in western countries. Funnily enough, that is how it is done here, and so far I haven't seen any parents of christian or non-christian students running around screaming "They're filling my child's head with rubbish!" No, I've seen kids who are firm enough in their own knowledge of religion and sceince to decide what they believe for themselves. [/B][/QUOTE]
I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with those stickers, if churches were forced to put a sticker on the Bible that said "God is a Belief, not Fact"
But i'm thinking that wouldn't have gone over well.
[B]In response to JackN:
...
I would be willing to debate the issue in greater detail... unless I knew that debating religious beliefs *will* lead to 50 pages of argument, and eventually produce nothing (except perhaps personal animosity).
... [/B][/QUOTE]
:)
Well I wasn't looking for a debate anyway. I'm quite comfortable in what I believe... ;)
In regards to the above... I have seen 50+ page heated arguements in the pure science realm just as much!
:D
[B]Funnily enough, that is how it is done here, and so far I haven't seen any parents of christian or non-christian students running around screaming "They're filling my child's head with rubbish!" No, I've seen kids who are firm enough in their own knowledge of religion and sceince to decide what they believe for themselves. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's another problem, parents who do not trust their child to make their own conclusions. The single most important role a parent has in teaching their child is allowing them to explore the world, take in data and make conclusions. A parent also has to allow that child make what they believe incorrect conclusions from time to time...
Jake
you see, however hard you try to say evolution is science, it IS still a theory, by it's very means it CANNOT be proven via the scientific method.
Therefor, it is still a theory, and beliving it as fact is an act of faith. So the stickers were justified.
I would see that as scientific proof for evolution..
And Jack, heres something for you ;) :[img]http://forums.portent.net/customavatars/avatar15289_1.gif[/img]
[B]Sad day....
you see, however hard you try to say evolution is science, it IS still a theory,[/b][/quote]
Um... Just because something is a theory, that doesn't stop it being science.
[quote][b]by it's very means it CANNOT be proven via the scientific method.[/b][/quote]
Yes it can, just not over the short timeline of a human life. But then, you've already [url=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=117814#post117814]shown how well[/url] you understand scientific method. :)
[quote][b]Therefor, it is still a theory, and beliving it as fact is an act of faith. So the stickers were justified. [/B][/QUOTE]
Scientists do not believe it as fact, and believing it as a theory is not an act of faith. It would be an act of faith if there were no published and peer-reviewed evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. This is not true, there is lots of circumstatial evidence. You seem to be making the mistake mentioned earlier in the thread of confusing a theory and a hypothesis.
you see, however hard you try to say evolution is science, it IS still a theory[/quote]
As Biggles likewise mentioned... unless we have notably differing definitions of "theory", nearly all of science consists of theories.
Theories are explanations of how nature works, supported with evidence beyond a hypothesis [i]("I think it might be so, but evidence is lacking")[/i] or belief [i]("proof is not acessible here, but I think it must be so")[/i].
A proper theory is generally expected... to accurately predict "what ifs". Just like special relativity predicts bending of light by gravity... the theory of evolution can predict results of observable natural processes (such as species adapting to fill ecological niches) and even biological experiments.
[quote]by it's very means it CANNOT be proven via the scientific method. [/quote]
If you consider evolution difficult to prove with scientific method... may I inquire, with no disrespect, which facet of evolution would you mean?
Some very exotic extensions of theories relating to evolution... may indeed be low on proof.
However, that evolution occurs can be demonstrated (and its speed measured) in incredibly crude and robust fashion. You take a petri dish. You grow bacteria. After they've grown for a while, you take their genetic profile. Then you dump in antibiotics.
Regrettably, due to such a radical change in environment (perhaps comparable to a notable climate change on Earth)... most of them probably perish. But some, those who had uncommon mutations in the genes and metabolic processes targeted by the antibiotic... live on, develop resistance, and form a new culture of bacteria which spreads again. If you take their genetic profile, you will notice that change has occurred. In mere days, they have undergone many generations... and adapted to fit their new environment. The antibiotic which hurt their ancestors... is just another chemical to them.
The same can happen to big plants and animals. If a species is accustomed to one habitat, but that habitat starts changing... chances are that environment drives it to adapt. Perhaps successfully (but since they tend to compete, no certainty exists of every species succeeding). And if its habitat is split by natural barriers, adaptation driven in opposite directions... species can split too. Just like when you applied one antibiotic to one end of the dish while another to another. **
[i](** I must make a reservation here. Some species of bacteria have been observed to "swap" parts of their genome with their neigbours, much like humans swap technical advise. Since this lends them extra adaptivity, you might end up with a double-resistant population instead of two differing populations.)[/i]
It is merely... that what bacteria do in days, insects do in decades... while long-lived creatures require great amounts of time. Among the reason why long-lived species (hopefully with the exception of ours, since we can compensate for our slow genes with fast adaptations like society and technology) tend to go extinct relatively more often.
Where is the problem? Where is the unprovability?
[quote]Therefor, it is still a theory, and beliving it as fact is an act of faith. So the stickers were justified.[/QUOTE]
As I ventured to say before... nearly every thought is a hypothesis... a guess, an approximation pointing at reality, but never perfectly matching it.
There is no "absolutely correct theory"... and for that reason, the stickers were *not* justified.
Putting them on a book about evolution... requires that you put them on *everything*. Yes, even a book about math.
[B]Sad day....
you see, however hard you try to say evolution is science, it IS still a theory, by it's very means it CANNOT be proven via the scientific method.
Therefor, it is still a theory, and beliving it as fact is an act of faith. So the stickers were justified. [/B][/QUOTE]
A,
I would have expected you to agree with removal of the stickers. Whether or not you hold on to the belief that creation took place exactly as described in the Bible, it is illogical to call out one scientific principal as being a "theory" and not all the other lines of science that happen to contradict a literal interpriation of the Bible, such as carbon dating and paleontology.
Jake
Clearly A%, you do not understand science.
[quote][i]Originally posted by A2597[/i]
[b]you see, however hard you try to say evolution is science, it IS still a theory, by it's very means it CANNOT be proven via the scientific method. [/b][/quote]
What you said about a theory is the very definition of a scientific, yet you try to claim that becuase it is a theory it isn't science. Science is theory. There is nothing more.
In fact within science there is no fact. It is not allowed. All that is allowed is a "very well defined theory."
Why is this? Becuase it is always possible that something will jump out and bite us and say that the theory doesn't work. Take for example the theory of time. (No idea what this would be, but it is one I can make up on the spot, though it would be related to General Relativity and quantum theory.) The theory says that time exists and that it is always flowing foward. (That is that you can never go backwards in time.) Assume this is completely true (it isn't, but lets assume it is for argument's sake). Suddenly someone jumps backwards in time so there are two of them moving at once, one appears to be walking backwards and the other forward. Suddenly you have invalidated the theory.
It might have been the most proven theory in the world, but there is something that can always happen that can disprove it, so it can't be "fact."
Do you believe it is fact that you exist? It isn't. It is theory. A great example of this is what JMS does in the final episode of Season 4 of B5 where the B5 crew is in a holographic simulation in the future. They think they exist initially, but really they are just holograms acting out a program. They find out they aren't really there and Garibalidi takes over the computer system. What they thought was fact at the start of the scene, that they existed, was disproven by the end. Becuase it was possible to be disproven it was theory and never really could have been fact.
Facts cannot be disproven ever.
Theories always have the possibility of being disproven.
Usually in science when one finds something that disproves a theory it is usually some small part of that theory. The scientist works out the correction, adds it to the original theory, and everyone is happy.
Evolution is a very well proven theory in the short term (last several million years). Beyond that it is simply a hypothesis that it went back in time to the beginning of the earth. We don't have very good fossil records before the dinosuars, and few mammal fossils even coming close to that age.
A%, you might want to take a look at understanding what scientific threories are and what the scientific method involves.
--RC
I have no problems whatsoever with Evolution being tought as scientific theory.
To become scienctific fact however, Evolution has to be:
A: Observable in nature.
B: Reproducable in a laboratory.
As of yet, we have yet to witness simple protines forming to create even the simplest form of life, nor have we witnessed any form of macro evolution.
And, as of yet, no scientist has been able to create life.
ergo, Evolution is still a theory, not a fact. Yet many institutions teach it as fact, and that is where I have a problem.
There is no scientific fact. It simply doesn't exist. Everything in science is a theory.
Perhaps you should.
[B]To become scienctific fact however, Evolution has to be:
A: Observable in nature.
B: Reproducable in a laboratory.
[/B][/QUOTE]Selective vision... or what?
Even human has caused evolution from one perspective, human has changed conditions in nature causing death of many species while others which have been able to adapt, like rats are thriving.
(no... I don't mean politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats)
[QUOTE][B]ergo, Evolution is still a theory, not a fact. Yet many institutions teach it as fact, and that is where I have a problem. [/B][/QUOTE]So why don't you have problem with religion?
That's more than else just hypothesis (/stories from certain people) without any base which could be detected, measured, observed...
[B]My main gripe is evolution being tought as Scientific FACT.
Yet many institutions teach it as fact, and that is where I have a problem. [/B][/QUOTE]
If you could please back this up with some form of evidence, I'd appreciate it. You're making a very rash generalization there. And by evidence, I don't mean a friend or family member. I mean something tangible that we as a forum can see.
To become scienctific fact however, Evolution has to be:
A: Observable in nature.
B: Reproducable in a laboratory.[/quote]
I shall ignore your portion about "fact versus theory", since we obviously have different definitions for "theory". Rewriting dictionaries is not productive debate. However, your second part... I find it possible to address.
You ask for an example. I request that you re-read my post *above* your request. For crying out loud, it *contains* an example of how to produce/observe evolution in laboratory!
As for examples from nature (aside from the obvious ones of extinction and mutation)... I propose a painfully obvious one. I propose you consider how exactly to classify the branching of SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) into HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).
It looks like speciation to me. SIV still spreads in original form among monkeys... but HIV has drifted apart, developed new genes, new properties suited to infecting humans, even resistance to some of our medicines. Incredibly troublesome and obvious instance of speciation.
But if you demand slower-evolving organisms, then speciation has been observed among flies. In a matter of decades, under human observation... isolated populations have drifted so far apart... that they cannot rejoin (are obstructed from producing viable offspring either by physiology or behaviour).
For example, I might refer you to a respectable source.
The full text of their observations can be accessed via the menu on the left.
[url]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=208785&rendertype=abstract[/url]
---------
As for proteins forming... which part do you want to see? The part inside the ribosome? That is difficult... the ribosome is a complex structure, difficult to see into. But computer-aided reconstructions of a ribosome itself... have already been done (derived from multiple atomic maps): [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/pict-06.html[/url]
[B]So why don't you have problem with religion?
That's more than else just hypothesis (/stories from certain people) without any base which could be detected, measured, observed... [/B][/QUOTE]
Quite a good point.
A hypothesis in science that has no evidence to back it up is discarded as rubish until it has some evidence behind it. Creationism has no evidence. Evolution has quite a bit of evidence, but not enough to guarentee it is right. As a result evolution is taught and creationism is not.
If you can find any evidence to back up creationism (that is scientific evidence, not something that was written thousands of years ago in a book with no provable evidence backing it up) then you would probably be famous.
--RC
I like Delenn's definition of the Universe. It being a sort of being that broke into many pieces to discover itself. Of course I can't really remember her exact words but we all know what she men't.
Also I officially declare this A [COLOR=green]GREEN [/COLOR] THREAD!
AHAHAH!
[B]Also I officially declare this A [COLOR=green]GR.EEN [/COLOR] THREAD!
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, for some reason this entire discussion reminds me of the gre.en vs purple stupidity the Drazi practice.
Bang our heads together and get no where becuase people refuse to listen.
BTW: Don't go making every thread into a color war. We are having a very good discussion (well, head banging into wall discussion) with A%. Now if only he will actually READ what we have written instead of blindly continuing to the say the same thing.