A potential solution to the evolution/creationism debate.

[YamiB.]

Re:

You wanna solution here it is.

Just teach all standpints and theories. And let the children decide for themselves. Is that fair? Yes it is. Now be quiet

Sure, that means Creationism and ID will be excluded of course as they are not theories like Evolution.

 

[Nezdragon]

Re:

Sure, that means Creationism and ID will be excluded of course as they are not theories like Evolution.

But why teach evolution when we can just please everyone and say "we have been here forever"? Teach this a few generations, and we will have a perfect Farenheit 451. Very good book BTW. It shows quite well what happens when you try to please all the minorities.

 

[Alex]

Re:

Except it wouldn't be fair to the children to present scientific theory and religious myth as being equally valid.

Then teach all religions as philosophies and make it an elective. Let the student decide what religious course to take if any. Students are always so curious about everything, I bet they would take uncommon religious classes. This could be a problem for Christianity.

 

[Nezdragon]

Re:

Ah, yes. Lets teach that the Earth is Flat. Lets teach that Pi is 3.0. Lets teach all the quack ideas out there and let kids figure out for themselves. Lets teach that 2+2=4 and that 2+2=5 and that 2+2=6. The kids can decide what they want to believe, right?

Here is the deal. Lying to kids is child abuse. case closed.

Dude, that is completely wrong.

We should teach that pi is round, 5+5=55, the Earth is flat, humans have been here forever, milk goes bad because of evil spirits, vacuums work by magic, etc.

We should abolish religion and let the government take over our lives. We should forget history, science, invention, and other potentially informative, controversial, or emotional topics.

Heck, we can top that off by making cars that go 200 miles an hour and run over people. See the book Farenheit 451 for more ideas on how to screw us all up.

 

[Nezdragon]

Re:

Then teach all religions as philosophies and make it an elective. Let the student decide what religious course to take if any. Students are always so curious about everything, I bet they would take uncommon religious classes. This could be a problem for Christianity.

What if kids wanted to learn about multiple religions but didn't have the class slots?

 

[Alex]

Re:

What if kids wanted to learn about multiple religions but didn't have the class slots?

It would be an elective, so it would not matter. This is a common situation for all academic subjects.

 

[steen]

Re:

But why teach evolution when we can just please everyone and say "we have been here forever"?

Again, why would you want to teach a lie?

 

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

I think I have a solution. Please look at the whole thing with an open mind, then look at what I talk about and think about it. Then make your decisions free of bias. It makes things easier for all of us.

In Genesis, God made the Earth in 6 days (resting on the seventh). This apparently conflicts with science, which states that Earth was created 4.2 billion years ago, life started 2 billion years later, yadda yadda yadda.

My solution is this: One of God's days just might not be the same as one of ours. Therefore, it is possible to argue that God created the Earth over a large period of time. Evolution could still have taken place, guided by God.

What I'm saying, for those who don't get it, is that creation didn't necessarily happen in a mere 168 hours, but rather happened over the course of natural history. It does not say that creation was accomplished in 7 of our days, which leads me to believe that one of God's days is far longer than ours.

Evolution could have taken place as well. As He changed the earth, God would have made modifications to the plants and animals inhabiting there, i.e. evolution.

I would like to hear any comments on this. I don't see why it can't work!

As much as I like the spirit of trying to compromise I'm sorry to say that "that dog wont hunt". The idea itself is an interesting philosphy, one which I used to consider to be true back when I went to church. But the problem with it is that it still involves G*d, a supernatural being whose actions can't be quantified. The thing about the scientific process as it currently functions is that if you can't quantify it somehow it can't be counted as science.

 

[ultra conservative]

Charles Darwin Was @ The Time He Discovered Evolution, Going To School To Be A Pastor And On His Death Bed He Said That Evolution Was Wrong.so To All Of You Evolutionists Out There,you Are Believing In Something Your Founder Denounced

 

[nickem]

in the bible it says that one day to god is a thousand years- not sure of the correct bible book

 

[MrFungus420]

Charles Darwin Was @ The Time He Discovered Evolution, Going To School To Be A Pastor And On His Death Bed He Said That Evolution Was Wrong.so To All Of You Evolutionists Out There,you Are Believing In Something Your Founder Denounced

Solid myth. Here is an article dismissing the claim that he recanted. BTW, it's from a pro-creationist site.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

And, even had he recanted, that wouldn't matter. The current theory of Evolution is based on data from several different areas of scientific research.

 

[steen]

Charles Darwin Was @ The Time He Discovered Evolution, Going To School To Be A Pastor And On His Death Bed He Said That Evolution Was Wrong.

The claim that Lady Hope perpetrated is documented to be outright false. She lied. Even the number ONE creationist site on the web asks that creationists don't use this as an argument as it is a lie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
‘Darwin recanted on his deathbed’. Many people use this story, originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true, so what? If Ken Ham recanted Creation, would that disprove it? There is no value to this argument whatever.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp
....It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

so To All Of You Evolutionists Out There,you Are Believing In Something Your Founder Denounced

Other than your claim being a lie, it is not what Darwin speculated that makes up the science. It is the research, all the data. How little you know of science, if you believe that one person's personal beliefs has any impact. It is an inordinarily silly claim you made. It merely underscores that creationists are willing to outright lie to make their arguments. Kind of a "lying for Jesus" misguided thing.

 

[nickem]

schools don't teach that it is completely correct, science is somewhat of a religion, and teachers can't say that a religion is true. Granted, evolution is still in our science books, there have been many other theories since and they have disproven evolution. Some people just need something to believe in, so they stick with it. In order for something to "evolve" a mutation has to occur, and science has now proven that mutations do exist but that after an amount of time, the animal goes back to it's original form.

THe newest theory that is pretty much a desperate last hope for scientist is called "the hopeful moster theory"- pretty much means that every so often some unblance occurs and a chicken comes out of a dog.- what came first? the dog, then the chicken, then the egg

 

[OnionCollection]

schools don't teach that it is completely correct, science is somewhat of a religion, and teachers can't say that a religion is true. Granted, evolution is still in our science books, there have been many other theories since and they have disproven evolution. Some people just need something to believe in, so they stick with it.

not all science is religion. Real working sciences like physics, engineering and woodwork are as real as they have ever been. Unfortunately these real sciences arent taught anymore in schools becaues a lot of so called "intellectals" want more space in textbooks for darwin. But evolution is clearly a load of imagining and it is on the way out. It is a sudoscientific religion like global warming and aids.

In order for something to "evolve" a mutation has to occur, and science has now proven that mutations do exist but that after an amount of time, the animal goes back to it's original form.

Yes this is true. scientists have tried millions of experiments in labs to try and prove evolution by turning fruit into something else but they always end up with fruit and nothing new. lol i could have told themthat!

THe newest theory that is pretty much a desperate last hope for scientist is called "the hopeful moster theory"- pretty much means that every so often some unblance occurs and a chicken comes out of a dog.- what came first? the dog, then the chicken, then the egg

lol! yea also I read about another ridiculous theory they made up called punctured equality where a reptile would be walking around like normal and then suddenly on day it turns into a mammal and this is meant to explain why no transitonal fossils exist. The funny thing is for the environmentalists is that everytime they imagine up a new theory like this it imediately gets disproven by real science! There is still no mising link and if any evolutionists are so sure life comes from rocks try it with a cement mixer and get back to me.

 

[nickem]

haha, that's some pretty funny stuff. It always seems to be that any kind of scientist can disprove another. I like to think of the world as a bible with evidence and things to discover, religion is also somewhat of a science b/c of that, and most all religions can disprove eachother by diferent evidence in the bible.

 

[nkgupta80]

not all science is religion. Real working sciences like physics, engineering and woodwork are as real as they have ever been. Unfortunately these real sciences arent taught anymore in schools becaues a lot of so called "intellectals" want more space in textbooks for darwin. But evolution is clearly a load of imagining and it is on the way out. It is a sudoscientific religion like global warming and aids.

yeah funny how this pseudo science called evolution lead to tons of breaks in medical/biological research. i wonder where the intelligent design hypothesis has lead us. And are you serious about global warming and AIDS or is that whole post sarcasm?

Yes this is true. scientists have tried millions of experiments in labs to try and prove evolution by turning fruit into something else but they always end up with fruit and nothing new. lol i could have told themthat!

New strains of fruit flies and mice that are unable to breed with each other are just one example of species forming... real world evolution has been seen with moths, diseases, insects, etc. Put the pieces together you get a pretty sound picture of evolution's consequences in the world. Another thing that gives evolution validity is the fact that the theory has proven extremely useful in understanding genetics, biology, and medicine. Much of our understanding of biological systems would not be possible without the concept behind this theory.

lol! yea also I read about another ridiculous theory they made up called punctured equality where a reptile would be walking around like normal and then suddenly on day it turns into a mammal and this is meant to explain why no transitonal fossils exist. The funny thing is for the environmentalists is that everytime they imagine up a new theory like this it imediately gets disproven by real science! There is still no mising link and if any evolutionists are so sure life comes from rocks try it with a cement mixer and get back to me.

again very little understanding of punctual equilibrium... hit the books and the research journals, maybe ull get a better understanding of what the theory actually says.

 

[steen]

schools don't teach that it is completely correct, science is somewhat of a religion,

Your claim is false. Science is the exploration through the application of the Scientific Method. Could you please elaborate on how that possibly is a religion?

and teachers can't say that a religion is true.

But then, Science is't a religion. You are not scoring points by misrepresentation.

Granted, evolution is still in our science books, there have been many other theories since and they have disproven evolution.

Really? "many other theories"? Please tell us what Scientific Theories have refuted the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Because it sure is news to anybody conducting science.

Some people just need something to believe in, so they stick with it.

Yes, that is a good description of creationists.

In order for something to "evolve" a mutation has to occur, and science has now proven that mutations do exist but that after an amount of time, the animal goes back to it's original form.

Nope. Your claim is a falsehood. Since you claim that "science" has "proven" your claim, please provide the Scientific Reference to the study that proved this.

Yes, you HAVE such a reference, right? You didn't just make such a claim with no truth to it, right?

THe newest theory that is pretty much a desperate last hope for scientist is called "the hopeful moster theory"

Really? I have never heard of it. Are you saying it replaced the Scientific Theory of Evolution?

You are not just being dishonest and making all this up, are you? You are not bearing false witness, right?

pretty much means that every so often some unblance occurs and a chicken comes out of a dog.- what came first? the dog, then the chicken, then the egg

Hmm, no scientific data I have ever seen justifies such a silly claim, and as such it is not a scientific theory, and you are lying.

 

[steen]

not all science is religion. Real working sciences like physics, engineering and woodwork are as real as they have ever been.

"engineering and woodwork? :lol:

Unfortunately these real sciences arent taught anymore in schools becaues a lot of so called "intellectals" want more space in textbooks for darwin.

Hmm, last I checked, physics, chemistry and such were still being taught. And no, "Darwin" is not really being taught. Scientific Theories are.

are But evolution is clearly a load of imagining and it is on the way out.

Hmm, deceptive wishful thinking doesn't justify you outright lying, does it now. What is your reason? Are you hoping for celestial brownie point by "lying for Jesus"?

It is a sudoscientific religion like global warming and aids.

AIDS is an illness, not a religion. And that aside, why the need for all those lies of yours?

Yes this is true. scientists have tried millions of experiments in labs to try and prove evolution by turning fruit into something else but they always end up with fruit and nothing new. lol i could have told themthat!

I find your odd and ignorant view of Evolution to be disturbing as it indicates that you learned nothing in school. I am trying to determine why you willingly are evidencing that you are very ignorant and didn't pay attention in school, as you obviously didn't even learn the very fundamental aspects of Biology. Even 5th-graders should show better comprehension and knowledge than you are. I take it that you aren't embarassed about showing such lack of knowledge, because you didn't know that you are ignorant, right?

lol! yea also I read about another ridiculous theory they made up called punctured equality where a reptile would be walking around like normal and then suddenly on day it turns into a mammal and this is meant to explain why no transitonal fossils exist.

Interesting claim, as there is no Scientific theory dealing with "punctuated equilibria." There is something called "Punctuated Equilibrium," which perhaps is what you allude to? It, however, does not state what you just claimed, so it can't be that which you were referring to, right?

But what is that nonsense about there being no transitional fossils? We certainyl have found many of them. We even have the live equivalence in what we call "ring-species." So why are you claiming they don't exist?

WAIT, you are not a scientist playing dumb to give creationism a bad name, are you?

The funny thing is for the environmentalists is that everytime they imagine up a new theory

The "environmentalists"? Ah, so you are not specifically talking about Scienctific Theories here? Why didn't you just say so?

But wait! Why then are you talking about Scientific Theories? is that because of ignorance or because of dishonesty?

like this it imediately gets disproven by real science! There is still no mising link and if any evolutionists are so sure life comes from rocks try it with a cement mixer and get back to me.

Hmm, could you elaborate on what the Scientific Theory of Evolution has to do with the oorigin of life? Certainly, NOTHING in the SCIENTIFIC Theory of Evolution deals with how life originated. This is not another display of serious ignorance, is it?

 

[gdalton]

If we want to tell our children the truth then it should sound like this: “The only thing we know for certain is that we don’t know for certain, but we have an educated guess, like to hear it, here it goes.”
I think the idea of elective classes covering religious beliefs about creation is a good way to go, and then leave it up to the parents and children as to whether or not they would like to learn about other ideas.

 

[MrFungus420]

not all science is religion.

No science is religion. The primary definition for religion is: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." (from dictionary.com)

Science has nothing to do with any supernatural power. It deals with the real, the natural.

Real working sciences like physics, engineering and woodwork are as real as they have ever been.

Woodworking is a science? I could have sworn it was a skill. But, since you seem to be redefining religion, I guess there's no reason for you not to redefine science.

Unfortunately these real sciences arent taught anymore in schools becaues a lot of so called "intellectals" want more space in textbooks for darwin.

Again, very strange. I've haven't seen a reduction in the availability of different science classes. Are you saying that physics, geology, biology and chemistry aren't being taught in schools anymore? Or are you making your claim because all of these scientific disciplines have contributed to our understanding of evolution, and so you feel that they are only about evolution?

But evolution is clearly a load of imagining and it is on the way out. It is a sudoscientific religion like global warming and aids.

While it's true that to develop the hypothesis of evolution required imagination, it has taken some proof to make it an acceptable theory. It is supported by several areas of science. It is being continually strengthened by our understanding. How is it "on the way out"?

BTW, what is pseudoscientific about AIDS? It is a disease caused by a retro-virus. Or global warming, for that matter? With global warming there is disagreement about it's cause, but not a lot of argument about it happening.

Yes this is true. scientists have tried millions of experiments in labs to try and prove evolution by turning fruit into something else but they always end up with fruit and nothing new. lol i could have told themthat!

They're trying to replicate millions of years of change in a few years of laboratory time, they have had some success. Enough that it is considered to be supportive of evolution.

lol! yea also I read about another ridiculous theory they made up called punctured equality where a reptile would be walking around like normal and then suddenly on day it turns into a mammal and this is meant to explain why no transitonal fossils exist.

How about a list of some transitional fossils to rebut this:

1 Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.


2 The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).


3 A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).


4 The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).


5 Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.


6 Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).


7 Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).


8 Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457
Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548
Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319
Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861

The funny thing is for the environmentalists is that everytime they imagine up a new theory like this it imediately gets disproven by real science! There is still no mising link and if any evolutionists are so sure life comes from rocks try it with a cement mixer and get back to me.

So, if millions of years can't be replicated in a few hours, then you say it can't be true?

 

[nickem]

Your claim is false. Science is the exploration through the application of the Scientific Method. Could you please elaborate on how that possibly is a religion?

-some theories of science, such as evolution, that cannot be proven true are still believed in by some people and scientist as a religion... -b/c there isn't any known answer, they can't be totally found false.

sounds like you think you know your stuff... but it's ancient. Read a new book called The evolution cruncher and i'm not trying to put you down at all... it's a good book and i've learned alot from it. I think you'll like it.

 

[Alex]

schools don't teach that it is completely correct, science is somewhat of a religion, and teachers can't say that a religion is true. Granted, evolution is still in our science books, there have been many other theories since and they have disproven evolution. Some people just need something to believe in, so they stick with it. In order for something to "evolve" a mutation has to occur, and science has now proven that mutations do exist but that after an amount of time, the animal goes back to it's original form.

THe newest theory that is pretty much a desperate last hope for scientist is called "the hopeful moster theory"- pretty much means that every so often some unblance occurs and a chicken comes out of a dog.- what came first? the dog, then the chicken, then the egg

Prove anyone of these claims. Good Luck.

 

[nickem]

New strains of fruit flies and mice that are unable to breed with each other are just one example of species forming... real world evolution has been seen with moths, diseases, insects, etc. Put the pieces together you get a pretty sound picture of evolution's consequences in the world.

- are you sure that's evolution you're talking about, or adaptation

 

[MrFungus420]

-some theories of science, such as evolution, that cannot be proven true are still believed in by some people and scientist as a religion... -b/c there isn't any known answer, they can't be totally found false.

sounds like you think you know your stuff... but it's ancient. Read a new book called The evolution cruncher and i'm not trying to put you down at all... it's a good book and i've learned alot from it. I think you'll like it.

Sorry, every "young earth" claim can be easily disproven. The only way that anyone can believe them is if they discount virtually all of science.

Let's see some of the claims from The Evolution Cruncher , I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only one who will enjoy showing them to be incorrect.

 

[nickem]

Sorry, every "young earth" claim can be easily disproven. The only way that anyone can believe them is if they discount virtually all of science.

-exactly, that's why science is a religion