I am saying that any theory intended to replace evolutionary theory must, repeat MUST, fit the same criteria as any scientific theory. Creationism doesn't. It is not testable, it cannot be falsifiable, it does not provide a better explanation of the data, nor does it provide any degree of predictiveness. Therefore it is useless. All in all its just another attempt to create a state sponsored religion.
If either ID or creationism can stand up to the same rigorous testing as has evolution then fine teach it in the classroom as a scientific theory. However since it is really only a disguised attempt to slip religion into science classes then it is has no place in the classroom. Where is the scientific evidence for creationism or Intelligent Design theory? How does it better account for such things as the relative distribution of the colouring of moths in urban and rural area? How about bacterial adaptation to anti-biotics, or the adaptation of rodents to rat poison? How predictive are either ID or creationism. Lets see if I can put it in a way to ensure understanding. Do either creationism or Intelligent Design fit the definitions of a scientific theory? In a nutshell unless either dogma (ID or cretinism pardon creationism) fit the criteria of a scientific theory then they have no place in a science class. Now lets look at current models of evolution. Are they empirically testable? Yes, just go through any reputable peer reviewed scientific journal on evolution, such as Nature. There are multiple tests performed in most of the relevant articles. Are current models of evolution falsifiable? Again yes, these models fall (like the neo-Darwinian model) when a collection of contradictory data is discovered. Falsifiability - yes one can devise an experiment that would show that current models of evolution do not work. Do current models of evolution provide a better fit to the data? Definitely, for instance the punctuated equilibrium provided a far better explanation of the data than the graduated neo-Darwinian model. Predictability? Definitely. Consider the naked mole rat. This is the only mammal that lives in a hive colony (see http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/980124.wesat.08.ram for more information). Before the species was fully documented, the features and behaviors of this species were predicted by evolution. Their behaviors and appearance evolved in conditions where cooperative behavior was positively selected. This eventually evolved into the species that are behaviorally very similar to social insects. There are literally tons of other evidence, most of the fossil record for instance. So where's the hypocrisy? Current models of evolution amply fit within the definitions of a scientific theory. Therefore it is amply appropriate to teach the these current models of evolution in the classroom. -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:34 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education > > > What hypocrisy -- let's teach one kind of religion (Godless > evolution), but not provide alternative theories. > > H. > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > from: Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:12:15 -0500 > > >If creationism, or Intelligent Design can fit within the > criteria of a > >scientific theory, then its appropriate to teach it in a > science class. > >Since both depend on religion, as far as I can see its just > another attempt > >by fundies to break the church state barrier. > > > >Remember a theory in science has to be able to be disproven > by contradictory > >evidence. Such as not happened. Where is the contradictory > evidence? simply > >put there is none. > > > >A competing theory must also provide a better explanation of > the existent > >data. Neither cretinism (pardon creationism) nor intelligent > design meet > >that criteria. Moreover there is no valid data that support either > >creationism or intelligent design. > > > >Therefore creationism and are quite rightly dismissed. They > do not explain > >the findings of over a century of research. They do not > provide a better > >explanatory model, nor are they predictive as is the current > models of > >evolution. Given their inadequacies they are quite rightly > dismissed by the > >scientific community. > > > >larry > > > >-- > >Larry C. Lyons > >ColdFusion/Web Developer > >Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > >EBStor.com > >8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > >Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > >tel: (703) 393-7930 > >fax: (703) 393-2659 > >Web: http://www.ebstor.com > > http://www.pacel.com > >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > >-- > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:12 PM > >> To: CF-Community > >> Subject: RE: Evolution and Education > >> > >> > >> Why is it better to teach one kind of faith -- that life, the > >> universe and > >> everything is just the product of some random chance -- than > >> to provide > >> information on alternative theories? Why are scientists and > >> evolutionists > >> so afraid of expanding the debate? > >> > >> I always thought science was supposed to an open-minded > >> endeavor, but it > >> seems more often than not that it's a closed minded pursuit. > >> To some, it > >> seems, to even suggest that anything other than random chance > >> might explain > >> the universe is a sort of blasphemy. > >> > >> Science types want to call creation types closed minded, > ignorant and > >> bigoted, but isn't that just the black hole calling the worm > >> hole black? > >> > >> H. > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:30 AM > >> To: CF-Community > >> Subject: RE: Evolution and Education > >> > >> > >> I do not know, and since whatever evidence there is is of a > >> type that is > >> beyond science I leave it like that. > >> > >> At some point scientific explanation ends, and faith begins. > >> The problem is > >> that creationists and the supporters of the so-called > >> intelligent design, > >> have entered the debate under the terms and conditions of > >> what is considered > >> to be a science. Therefore they need to demonstrate that > >> their theories must > >> be falsifiable, and must provide a better explanation of the > >> existent data > >> than current theories. They have miserably failed both conditions. > >> > >> larry > >> > >> -- > >> Larry C. Lyons > >> ColdFusion/Web Developer > >> Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > >> EBStor.com > >> 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > >> Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > >> tel: (703) 393-7930 > >> fax: (703) 393-2659 > >> Web: http://www.ebstor.com > >> http://www.pacel.com > >> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > >> -- > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:20 AM > >> > To: CF-Community > >> > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education > >> > > >> > > >> > If there was scientific evidence, it wouldn't be religion, it > >> > would be science. > >> > > >> > Religion is faith, hopes, ideals, beliefs. If not for these > >> > things, it > >> > wouldn't have the meaning it has for so many people. > >> > > >> > Science is provable fact. Keep in mind Science has still not > >> > proven God > >> > does not exist, and it probably never will. > >> > > >> > To be an Agnostic/Atheist still requires faith. You must have > >> > faith that > >> > you are right, else you will live scared of what will happen > >> > if you are wrong. > >> > > >> > At 11:13 AM 3/12/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >> > >Its still creationism. Just the wolf wearing another sheepskin. > >> > > > >> > >I repeat where is the scientific evidence for it? > >> > > > >> > >larry > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
