Nobody claims Creationism has anything to do with science. It is about faith. The faith that all this science was created by God, or whatever.
At 09:21 AM 3/14/2002 -0500, you wrote: >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 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
