[Wondergirl]

Just for fun -- how could ID or Creationism be presented in a public school science class so no one becomes offended or confused?

[Fr_Chuck]

I doubt you can present anything that has to do with the starting of our universe without offending someone.

Evolution : upsets those who follow ID or creation
ID : upsets those who follow evolution or creation
Creation: upsets everyone who follows ID and evolution, plus then you
Have the issue of whose creation do you use ( what religion)

I am not sure in public school you can do any one method without offending someone, So perhaps all should be touched on at least in ideas that are accepted by others.

[Capuchin]

Just for fun -- how could ID or Creationism be presented in a public school science class so no one becomes offended or confused?

It would need scientific evidence, and, for good measure, at least a hundred peer reviewed papers on the subject in well-established scientific journals. This means it should be able to make predictions, which we can then design an experiment to verify that prediction.

At the moment, ID presents none of these things, which is why it is not suitable for the science class. Because it is not science.
It doesn't upset "us" at all, chuck, it just has no place in a science classroom, because it is religion.

[Capuchin]

I doubt you can present anything that has to do with the starting of our universe without offending someone.

Good thing that evolution has nothing to do with the starting of our universe, then.

[jillianleab]

Jillian, my objection is that evolution is taught exclusively. And don't talk about the science classroom as though it is the only place that creation/id is prohibited. Look at the efforts of Mr. Newdow, and others who OBVIOUSLY want to rid this country of any mention of any deity. The only times that creationists have been able to present their side is after successful court battles, and it shouldn't be that way. You say there is no evidence of a creator? Just look in the mirror!

I understand your objection, Gal, but you didn't answer my questions. What does teaching "creator did it" get us? Unless we define a specific creator, it means nothing. Would you creationists stop complaining if, on the first day of school the science teacher said, "We're going to study science in this class, but you should know, it is possible, though not proven, that it could all have been done by an intelligent creator. Now, moving on, let's talk about photosynthesis..."

[Wondergirl]

Good thing that evolution has nothing to do with the starting of our universe, then.

It doesn't have anything to do with the STARTING of our universe.

[Capuchin]

It doesn't have anything to do with the STARTING of our universe.

Well, the first 9 billion years.

[Wondergirl]

Well, the first 9 billion years.

Nope. What STARTED the process of evolution? (and yes, it is a process, not the start of anything)

Where did that first spark of life come from?

[Capuchin]

Nope. What STARTED the process of evolution? (and yes, it is a process, not the start of anything)

Where did that first spark of life come from?

Life could not get far in space, there are many hypotheses about this, and the vast majority of them require a terrestrial setting, whether it be due to a lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc. Since the Earth only formed 4.5 billion years ago, evolution is irrelevant for the first 9 billion years unless we find some evidence for an extraterrestrial form of life, at least from evolution on Earth's point of view.

[Wondergirl]

Life could not get far in space, there are many hypotheses about this, and the vast majority of them require a terrestrial setting, whether it be due to a lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc. Since the Earth only formed 4.5 billion years ago, evolution is irrelevant for the first 9 billion years unless we find some evidence for an extraterrestrial form of life, at least from evolution on Earth's point of view.

During the past billions of years, when has a "lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc." or other agent spontaneously created life a second time?

[michealb]

Nope. What STARTED the process of evolution? (and yes, it is a process, not the start of anything)

Where did that first spark of life come from?

Doesn't matter the theory of evolution doesn't mention where the first spark of life comes from. It only deals with the first replicating cell on. Just as the theory of gravity doesn't explain where gravity comes from. The theory of gravity is still a good theory so is evolution.

I don't understand why every time evolution is brought up certain people on this board bring up other scientific theories at the same time that have nothing to do with evolution. If you want to attack evolution at least understand the theory before you do. Many of the people have had the same question answered for them many times but then go on to post that same question again in a different question. While I understand that most of the people that do that aren't going to learn anything. Please at least come up with new question so we aren't answering the same ones over again or post the answer that you got earlier and say why that's not what your were looking for.

“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today”
~Isaac Asimov

[firmbeliever]

Just adding my two cents...


I did study evolution in school under the subject biology,it was just another sub-heading a part of many.
I remember we used to have one of those soft spoken, a well mannered, wonderful lady who taught us biology lessons.
If I remember right,she was a firmbeliever of the Christian faith.

She taught us evolution among all the other sub heading I haven't mentioned here.
I do not remember it being highlighted more than the other topics,nor do I remember her mentioning Creationism during the evolution topic.

What I do remember is whenever we studied any part or information on living organisms,cell structure, etc,she would always say something like, how wonderfully created each of them are... or something like -Beautiful creation or how intricately designed is this.. etc.
Being a muslim I was always in awe of everything taught in my bio class,as each seems an explanation of how the natural world I live in works from inside out.
I always used to admire her faith and how she explained things.

By not highlighting anything more than what the syllabus required,she did not go into detail in the topic of evolution.
In that way,the different students of different faiths did not have any problems nor do I remember any parents or students objecting to it.
It was just another lesson and we needed to know enough to answer a test paper :).

And during my school years and till now, if "Intelligent Design" is mentioned, in my heart I always believe it to mean the Almighty.

[Wondergirl]

Doesn't matter the theory of evolution doesn't mention where the first spark of life comes from. It only deals with the first replicating cell on. Just as the theory of gravity doesn't explain where gravity comes from. The theory of gravity is still a good theory so is evolution.

I don't understand why every time evolution is brought up certain people on this board bring up other scientific theories at the same time that have nothing to do with evolution. If you want to attack evolution at least understand the theory before you do. Many of the people have had the same question answered for them many times but then go on to post that same question again in a different question. While I understand that most of the people that do that aren't going to learn anything. Please at least come up with new question so we aren't answering the same ones over again or post the answer that you got earlier and say why thats not what your were looking for.

“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today”
~Isaac Asimov

I wasn't attacking you but just making sure everyone understands that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. The one-time, first-time creation of life has never been replicated. Scientists et al. have always used existing life to create life.

Evolution is a whole 'nother ballgame.

[michealb]

During the past billions of years, when has a "lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc." or other agent spontaneously created life a second time?

The current hypothesizes are either the conditions on earth aren't right for forming life anymore or since there is already life on earth the chemicals aren't allowed enough time to "cook" before some other life form uses those chemical compounds for themselves. We don't teach those hypothesizes though because they don't have much evidence behind them yet but neither of those hypothesizes have anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. Even if we found proof that God himself came down and formed the first cell it would still not invalidate the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that theory.

[Capuchin]

During the past billions of years, when has a "lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc." or other agent spontaneously created life a second time?

I don't know, how would you find it and distinguish it from life from the first bolt etc.

[michealb]

I wasn't attacking you but just making sure everyone understands that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. The one-time, first-time creation of life has never been replicated. Scientists et al. have always used existing life to create life.

Evolution is a whole 'nother ballgame.

I know you weren't attacking me, I was speaking about people that disagree with the theory of evolution perhaps attack was the wrong word. Sorry.

[Wondergirl]

I don't know, how would you find it and distinguish it from life from the first bolt etc.?

Through a controlled experiment that doesn't contain pre-existing life in its elements?

[Capuchin]

Through a controlled experiment that doesn't contain pre-existing life in its elements?

Using what? It's not clear what the Earth was made of at that time, we don't know what the mechanism was, and we're not entirely sure how long it took.

If it took a few hundred million years over the whole of the Earth to make one self-replicating molecule, what are the chances of us doing it in a box on a desk?

[templelane]

Wondergirl absence of proof is not proof of absence.

You might want to use that quote against a hard line atheist one day. However it also operates the other way with abinogenisis.

Just because it is not clear how evolution started it doesn't mean this topples the multitude of evidence that it did happen, and continues to do so.

You can even say god started it if you want. Hence why you don't have to be an atheist to know evolution is a fact.

I always thought for a theist isn't evolution a more glorious process for a deity to create than just designing everything. I mean things are designed all the time, you get very few things that have been set up to build themselves. But that is just a random philosophical tangent.

[Wondergirl]

Wondergirl absence of proof is not proof of absence.

You might want to use that quote against a hard line atheist one day. However it also operates the other way with abinogenisis.

Just because it is not clear how evolution started it doesn't mean this topples the multitude of evidence that it did happen, and continues to do so.

You can even say god started it if you want. Hence why you don't have to be an atheist to know evolution is a fact.

I always thought for a theist isn't evolution a more glorious process for a deity to create than just designing everything. I mean things are designed all the time, you get very few things that have been set up to build themselves. But that is just a random philosophical tangent.

I have no problem with God using evolution to form the world. I'm not against you, but just asking questions.