Tenn. Senate OKs Bill To Allow Anti-Evolution Talk In Classrooms

#27
#27
Nerd-Vol said:
Wait so creationism is fact? Evolution seems a damn sight more plausible than some omnipotent force creating two white people and so on.
Click to expand...

You need to go back and re-read what I posted there guy.


Creationism is a theory too.

But your the first to mention the two white people thing since most scholars place the garden of eden in africa.
 
#29
#29
tvols75 said:
A little off-topic, but any Bible scholar that claims that God created two white people is probably a member of the Klan. No one that is taken seriously has ever said that.
Click to expand...

If God didn't make the first two people white, then why do whites rule the world?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#31
#31
NEOCON said:
You need to go back and re-read what I posted there guy.


Creationism is a theory too.

But your the first to mention the two white people thing since most scholars place the garden of eden in africa.
Click to expand...

I don't know all of the ins and outs of creationism, but it would seem a stretch to call it a theory. How is more than thoughts centered around a primary unobservable hypothesis?
 
#32
#32
Yeah I don't consider creationism (as I understand it) to be a scientific theory.

When I said earlier that creationism and evolution can conflict I meant that one can believe that a God created life but that evolutionary processes are part of that creation. If one believes God created all the animals just as they are now then I can see the conflict.
 
#33
#33
nbakerld said:
This sort of circus would be completely avoided if we didn't have government schools. The public provision of education would guarantee that it's accessible to all, without all the negative consequences of allowing wasteful government to ruin our children's education at a high price-tag.
Click to expand...

Amen! :hi:
 
#35
#35
Its always bugged me that people call evolution a theory. I was taught in my science classes that to be considered a theory, then you had to have a testable hypothesis with concrete predictions and tests must yield results matching the predictions.

I am not saying that evolution is wrong, I am simply saying that according to the steps of the scientific method that I learned, it should only qualify as a hypothesis. As far as I can tell, it is just a hypothesis based on observation. No testing or controls or anything.
 
#36
#36
Gramps said:
Evolution does conflict with creationism, with that being the reason that more are opposed to that side of the bill, while accepting the climate change because it has very small religious link.

That is being hypocritical, with neither science/theory being fact.

I do agree this is a backdoor effort to sneak creationism back into the classroom.

IMO, the big bang, origin of life, evolution and religion all should be keep out of the public classrooms.

The big bang, origin of life and evolution are all theories, not fact. Creationism is faith, not fact.

This is a very touchy subject. There are millions of people with strong feelings on both sides.


I look at it this way:

Student A: The parents are athiest/unbelievers and believe in the big bang, the origin of life and evolution. They do not want their children taught anything about God.

Student B. The parents believe God as the creator of our universe and life. They do not want their children to be taught that the world started from nothing, life began from a single cell and man evolved from a monkey or some type of primate.

The big bang, the origin of life and evolution may seem more plausible to some, but they are full of holes and are theory, not fact.

With neither side being fact, why should either one be taught in our public schools ?

Why should the government tell the parents of student A and B what their children have to be taught ?
Click to expand...

There really isn't anything such as FACT in science. We only know that our theories or laws haven't been disproven...yet. If we reject all theories, we would leave our children with no understanding of the scientific method or appreciation for what science is about. It is not about proving facts. It is about developing frameworks and mechanisms to describe observations (theories) and then testing these until they become generally accepted or ultimately rejected based on inconsistent observation or experiment. It's not going to be proven, just accepted. That's how it works.

Theories are important and must be part of any scientific education. Must we not teach Newton's gravitational theory or Einstein's theory of relativity? Teaching only the laws used to build the theories, such as the law of inverse squares (Newton's law of universal gravitation) for Newton's gravitational theory, would leave us ill-equipped for understanding how to apply the laws of thermodynamics, the law of inverse squares, etc. to test hypotheses and develop theories about the world around us.

The word theory should not be viewed as thoughts or ideas. It implies much more. Saying that something is a theory isn't some kind of negative mark that should "demote" it to second-class scientific standing. Most of science is a world of theories and continuing to test those theories against observation and experiment.
 
#37
#37
TennTradition said:
There really isn't anything such as FACT in science. We only know that our theories or laws haven't been disproven...yet. If we reject all theories, we would leave our children with no understanding of the scientific method or appreciation for what science is about. It is not about proving facts. It is about developing frameworks and mechanisms to describe observations (theories) and then testing these until they become generally accepted or ultimately rejected based on inconsistent observation or experiment. It's not going to be proven, just accepted. That's how it works.

Theories are important and must be part of any scientific education. Must we not teach Newton's gravitational theory or Einstein's theory of relativity? Teaching only the laws used to build the theories, such as the law of inverse squares (Newton's law of universal gravitation) for Newton's gravitational theory, would leave us ill-equipped for understanding how to apply the laws of thermodynamics, the law of inverse squares, etc. to test hypotheses and develop theories about the world around us.

The word theory should not be viewed as thoughts or ideas. It implies much more. Saying that something is a theory isn't some kind of negative mark that should "demote" it to second-class scientific standing. Most of science is a world of theories and continuing to test those theories against observation and experiment.
Click to expand...

I can point at repeatable experiments that yield results matching Einstein's predictions and Newton's predictions. Can you show me any repeatable experiments, with proper controls, for any of Darwin's (or others) work? If not, then it is a hypothesis and not a theory.
 
#38
#38
TennTradition said:
I don't know all of the ins and outs of creationism, but it would seem a stretch to call it a theory. How is more than thoughts centered around a primary unobservable hypothesis?
Click to expand...

I can see your point.

But when science speaks of billions and billions of years ago this "is" what happened isn't science now basing things around an unobservable hypothesis?
 
#39
#39
RespectTradition said:
Its always bugged me that people call evolution a theory. I was taught in my science classes that to be considered a theory, then you had to have a testable hypothesis with concrete predictions and tests must yield results matching the predictions.

I am not saying that evolution is wrong, I am simply saying that according to the steps of the scientific method that I learned, it should only qualify as a hypothesis. As far as I can tell, it is just a hypothesis based on observation. No testing or controls or anything.
Click to expand...

It's a theory as I understand the meaning.

The historial fossil record, DNA, etc. have been used as observational tests elevating the hypothesis to theory. Basically, stones have been thrown using the fossil record and nothing has bounced back saying "impossible." There does seem to be a problem with adequate controls, though. I would like to hear an evolutionary biologist talk about how he/she deals with this.
 
#40
#40
TennTradition said:
It's a theory as I understand the meaning.

The historial fossil record, DNA, etc. have been used as observational tests elevating the hypothesis to theory. Basically, stones have been thrown using the fossil record and nothing has bounced back saying "impossible." There does seem to be a problem with adequate controls, though. I would like to hear an evolutionary biologist talk about how he/she deals with this.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any other part of science where observation alone is considered enough to validate a theory.
 
#41
#41
NEOCON said:
I can see your point.

But when science speaks of billions and billions of years ago this "is" what happened isn't science now basing things around an unobservable hypothesis?
Click to expand...

I think that science is explaining what happened within the context of the theory. There would generally need to be some piece of observation through the historical record, however, to lift this above hypothesis and toward theory.

However, if there are 100 components to a theory, all internally consistent, and 80 have been repeatedly observed either through experiment or historical observation, then its possible the entire theory would become generally accepted. Yet, this would be a weakness to the theory.
 
#43
#43
Theories are not proven true, they are simply not falsified and represent hypotheses that have been repeatedly tested and for which there is not evidence suggesting they are untrue. Theories represent the current state of understanding. Evolution clearly meets the definition of theory IMO.
 
#44
#44
TennTradition said:
I think that science is explaining what happened within the context of the theory. There would generally need to be some piece of observation through the historical record, however, to lift this above hypothesis and toward theory.

However, if there are 100 components to a theory, all internally consistent, and 80 have been repeatedly observed either through experiment or historical observation, then its possible the entire theory would become generally accepted. Yet, this would be a weakness to the theory.
Click to expand...

it seems to me they are taking micro and using it to jump to macro conclusions.
 
#45
#45
Are there many people that don't believe that the earth is billions of years old rather than a few thousand years old?

Are there many people that don't believe that there exists fossil records of ancient species of plants and animals?
 
#46
#46
Danl said:
Are there many people that don't believe that the earth is billions of years old rather than a few thousand years old?

Are there many people that don't believe that there exists fossil records of ancient species of plants and animals?
Click to expand...

there are plants and animal species being killed off forever on a daily basis. all you have to do is look at the rain forrest to see that.

what's your point?
 
#47
#47
NEOCON said:
there are plants and animal species being killed off forever on a daily basis. all you have to do is look at the rain forrest to see that.

what's your point?
Click to expand...

The questions were:
Are there many people that believe that the earth is several thousand years old, rather than more than 4 billions years old?

Are there many people that doubt that the fossil record accurately depicts that there were ancient life forms that are now extinct?

If you reject these two basic facts of science, then there's no reason to attempt a discussion on the subject of evolution.
 
#48
#48
There's some smart men that post in the politics forum and you guys can't agree if evolution is a theory or a hypotheses. How can you expect a public school teacher to teach evolution the correct way to our children?
 
#49
#49
Danl said:
Are there many people that don't believe that the earth is billions of years old rather than a few thousand years old?

Are there many people that don't believe that there exists fossil records of ancient species of plants and animals?
Click to expand...


I assume you are referring to a young earth in reference to the Bible.

The Bible does not teach the earth is a few thousand years old. There is no way to tell how old the earth is from the Bible.
 
#50
#50
Gramps said:
There's some smart men that post in the politics forum and you guys can't agree if evolution is a theory or a hypotheses. How can you expect a public school teacher to teach evolution the correct way to our children?
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution is a theory.

Gravitational theory is also a theory.

Both theories contain and are supported by many facts and good science.

Creationism ( i.e. everything created in a week about 6 thousand years ago) is not a theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top