• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which should be taught in school science classes?

Which should be taught in school science classes?

  • Total voters
    84
pbrauer said:
Evolution is science and doesn't rule out intelligent design.
Click to expand...

PB, that really is my point regarding ID. But, if a god does exist, then is it really scientific to ignore any impact that god might have on the origins and development of matter and life? Kinda sounds like acknowledging that milk exists but saying it has nothing to do with how ice cream is made.
 
Deuce said:
You can believe in God and still realize that ID is fraudulent. It was specifically and deliberately created to get creationism taught in a science class, by restating creationism in pseudoscientific language.

It's entirely possible that ID is accurate, but there is currently no scientific evidence to back that up. Anyone who claims otherwise is perpetrating a fraud.
Click to expand...

Deuce, the fraud is that anyone thinks Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing. They are not. Most scientists are ID believers, whether they admit it or not. Many other scientists believe in creationism, far more than the ID and closet ID scientists would like to admit.
 
friday said:
PB, that really is my point regarding ID. But, if a god does exist, then is it really scientific to ignore any impact that god might have on the origins and development of matter and life? Kinda sounds like acknowledging that milk exists but saying it has nothing to do with how ice cream is made.
Click to expand...

Making ice cream is a physical process with measurement behind it. Gods are not. In the realm of science, gods are not spoken of due to their inherent immeasurable quantities. Science and Theology are thus two different subjects. Science concerns itself with measurement and pattern. Theology concerns itself more with philosophy. Science will not prove or disprove creationism as the ultimate premise of it is an immeasurable system. Both can co-exist just fine as the core of exploration between science and theology is different.
 
digsbe said:
As I said. Cut down the time talking about evolution and introduce creationism according to religions and intelligent design. We don't need to go so in depth into evolution, and it shouldn't be the only theory presented (as that falsely implies that it is the only true proven theory).
Click to expand...

The issue with this is that science, even in high school where it is categorized, still is not that specific. Usually evolution is taught in biology, but if you add into that all the different theories of how we could have come into being then you don't leave enough time discussing the different facits within biology. I don't know about you, but my science teachers didn't exactly spend hours discussing evolution. It was more of a single class or possibly a week discussing fossil records, how different groups of species are similar, what part genes and natural selection play in evolution and how certain species may have come into being through evolution. There was no definitive "this is the only possibility" but there certainly was a lot of evidence to support it. So if we assume that about a week of science class is dedicated to evolution, then how much of that week should we dedicate to creationism (including every religion's specific creation stories), ID, alien intervention, the Matrix-esque theories, and various cosmic dream theories. This would be very confusing for a student to have to take in and learn just to essentially be "PC". Why shouldn't we just stick with what actually has evidence to support it?

BTW, I am responding to this as you would accept all theories being taught in school, not just ones you approve of or that even have proof to support them, since that is how you voted.
 
friday said:
PB, that really is my point regarding ID. But, if a god does exist, then is it really scientific to ignore any impact that god might have on the origins and development of matter and life? Kinda sounds like acknowledging that milk exists but saying it has nothing to do with how ice cream is made.
Click to expand...

friday said:
Deuce, the fraud is that anyone thinks Intelligent Design and Creationism are the same thing. They are not. Most scientists are ID believers, whether they admit it or not. Many other scientists believe in creationism, far more than the ID and closet ID scientists would like to admit.
Click to expand...

Everything you just wrote is wrong.
 
Ikari said:
Making ice cream is a physical process with measurement behind it. Gods are not. In the realm of science, gods are not spoken of due to their inherent immeasurable quantities. Science and Theology are thus two different subjects. Science concerns itself with measurement and pattern. Theology concerns itself more with philosophy. Science will not prove or disprove creationism as the ultimate premise of it is an immeasurable system. Both can co-exist just fine as the core of exploration between science and theology is different.
Click to expand...

Science cannot measure the big bang or evolution. They have never observed it on a macro level, nor have they been able to reproduce it. In fact, if you read back a few posts, this is the very reason Darwin provided for the defeat of the theory of evolution in his Origin of Species.
 
friday said:
Science cannot measure the big bang or evolution. They have never observed it on a macro level, nor have they been able to reproduce it. In fact, if you read back a few posts, this is the very reason Darwin provided for the defeat of the theory of evolution in his Origin of Species.
Click to expand...

But the Big Bang left measurable after effects which can and have been measured. A massive explosion of that sorts wouldn't leave zero remnants. Evolution too has measurable observables. From the fossil record we know that the environment and organisms on the planet have changed. Evolution is precisely that, it means there are dynamics involved and that things are not static. Evolution is change. Change has been measured. Now if you want to talk about the specific mechanisms behind that change, it's not all known at this point. But there are certainly observables which give clues as to what those mechanisms may be.
 
Ikari said:
But the Big Bang left measurable after effects which can and have been measured. A massive explosion of that sorts wouldn't leave zero remnants. Evolution too has measurable observables. From the fossil record we know that the environment and organisms on the planet have changed. Evolution is precisely that, it means there are dynamics involved and that things are not static. Evolution is change. Change has been measured. Now if you want to talk about the specific mechanisms behind that change, it's not all known at this point. But there are certainly observables which give clues as to what those mechanisms may be.
Click to expand...

Our "measuring" of the effects of the big bang are guesses based on the presupposition of matter appearing out of nowhere and organizing itself perfectly with no first mover or designer. It's like measuring how tall you are by holding a ruler in the air at arms length and seeing what line you think you come closest to. Unless you put the end of that ruler on the ground you aren't measuring anything. (Yay random analogies!)
 
friday said:
Our "measuring" of the effects of the big bang are guesses based on the presupposition of matter appearing out of nowhere and organizing itself perfectly with no first mover or designer. It's like measuring how tall you are by holding a ruler in the air at arms length and seeing what line you think you come closest to. Unless you put the end of that ruler on the ground you aren't measuring anything. (Yay random analogies!)
Click to expand...

No. The measurements indicating the Big Bang are measurements on the universe, it's relative movement, energy backgrounds, etc. All which indicate a Big Bang like event. Anything before the Big Bang is unknown.
 
Ikari said:
No. The measurements indicating the Big Bang are measurements on the universe, it's relative movement, energy backgrounds, etc. All which indicate a Big Bang like event. Anything before the Big Bang is unknown.
Click to expand...

Ok, Ikari, then here is an interesting expirament: research the rate at which the moon's orbit is moving away from the earth and the sun is decreasing in size and tell me, according to the measurments of the universe that tell us how long ago the big bang happened, how long ago life could have survived on the earth.
 
friday said:
Ok, Ikari, then here is an interesting expirament: research the rate at which the moon's orbit is moving away from the earth and the sun is decreasing in size and tell me, according to the measurments of the universe that tell us how long ago the big bang happened, how long ago life could have survived on the earth.
Click to expand...

You can probably get estimates of the age of the moon (the receding moon and it's affects of the rotation speed of the earth is a cool exercise in conservation of angular momentum) and sun from such measurements. But measurements indicating the Big Bang are on a larger level such as the galatic red shift and the cosmic microwave background.
 
friday said:
PB, that really is my point regarding ID. But, if a god does exist, then is it really scientific to ignore any impact that god might have on the origins and development of matter and life? Kinda sounds like acknowledging that milk exists but saying it has nothing to do with how ice cream is made.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that God adds anything to science or research. Presumely if you believe in God, then everything in the Universe is a creation of God, so why would we treat the origins of man any differently than any other science?
 
The moon, when it is at it's closest orbit, is 360,000 km from the earth, or 36,000,000,000 cm. The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm a year. 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs walked the earth, the moon would have been about 2,470 km from the earth, or about the distance from New York to LA.
 
friday said:
The moon, when it is at it's closest orbit, is 360,000 km from the earth, or 36,000,000,000 cm. The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm a year. 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs walked the earth, the moon would have been about 2,470 km from the earth, or about the distance from New York to LA.
Click to expand...

This assumes a steady progression.
 
AS always the arguement has gone from the initial point.

Evolution - a scientific theory

Creationism/intelligent design -religion

You cant just turn something into science by giving it a different name.
 
friday said:
The moon, when it is at it's closest orbit, is 360,000 km from the earth, or 36,000,000,000 cm. The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 cm a year. 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs walked the earth, the moon would have been about 2,470 km from the earth, or about the distance from New York to LA.
Click to expand...

The moon could not have formed so far in, else it would have been ripped apart by gravity. Current simulations suggest is was about 3-5 times the radius of the Earth, or about 19-30 thousand km at the time of the moon creation.
 
pbrauer said:
Evolution is science and doesn't rule out intelligent design.
Click to expand...

Again. A Federal Judge in Delaware ruled that Intelligent Design is fraudulent. Science doesn't admit that which is fraudulent. Science does not admit Intelligent Design. ID is a made up from whole cloth fraud. Watch the Frontline video I provided.

Regards from Rosie
 
Redress said:
This assumes a steady progression.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY Redress, which is why so called measurements of the effects of the big bang (13 billion years ago), or of the depletion of carbon from 65 million years ago are ridiculous.
 
friday said:
EXACTLY Redress, which is why so called measurements of the effects of the big bang (13 billion years ago), or of the depletion of carbon from 65 million years ago are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that there aren't galactic indicators of what is going on. Particularly when you discuss something as energetic as the Big Bang. The Big Bang currently fits the observations very well, which is why it is the accepted theory. Something as energetic as the creation of the universe would leave behind remnants to study, once you can understand those remnants and actually measure them you can begin to trace back to the origins. Measurements such as the Red Shift and Cosmic Microwave Background are both examples of measurements which point to a Big Bang.

While it is hard to mimic the changes in moon recession, we do understand well the fundamental mechanism by which angular momentum is transferred from the Earth to the Moon in the Earth/Moon system. We also know why the forces would change over time given the changes on Earth itself. Just noting that we live in a dynamic universe isn't enough to discount the Big Bang or varying forms of radiological dating. Particularly as it relates to the radiation dating, there are many many different forms of such, not isolated to just carbon. All forms of dating agree with each other to within 1% to create a lower boundary on the age of the earth. This is also consistent with other forms of dating such as ice cores and other decay processes.
 
friday said:
EXACTLY Redress, which is why so called measurements of the effects of the big bang (13 billion years ago), or of the depletion of carbon from 65 million years ago are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That only proves that assuming that a system which is not linear would act linear is wrong.
 
friday said:
EXACTLY Redress, which is why so called measurements of the effects of the big bang (13 billion years ago), or of the depletion of carbon from 65 million years ago are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

They don't use carbon dating for 65 million year old fossils and there's no reason we can't calculate things just because they aren't linear.
 
Do any churches plan to teach evolution in Sunday school as an alternative to creation?
 
Personally, I like the way it was done when I was in school.


The biology teacher told us that he was going to teach us the theory of evolution. He said that there were other concepts about how life began, including creationism, and that he was not going to tell us what to believe, but simply that evolution was the accepted scientific theory and we had to learn it as part of the class.

When pressed to express an opinion about what he believed, he flatly declined to do so.

That sounds about right to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom