There is not reason that Creation cannot be taught in public school as an alternative theory. Evolution is still a theory as it cannot be retested in a lab, nor are their any "missing links" as stated by many renowned anthropologists. If Darwin knew about heredity, he would have never came up with the theory of evolution.
54 comments
Evolution is still a theory as it cannot be retested in a lab
Dover v. Kitzmiller ring a bell?
Evolution (as Darwin understood it) is, at some level, wrong. Creationism is also at some level wrong. However, to say that evolution and creationism are equally wrong is considered wronger than wrong and worse than speaking incoherent untestable gibberish. See also: The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov.
I'd like to add: Creationism is wronger than evolution. It is not testable, not falsifiable, and not meaningful compared to evolution. So wrong that it is not even wrong. As Wolfgang Pauli reportedly said, "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!" Truth values have no meaning to the clusterfuck that is creationism today. Maybe something like that is true, but that maybe is smaller than a single water molecule. A maybe that you magnify with a microscope without seeing the background: all the evidence for evolution and against creationism.
If you want to make ANY sense at all and believe in God, try theistic evolution. That's a start. Otherwise, try Goomyism.
We don't teach creationism for the same reason we don't teach the Four Humours theory of disease alongside germ theory and alchemy alongside chemistry.
We don't teach it because (1) primary school IS NOT the place to have this debate, and (2) your side's intention is to displace secular education with religious doctrine.
If you're going to teach one idea that counters the scientific method, there is no reason why the debate should not include them all, at least those in Western civilization. Thus, children need a good grounding in the work of Aristotle, Ptolemy and Strabo as well as an acquaintance with astrology and folk medicine. Or this could just be an attempt to ram your religious beliefs down everyone else's throats.
"There is not reason that Creation cannot be taught in public school as an alternative theory."
"Evolution is still a theory as it cannot be retested in a lab"Lensky .
"If Darwin knew about heredity, he would have never came up with the theory of evolution."
There is not reason that Creation cannot be taught in public school
Except that pesky Supreme Court ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover . If they're not going to let the watered-down creationism known as Intelligent Design be taught, they're certainly not going to let full-blown biblical creationism be taught.
> Evolution is still a theory as it cannot be retested in a lab
Except that it has been reproduced in a lab. In fact, to qualify as a theory, or as science at all, it has to be testable somehow!
"There is not reason that Creation cannot be taught in public school as an alternative theory."
There is not fact to support creationism.
"Evolution is still a theory "
Creation is still a myth.
"as it cannot be retested in a lab"
It has been tested in a lab. It worked.
"nor are their any "missing links" as stated by many renowned anthropologists."
Of course not. Every missing link that has ever been found is no longer missing.
"If Darwin knew about heredity, he would have never came up with the theory of evolution."
Because Darwin had no idea that children often looked like their parents.
So much fail in such a small post.
I'm so happy to hear you want Chinese creation stories taught side by side with science.
Seriously though, religious studies can be fine in public school: in History, Social Studies, and Comparative Religion classes.
It has no place in the Science class any more than studying the Roman Empire does.
Well, if you're going to start categorically rejecting well-established, thoroughly vetted physical evidence simply because it contradicts your pre-supposed conclusion, I guess the conversation is officially over, isn't it?
Sangfroid
@Qazamir McSmarty Britches
Indeed. And not only has it been tested thousands of times, one of the standard experiments is so easy that it is conducted by frosh high school biology students to teach them how natural selection works.
Further, heredity precisely supports evolution. Darwin did not have a good concept of how changes or useful mutations were passed down through the generations, but then genetics become more well known and it all became clear.
"There is not reason that Creation cannot be taught in public school as an alternative theory."
"Evolution is still a theory as it cannot be retested in a lab..."
"...nor are their any 'missing links' as stated by many renowned anthropologists."
"If Darwin knew about heredity, he would have never came up with the theory of evolution."is heredity.
Heredity IS evolution, stupid. We don't reproduce by perfect cloning, we mix genes and accumulate mutations. That's why you're not a carbon copy of either of your parents. Over time, differences collect and some genes more successfully spread to the general population while others don't. That is called evolution.
Oh, and creation isn't a theory (at least, not the way science defines a theory). It's a hypothesis at best and, more realistically, a conjecture. Even in a best case scenario creationism cannot be taught in science class because hypotheses are not taught in school. There are just too many of them and anyway, there are too many validated theories and facts to learn about to go into untested hypotheses. We didn't teach kids about cold fusion or aquatic ape, why would should creationism (which, due to the first amendment, would have to include Hindu creationism, Muslim creationism, literal and non-literal Christian creationism, Taoist creationism, the various Pagan creation stories, etc.) be given a free pass? Should the Holocaust denial hypothesis be taught in history class? What about the hypothesis that 9/11 was an inside job? Or that the government is run by the Illuminati/Knights Templar/greys/reptilians?
Because in addition to you taking liberties with what is and isn't related to biology theories require some supporting evidence and the dozens of creation myths directly contradict physical evidence? And yes, continued adaptation of species has been observed in controlled laboratory settings.
Also, there are fucking dozens of creation myths. You just want yours.
No reason at all,is no evidence to support it.
P.S. What the heck do you think heredity is if not a major factor in evolution?
It's like they don't spend even five minutes to research what they're talking about.
Oh wait, what am I saying. Of course they don't.
If we do ONE thing, let's get these idiots to understand the difference between a "Scientific Theory" and the colloquial "theory."
Evolution is the result of inferring from observed evidence. Creationism is made-up wishful thinking.
There is not reason that Creation cannot be taught in public school as an alternative theory.
Exepted that a theory most be backed by hard facts going beyong an holy book.
Schoolchildern should be taught science, not fairy tales marquarading as facts.
Evolution is still a theory as it cannot be retested in a lab(1), nor are their any "missing links" as stated by many renowned anthropologists(2).
(1) You're wrong: scientists use bacterias or flies for testing hyphothesis relaéred to evolution and heredity.
If Darwin knew about heredity, he would have never came up with the theory of evolution.
Mendelean laws are an additional evidence pointing towards the non-fixity of the species.
Pay attention class! Today we are going to learn about advanced biology and how the wonderful world of living things came to be. One day Bible God, who'd recently created days, decided to create living things. He utilized mostly magic which involved the sound of His own voice, spells and ordinary things like dirt. The desert beardies He made after His own image, He'd recently made deserts. Though many of the things He created He later made extinct, some of them may have lived happily ever after. OK, class dismissed.
"Evolution is still a theory as it cannot be retested in a lab, nor are their any "missing links" as stated by many renowned anthropologists"
"Evolution is still a theory as it cannot be retested in a lab"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Your call.
"nor are their any "missing links" as stated by many renowned anthropologists"
Tiktaalik. Archaeopteryx. Darwinius massilae. Ardipithecus. We humans (Homo Sapiens ) sharing at least 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes ). 'Missing' links found .
"There is not reason that Creation cannot be taught in public school as an alternative theory."
Actually, there is : Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
Almost eight years to the day of that landmark - and precedent-setting - decision. Still hurts, doesn't it? Good. Welcome to Planet Reality, bitch. Enjoy your stay. >:D
There is not reason that Creation cannot be taught in public school as an alternative theory.
It isn't an alternative theory. It's a religious belief. There are dozens of others - every religion has one.
Yes, there is a reason why Creation cannot be taught in public schools as an alternative theory.; the fact that it is NOT a theory. Which Creation story, btw? The Hindu one? The Aesir one? The Incan one?
Evolution is still a theory BECAUSE it has been tested in labs many times and no-one has been able to refute it; only if it is refuted does it cease being a theory. For each missing link found, there are now two new missing links to find. That's why the number of missing links seems to grow, even though scientists find new links all the time.
Darwin didn't know about heredity? Did you know him, or what? The theory of evolution is BASED on heredity, stupid! The silly story from the Bible, that you can get striped goat if the prospective parents mate in front of striped poles, on the other hand, is NOT based on heredity, but on bullshit.
Anthropologists study cultures; Jessica, you probably meant archeologists, but even that isn't right, as they study artifacts.
If you're looking for people who study the fossil record, the correct scientists would be paleontologists and/or certain geologists. Simply put, Anthropologists and archeologists would be about as useful in a paleontological dig as a dentist at a heart transplant.
Also see:
"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
There you go, two lab studies of evolution. It took me less than a minute on google.
A 'theory' is a term meaning a scientific idea that has ample evidence to support it. The term you're thinking of is hypothesis. Here's the difference, evolution is a theory because it has evidence, creationism is a hypothesis because it has no evidence; and the Bible doesn't count as evidence.
"If Darwin knew about heredity, he would have never came up with the theory of evolution."
Um evolution depends on heredity. It can't work without it. If you don't know that much about evolution, you are not qualified to discuss it. Instead you need to STFU and let the smarter people talk about it. You know, morons and up.
Darwin knew about heredity. Animal breeders have been improving stock for a long time using the observed inheritance of characteristics, they just did not know the exact mechanism.
Perhaps you meant Mendel's research or maybe DNA ?
If Darwin were time machined up to our day late in his life he'd spend facinated weeks studying all that has been discovered since his time that have done nothing but validate his theory.
He'd probably spend a week alone on DNA evidence, a mechanism he knew would have to exist to drive repeating and changing development.
My grandson was just tested because he has a marker related to Cystic fibrosis, our good news is he carries one marker not the condition. This is testable now to research developed from Evolutional theory, as are many treatable genetic conditions.
Oh, there are so many missing links. Every time a paleontologist finds a completely new species that bridges a gap -- e.g. Archaeopterix, the closest to a crokoduck as we'll ever get, or Tiktaalik which bridges fish and amphibians -- he creates two more missing links.
Until paleontologists find fossils for every animal that ever died, there won't be enough evidence for Creationists. Probably not even then.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
