US Teachers have trouble teaching evolution (Oct 27th, 2008)

[Daystar]

Hypothetically speaking what would you do if science found a way to prove that the earth was created and there was no evolution?

If science found a way to prove the earth was created and the evidence was there to back it up, I would of course be naturally skeptical but would eventually be persuaded. That is the scientific method at work.

If they changed again, I would of course go back, because science has a remarkable way of correcting itself. So I really don't care about the ultimate truth, just what appears to be the ultimate truth

Exactly! Which makes it absolutely laughable that we argue the science of creation, doesn't it? Absolutely pointless. Which is why I can't understand why it is such an issue with atheists.

[Tiberius]

Exactly! Which makes it absolutely laughable that we argue the science of creation, doesn't it? Absolutely pointless. Which is why I can't understand why it is such an issue with atheists.

We don't argue the science of creation, we argue against creation being taught in schools when it doesn't have any evidence to back it up.

[Daystar]

Exactly! Which makes it absolutely laughable that we argue the science of creation, doesn't it? Absolutely pointless. Which is why I can't understand why it is such an issue with atheists.

We don't argue the science of creation, we argue against creation being taught in schools when it doesn't have any evidence to back it up.

But you just said that evidence can always change to some completely different conclusion. Why teach them anything regarding how we got here?

Did Christendom teach creation before evolution?

[lukec]

I don't think your point is valid- Creation is an unprovable and unDISprovable idea, whereas evolution is scientific and therefor disprovable. It is, as it stands, the best scientific explanation for how biological life came to be as it is. That is why we teach it in schools, and why it is called the Theory of Evolution; there is much supporting evidence, which is being added to continually in areas such as microbiology.

Why teach them anything regarding how we got here?

Why teach them anything at all, in fact? Let's just leave everything at "God did it" and be happy.

But you just said that evidence can always change to some completely different conclusion.

Where this is indeed possible, it is very very unlikely in the case of evolution- in fact I would go so far as to say it is impossible for this to happen in the case of evolution, since we know for a fact that organisms change over time. Natural selection, since it happens over such a long period of time, is impossible to prove as such, but there is so much evidence for it that it is hardly at all likely for the evidence to "change to some completely different conclusion" in this case.

[Tiberius]

But you just said that evidence can always change to some completely different conclusion. Why teach them anything regarding how we got here?

Did Christendom teach creation before evolution?

There are a couple of problems with this:

1) If implemented, we wouldn't teach anything in schools for fear that it would at some point turn out to be "wrong". That isn't how we learn. The only way to address the issue is to present the evidence, teach the current theory, and then once people have learnt that they can challenge it in any way they wish.

2) The evidence does not change, merely the interpretation of the evidence. The fact of Evolution is clear through the evidence (it happens, we've seen it happen, etc). Any alternate theory (explanation) to the current theory of Evolution would have to explain the evidence we currently have (i.e. it would have to explain how the Evolution we see affects life). So if evidence were discovered that supported a creation, the whole creation theory would have to include explanations of the evidence already at hand.

So we have a simple choice: Don't teach anyone about the theory of Evolution, or teach people about it, show them the evidence, etc.

The first option would destroy a large slice of the study of medicine and disease (because it explains drug-resistant viruses, etc), as well as all the other various uses our understanding of Evolution has. The second option is a tried and tested method, and whilst we may be entirely wrong about the theory of Evolution, our experience has shown how science is very good at correcting things. Only a few hundred years ago we thought the Earth was flat, now we don't. Same thing with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, same thing with every scientific blunder. The correct explanation of the evidence always comes through in the end. There is no reason to think that the same can't be said for today's scientific community.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm glad someone is taking a stand down there. Just from talking to people of faith about evolution, I can tell that trying to teach religious kids would not be the easiest thing in the world.

Indeed. Its a hard job. Its hard to reason with unreason. In other words its hard to reason with 'faith'.

Hypothetically speaking what would you do if science found a way to prove that the earth was created and there was no evolution?

Well if science really did prove it then it wouldn't be a problem for me scientifically since it would be scientifically true. It might morally though if the God or Goddess or whatever he/her or it is, was a personal God/Godess etc...And turned out to be a right shit or control freak. And personally even if he or she or it or whatever is nice, I wouldn't really want much interference! Well I think I wouldn't anyway! I don't know! I've never experienced 'God'.
On the other hand: Hypothetically speaking what would YOU do if religion found way to prove that the earth wasn't created and evolution was 100% true and a total fact?
Hypothetically speaking.

[chatpilot]

Considering the fact that creationism is not a science at all, I argue against it with all of my bieng.Especially since it is being promulgated as fact based on nothing more than the ancient writings and musings of nomadic tribes.

(Pseudoscience)
theory mistaken as scientific: a theory or method doubtfully or mistakenly held to be scientific

This definition is from Encarta and that is what creationism is exactly.Biblical creationism is easy to disprove if you take Genesis literally.For example which came first man or animals?You be the judge.

Genesis 1:25,26
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:7,18,19
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Just basing myself on scripture I have proven to you all that creationism contradicts itself.As a matter of fact is the author of chapter one the same author of chapter 2?Food for thought my friends.