education secretary is 'crystal clear' that teaching creationism is

Evolution does not solve creation. Evolution does not solve creation.Evolution does not solve creation. There is no provable factual explaination for creation. If we poof popped out of ooze why did it stop? If man developed from monkeys why did it stop. Why are not semi evolved men not wandering around the jungle in intermediary stages of evolution. IMO evolution is not a proven theory for creation. Of course species adapt or mutations become predominant but it does not and cannot prove the advent of creation. Prove to me where life has been created out of a puddle of ooze. Evolution is as much a theory for creation as is creationism and neither can be proved to account for creation.

reply to post by Becoming


If it were simply breeding one species with another, the offspring would not be viable, as is the case with the mule. Speciation occurs when an organism can no longer breed with its original species and produce viable offspring, but can breed with members who are similar to it and produce viable offspring. This has been observed both in labs and in nature. I will ask one question though, to quote madnessinmysoul, what is the mechanism that prevents small changes from accruing into large scale changes? In other words, what is the mechanism that prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution?"

reply to post by nickoli


Except evolution has nothing to say about how life began. It explains the diversity of life that we have today. The reason it is at odds with creationism is because creationism says that God created everything in its present form, which we know to be false. If you want to discuss the origins of life find a topic discussing abiogenesis.

Originally posted by ararisq
It is a sad day for education when any theory is condemned and withheld from the public by a single individual. How often has science been curbed by people like this?

If the Secretary for Education feels so strongly he should host a series of panels and debates with creationist scientists for the public to make up their own mind as to how much it is at odds with science.

It's a sad day for science education when someone prevents the teaching of something that's inherently unscientific in a science classroom? Seriously?

Originally posted by elfie
A bit of confusion as to substituting the falsifiability of a theory for the falsification of evidence in support of said theory.

Interesting that the wiki entry on falsifiability currently uses a legal example involving creationism:

Actually, if Danbones was referring to the Kitzmiller case in his post, then the "intelligent design" (i.e. creationism v2.0) proponents on the school board repeatedly lied and falsified evidence regarding where funding came from in order to push their agenda of teaching religion in science classes.

I thought this was about teaching creationist beliefs in schools.

To say I won’t let my kids be taught that rubbish you need to qualify it.

You never tell a child Santa is not a real person, you just wouldn’t want it taught in schools or scientists wasting time and resources looking for evidence and sending teams to search the North Pole.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by elfie
A bit of confusion as to substituting the falsifiability of a theory for the falsification of evidence in support of said theory.

Interesting that the wiki entry on falsifiability currently uses a legal example involving creationism:

Actually, if Danbones was referring to the Kitzmiller case in his post, then the "intelligent design" (i.e. creationism v2.0) proponents on the school board repeatedly lied and falsified evidence regarding where funding came from in order to push their agenda of teaching religion in science classes.

Oh, okay, thanks. I thought he may have been discussing the downfall of irreducible complexity.

They can teach it in religious classes where it belongs...but the education secretary is stating the obvious, it doesn't belong in science classes or classes based on facts and evidence.

Creationism and intelligent design are not based on logic/rationality or objective evidence, and are therefore not even a theory.

Originally posted by ararisq
It is a sad day for education when any theory is condemned and withheld from the public by a single individual. How often has science been curbed by people like this?

Creationism and intelligent design aren't even theories since they're not based on logic/rationality or objective evidence

I don't think they should teach either. I just remember in school how they don't teach you about all the problems with the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by Darkk
I just remember in school how they don't teach you about all the problems with the theory of evolution.

What problems? In over 150 years no one found evidence against it, which is why it's classified as a scientific theory. But please, tell me what those problems are

reply to post by MrXYZ


fossil record does not support it. No gradual changes over time just new species with all their traits.
The cambrian explosion has complex life forms
The evolutionary line between man and ape is riddled with conjecture, they tend to put more or less hair as they see fit on reconstruction of fossils to align with the evolutionary theory even though there is no basis for doing such.
Cannot be observed, there are bacteria that only survive for minutes but if watched they will always remain bacteria they will never change into anything more or less complex.
DNA does not support it.

reply to post by Darkk

fossil record does not support it.

Sure it does:

No gradual changes over time just new species with all their traits.

Well, we've observed evolution (including speciation) in nature and in the lab...so you are WRONG again.

LINK

Berkley on evolution

The evolutionary line between man and ape is riddled with conjecture, they tend to put more or less hair as they see fit on reconstruction of fossils to align with the evolutionary theory even though there is no basis for doing such.

Actually, genetic analysis backs it all up...but who cares about facts, right?

Cannot be observed

...but has been observed as is evident from the link posted above

there are bacteria that only survive for minutes but if watched they will always remain bacteria they will never change into anything more or less complex.

You might wanna ask doctors why it's so hard to develop medicine against certain bacteria and viruses. Take HIV for example. They've developed cures against some strains, but the virus adapts so quickly, it's never good enough to fully destroy the virus. It evolves that quickly. The same is true with the bird and swine flue viruses.

DNA does not support it.

And you're wrong again.

Not knowing isn't a crime or something bad...but if you had spent just a few minutes doing research, you'd have realized what a bunch of nonsense your statements are.

The 5000 year story was introduced by men. No where in the real original gospels does it say the earth is 5000 years old.

reply to post by iterationzero


I am going to get the teaching of God's clear instruction that the world is THE CENTER OF ALL THINGS in the science class room dammit!

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Nowhere in the Gospels sure, but it's an inference made between the genealogies of the Old Testament and the genealogies of the "original" Gospels. I qualify "original" because I've never heard of anyone who has a first edition of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

reply to post by Darkk

Originally posted by Darkk
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

fossil record does not support it. No gradual changes over time just new species with all their traits.

Fossilization is a rare occurrence and every species obviously has all of their traits. There is no such thing as a 'half trait'. Humans are fully formed beings...but we're not perfect. We aren't fully developed for bipedalism.

The cambrian explosion has complex life forms

...in the scope of a 70-80 million years...I don't see how complex life forms evolving from less complex life forms can't happen in 70-80 million years.

The evolutionary line between man and ape is riddled with conjecture, they tend to put more or less hair as they see fit on reconstruction of fossils to align with the evolutionary theory even though there is no basis for doing such.

...the hair thing is arbitrary and really not an issue. There is actually some discussion, but there's absolutely no disagreeing with the fact that there is an evolutionary lineage. The issue is with what the evolutionary lineage is specifically.

Cannot be observed, there are bacteria that only survive for minutes but if watched they will always remain bacteria they will never change into anything more or less complex.

...so you're asking for domain level change within the course of a human lifetime? You do realize that 'bacteria' is the most general descriptive term, right? Why is is that those who say there are problems with evolution don't even understand basic biology?

DNA does not support it.

I'm sorry, but the discovery of DNA has verified every single prediction from the evolutionary model about how genetic material would function.

In what way does DNA not support evolution?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Well, we've observed evolution (including speciation) in nature and in the lab...so you are WRONG again.

Even at that birds remain birds and dogs remain dogs. We are not seeing them ever become anything anything else.

Actually, genetic analysis backs it all up...but who cares about facts, right?

I would like to see that.

You might wanna ask doctors why it's so hard to develop medicine against certain bacteria and viruses. Take HIV for example. They've developed cures against some strains, but the virus adapts so quickly, it's never good enough to fully destroy the virus. It evolves that quickly. The same is true with the bird and swine flue viruses.

But they never turn into anything else besides viruses, they mutate slightly but they are not truning into anything other than what they are.

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." -darwin

i let the great bill hicks explain it for me.

reply to post by Darkk

Even at that birds remain birds and dogs remain dogs. We are not seeing them ever become anything anything else.

Because it takes a LOOOOOOONG time. You will never see it happen with your own eyes (at least not to the extent you're asking for). We've witnessed speciation in the lab and nature though, it's in the link. Hell, we even see transitional species today that are in between....like the Platypus.

I would like to see that.

I posted a link in my previous post...last one in fact.

But they never turn into anything else besides viruses, they mutate slightly but they are not truning into anything other than what they are.

Again, a change like you're asking takes a lot of time...definitely more than you'll be alive

Luckily we can examine fossils and old DNA to otherwise back it up...

As for your Darwin quote, someone already explained why fossilization happens only under very specific circumstances. Your body for example will most likely never be a fossil. Also, I hope you realize that since Darwin, the scientific community uncovered an enormous amount of objective evidence backing up the theory...at least as much as for gravity, conductivity, or other theories