<p>No. The basic premise of science (and even religion) is that there is a reality. The energy that binds particles into atoms; the atoms that bond into molecules; and the way these molecules react chemically is not based on the observer. (Certainly my example of “reality” could be completely wrong, but it’s currently believed to be reality). The reality exists absolutely*, and it’s up to a particular theory to accurately model it. </p>
<p>Thus, the burden of proof isn’t either on Creationism or Evolution. The burden of proof is on both to model reality. It’s very likely that neither describes the actual origination of species. </p>
<p>It’s not like Evolution has to disprove Creationism or that Creationism must disprove Evolution. They’re independent. Both of them are claiming to model reality–so the burden of proof is to show that they model reality in all possible context. </p>
<p>(*This is way too simplified–many “absolute” measures are impossible. What is absolute speed or distance when space itself is expanding? If you can’t precisely measure two absolute properties at the same time ([Uncertainty</a> principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle]Uncertainty”>Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia)) are they really absolute? I ignore this because it’s probably irrelevant to Evolution).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism. That’s all you can say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe in particulate science. I believe that energy guides chemistry. Because of this, I trust radiometric dating, and I am confident that Creationism can’t be correct if it assumes that life started tens of thousands of years ago. </p>
<p>IMO, biology is too high level. Any evolutionary changes in species occurred due to real biochemical processes. Saying that genes control these processes and that these genes are inherited is too broad. Molecules don’t have brains. Show me why the molecules are rearranging–what is their incentive (energy-wise)?. Why do most changes occur gradually rather than in rapid bursts? Statistics can’t answer this question. Only derivations of particulate physics can (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, etc.,).</p>
<p>You have to describe the underlying events that cause Evolution before I’m on board. You can’t just prove Evolution by showing that traits fluctuate with time and then show that statistics and genetic inheritance could account for this. That’s like telling me you can model a data set, and then using the change in summary statistics as proof. </p>
<p>It’s no different trusting the mathematical equations in physics. Ultimately, the math has to be backed up by physical fact. There certainly are physicists who disagree; many believe the mathematical equations are the reality and that we’re simply biased towards physical proof. Although they’re infinitely more knowledgeable and smarter than me in physics, I’m not on board with them either.</p>
<p>But I also recognize my beliefs as just that–beliefs. With contextually narrow evidence.</p>
<p>Fallacies have to do with how the argument is constructed, not whether the result of said argument is true or not. A fallacious argument can reach a true conclusion just as a well-reasoned argument can reach a false conclusion if it is based on false premises. The lack of scientific evidence for creationism does not entail that the theory of evolution is “true.”</p>
<p>
All this means is that there is a high probability that the theory of evolution accurately describes reality.</p>
<p>
Oh, you were there when it happened, were you? Or you got some nice recording that some extraterrestrial species made of the event, did you? Well I guess we’ll just all shut up now.</p>
<p>
And therefore no one else is allowed to believe in it? I didn’t know we lived in a scientific aristocracy.</p>
<p>Honestly, I believe that scientific absolutism in the scientific community has historically done more to delay the progress of science than any random people in the world population who “deny truths” as you purport. The idea of absolute truths is PRE-SCIENTIFIC. When are you going to get that, Adenine? We don’t do science to arrive at “absolute truths” and then shove those truths down the throats of every single last damn human being. We do it because of pure intellectual curiosity and because of the pragmatic value it has in predicting things so that we can make technologies, medical advances, etc.</p>
<p>
No, I think we just pretend to be certain of them until reality contradicts our beliefs.</p>
<p>
Ok, so you are basically saying that we arrived at facts/certainties based on inexact theories… Please explain this more.</p>
<p>
If such were purported as a scientific theory, yes.</p>
<p>
I can imagine that it is quite annoying to a creationist when a scientist says that creationism is complete bunk, to be a priest who has kids questioning creationism because of the evolution they learned in school, etc. etc. you get the point. And don’t start rambling on about truths and denying reality again, because this is what you get for appealing to the annoyance of individuals.</p>
<p>
I could argue that these educators are simply capitalizing on the significant work of scientists. I also doubt that someone would lose their job because they are threatened by creationists. Being offended is an irrational thing, it is an emotional response to some stimulus. The purpose of an education in science should be a training in the methodology of science and how current scientific theories are useful, how they were arrived at, etc., not merely some exhibition of “scientific truths.” If a person’s entire career hinges on the general population’s belief in the “Absolute Truth of Evolution”, I hardly see how they have a career at all.</p>
<p>As for rationalism, well I would point out that “a rational decision is one that is optimal, given the available information, in terms of achieving a goal, and individuals or organizations are called rational if they take rational decisions in pursuit of their goals.”
If a creationist’s goal is to educate people in creationism, then wanting it taught in schools is a rational action. If their goal is to be happy, and believing in creationism makes them happy, then believing in creationism is rational. So, now we are just into some sort of ethical conflict.</p>
<p>
A theory that is upheld by inductive reasoning is hardly as factual as actual data collected on some historical occurence, particularly one of such magnitude as the Holocaust.</p>
<p>I believe that science explains things and how they happen, religion explains why things happen. As a society moving away from traditional religions, I’d say modern society is more science based, and the spheres of science and religion are quite separate because they answer different questions.</p>
<p>^ I agree with this. The question should not be whether science or religion is better, but rather which science is best and which religion is best.</p>
<p>I don’t think the two necessarily have to be in competition, but it seems like people like to pit them against each other and see the two as mutually exclusive, unfortunately.</p>
<p>However, I think that science has done more good for society because, despite the fact that both can be beneficial when used correctly and can be incredibly harmful if taken too far, people go too far with religion far more often than with science.</p>
<p>The concept that species have evolved isn’t going to be invalidated since there is so much proof behind it. The things that will change are fine-tuning exactly how evolution occurs, species relationships, new molecular techniques etc. But creationism doesn’t have a single piece of valid evidence behind it that shows that a god made all life in its current form or that the Earth is 6,000 years old (for YEC). So what is the creationist method of attack? Evolution bashing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can say that species evolve and there isn’t one scientific fact supporting creationism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know; evolution has provided tons of evidence that species have evolved over great amounts of time while creationism has found nothing to support it. The only remaining hope creationism has is to try its damnedest to attack or construe scientific findings or rely on Genesis, which doesn’t follow the order of evolution and is entirely different from the “in the beginning” tales of other religions. But creationists think that what they think are “holes” or “flaws” in evolution supports creationism, which is wrong since it provides nothing to their side.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Theres no need to get so sarcastic. I’m just making a statement of what science has uncovered.</p>
<p>Just because someone believes something doesn’t make it correct. If someone wants to believe in something that has no evidence they should either keep it to themselves or assert it but admit that there is no evidence behind it. The last thing that should occur is to make an argument with no proof and parade about acting like its true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you going to get the fact that there are things in science that we are certain of? Are we really sure that protons, neutrons, and electrons might not really exist? Are we really not sure that the earth orbits the sun and rotates on its axis? Are we really not sure that life on this planet has evolved? Everything I mentioned is FACT. Science has found a huge number of things that we can safely call fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re much better off telling this to a religious fundamentalist or anyone completely brainwashed by their religion (belief with zero evidence).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ditto what I wrote two quote boxes up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I provide another example, we are certain that there is an attractive force holding us down at the moment, which we label gravity, although exactly what this is, the math behind it all, etc. is still open to improvement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If annoyance warranted if the opposing argument has evidence while yours has none at all?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There has never been that has lost his/her job because of this creationism garbage?! That isn’t true at all…</p>
<p>I think I’d be offended if I taught evolution in a science class without giving “equal time” to creationism, which isn’t science at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It has no place in a science class b/c it isn’t science. It has a place in a religion/theology class but beyond really nothing beyond that. Even there, it should be mentioned that there is ZERO evidence for it and bashing evolution doesn’t count. If all these attacks on evolution had any force they would be published and well regarded. But their claims have been debunked many times over and they completely fails peer review. Science isn’t discriminating against creationism - scientists dont have agendas, but creationists do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s only rational if it has evidence. Whether it makes them happy is irrelevant and doesnt make it true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evolution has just as much support for it as any historical occurrence. The witnesses, remaining buildings and photographs that prove the Holocaust have their own equivalences in evolution (scientists’ verification, molecular data, hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers, fossil record, etc.).</p>
Well, it is true to them. You can’t really expect someone to say “I believe in X but I know that X is false.” You are basically saying that people who want to establish a philosophical system different to the philosophy of science should be treated like candidates for a mental institution or something.</p>
<p>
The things you are talking about are mostly observable phenomena and not scientific theories. I like how you just throw evolution in there next to the earth orbiting the sun, protons, etc. If we start with the premise that reality exists, observable phenomena could be called “facts,” assuming that we are not collectively delusional, perceptually limited, etc. Of course, much of science would suggest that these things are fundamental parts of nature and will not randomly disappear or act in a way which defies their definition. This we cannot be certain of. We should not care to be completely certain of things in any case. See: [Science</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Science - Wikipedia”>Science - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>You are also projecting, not everyone has the same standards of “what we can safely call fact” as you.</p>
<p>
No, I directed it at you and I stand by that direction. Why would you want me to direct that at a religious fundamentalist, given your position? It would only strengthen their resolve further. Belief with no evidence does not = brainwashing. Brainwashing is where you coercively tear down an individual’s fundamental belief system and replace it with something else. Someone cannot be “brainwashed” by their own belief system.</p>
<p>
This is a bad example; the attractive force was noted first and then people tried to theorize about what might cause it. Observing something and arbitrarily giving it a name is not science.</p>
<p>
Again, annoyance is an irrational/emotional response and has nothing to do with reason, evidence, etc.</p>
<p>That video seems sketchy to me. In any case, schools are funded by taxes from citizens, and if it is apparent that those citizens want time given to creationism, then so be it.</p>
<p>
What was the point of this statement, given what I wrote? Are you trying to pretend that you are a 100% rational person, and that therefore if you are offended by something, offense is rational?</p>
<p>
I don’t think most public schools have mandatory religion/theology classes in the way that they have mandatory science classes.</p>
<p>
Why would a theology class concern itself with the scientific method?</p>
<p>
Why are you so worked up about it then, if creationists are so noninfluential?</p>
<p>
Who said that science was discriminating? Both scientists and creationists have agendas.</p>
<p>
Well, I suppose it depends on which definition of rational you are using. You are also excluding the possibility that an individual might value personal happiness and their own personal truths over knowledge of “objective truths.” You can’t really call that irrelevant in an individualistic society such as ours.</p>
<p>
Qualify this statement, otherwise it’s meaningless.</p>
<p>
Again, the Holocaust is not a scientific theory, nor any other sort of theory. We have never hypothesized that there was a genocide of 6 million Jews during WW2, gathered all the evidence, and said, “Given all this evidence, it is highly probable that the Holocaust occured.” Even the term “Holocaust” is something of an abstraction when you are examining the evidence of it. Furthermore, science requires primary observations of a phenomena occuring, not accounts, secondary evidence, etc. It is different from a study of history.</p>
<p>Here are just a few thought/curiosities I have after reading through a number of posts. Feel free to argue against them or prove them wrong.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why God and science don’t go hand in hand. If God created the universe, then it makes sense that he created the rules the universe abides by.</p>
<p>It’s interesting in Genesis how the world’s creation progresses. Light-water-earth-plants-sun-moon-fish-birds-other animals-man. So in theory, God could have used (gasp) evolution to go from one stage to the next.</p>
<p>But wait. 6 days isn’t long enough for evolution. Well, that assumes that God operates on our concept of days. If He exists outside of time then a “day” to God could last who knows how long, perhaps billions of years in our concept of time. And if that’s the case, parts of Earth could in fact be billions upon billions of years old while other parts are only a few thousand.</p>
<p>It just makes sense to me that if God created a constantly changing, constantly moving, constantly evolving world, why wouldn’t the creatures on it also evolve. Created to evolve so to speak.</p>
<p>As far as faith goes, both sides have faith. Scientists put their faith in what they can see, and touch, and test while Christians might argue that they are doing the exact same thing.</p>
<p>These are just a few random thoughts I had.</p>
<p>This is wrong. I don’t think you could call yourself a fundamentalist if you base your perspective on evidence rather than mindlessly accepting what a religious book says.</p>
<p>Scientists know something to be true because of evidence, observation, etc. not because they’ve been reading it in a holy book their entire lives. Its different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re acting like untruths are just as valid to defend as truths. There is a time when fact needs to be separated from fiction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>here’s a hypothetical example: I don’t believe that protons and electrons exist despite the scientific evidence (which I dont think really exists and conclude that scientists must be universally stupid for believing that). So I go on a political mission to wipe out proton/electron teaching or teach the other theory that they might not exist. Should people really give in to my demands because its true to me that protons and electrons dont exist?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Proton/electron evidence goes under the heading “atomic theory” and their
existence were confirmed way before we had powerful microscopes. They were fact before they were observable. We don’t have a video about the Earth orbitting the sun. Its found in the same exact way evolution is confirmed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether something is fact or not is independent of the person.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they stand by beliefs with no evidence of them being true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is getting into semantics (nothing important). I’m using “brainwashing” in the sense of indoctrination/persuasion/influence. But all religious people go from having no beliefs to some sort of beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its completely parallel to evolution. Darwin found that finches are similar to each other but different based on their environment and that the fittest survive by natural selection. The fact that life has changed on earth -new species, extinctions, beneficial mutation, etc- has all been confirmed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Annoyance is rational if something is affecting your well-being or that of something else. Many biology teachers cant teach effectively b/c of creationism and for those who recognize the anti-scientific dogma for what it is have the right to be annoyed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She got fired b/c of creationism. Whats so sketchy about that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Should anti-science be taught in a science class? If you think science class is for teaching the scientific method and process (which I agree with) what good is creationism which does none of that? It goes by the position “god made everything the way it is now because thats what our religion says.” Wheres the science?</p>
<p>If I had a billion dollars and donated it to the school should they teach my thoery that protons and electrons don’t exist? (this is hypothetical of course)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Public education is mostly secular. My point is that science should be kept in science classes while anti-science should be taught some other place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They aren’t influential in science publications but they are in education, politics and the public in general. The have plenty of outlets to make themselves heard and convince people who don’t know any better that their garbage is scientific in nature. They act like they know what true science is while scientists -the people who study it- have no clue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Scientists have work schedules if you’re using “agenda” in that way. But to them, life doesnt evolve b/c they wanted it to -they discovered that. Creationists though, want life to be created by their god and the earth to be 6-10 thousand years old (YEC) b/c thats what their bible says, not b/c any evidence exists. Theres a difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would someone want to believe something that obviously goes against whats supported by evidence? Again, if I went around informing people that electrons and protons don’t exist by arguing with objective fact, should people just give in and say, “well, proton and electron existence seems to model the world better but we don’t have truths in science so you might be right. And since that makes you happy, we’ll stick up for you and argue against those arrogant people who think protons and electrons are fact and make them out to be the bad guys in this argument.”</p>
<p>This is exactly what Im getting from you about this whole evolution-might-not-exist thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not going to b/c its true. Evolution is just as factual as any documented historical event. Its just as verifiable as say, the American Revolutionary War. We use evidence to show that it happened in the same way we have mountains of evidence to support evolution. We don’t have video footage of the war or anything like that.</p>
<p>You want to know why the Revolutionary War isnt as disputed as evolution? Because there isnt a holy book out there that says that it didn’t happen or that some other war happened in its place… Belief w/o evidence is the source of all this “evolution sucks” rhetoric that goes around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This basically goes back to what I was saying just before this. Evolution is disputed b/c of religion or b/c they arent aware of the evidence. Thats fact. Holocaust and other genocides are also denied due to religion, faith and belief in ethnic superiority. Neither group has any credibility.</p>
Fundamentalism has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof.</p>
<p>
Anything is defensible; whether that defense will hold is another matter. By what criteria are you separating fact from fiction? People will have their own criteria; do not pretend that yours is in someway “objective.”</p>
<p>
They don’t have to give in; they can weigh your theory against others and make a choice. You seem to want to take that choice out of people’s hands and force them to believe in something from the outset. You can argue that religious fundamentalists try to do the same thing, but don’t pretend that you are better than them.</p>
<p>
Well then the earth orbiting the sun is just as suspect as evolution. See: [Astronomy:</a> The earth revolves around the sun, earth revolves around the sun, independent reality](<a href=“http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/earth-revolves-around-sun.htm]Astronomy:”>http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/earth-revolves-around-sun.htm)
Note the way in which the scientist responds in reference to proof, etc. We were speaking of theories determining truths though, not theories describing observations or becoming observable phenomena; I don’t think electrons can even be observed by powerful microscopes, we mainly observe their interactions; I would say that atomic theory is much more well supported than Evolution in any case given that Evolution is so grand and macroscopic.</p>
<p>
Is it? Prove this. Even if we assume that objective facts exist, how do we know we actually perceive them?</p>
<p>
I still don’t see how this has anything to do with what I said.</p>
<p>
Why do people always whine about semantics? They reflect in some ways limitations of verbal communication. OK, “indoctrination” is a better word; but everyone is indoctrinated into something, and everyone goes from holding no beliefs to holding some beliefs.</p>
<p>
Wait, so finches are as fundamental and universal as attractive forces?</p>
<p>
Annoyance is an emotional response and therefor irrational. You can argue that there is “warranted” and “unwarranted” annoyance, but that is subjective in any case.</p>
<p>
The video doesn’t seem to be detailed enough, I am no convinced that it is telling the whole story. It doesn’t make sense for the administration to fire her purely because she doesn’t give time to creationism; it would make more sense for them to tell her to alter her curriculum first. If she refused to, she was fired for being insubordinate, not “because of creationism.”</p>
<p>
I think that teaching scientific process is more important than teaching scientific findings as absolute irrefutable truths. Having creationism taught in parallel to the conclusions of scientific theory might even be a good thing from your perspective, because then students can actually see the Scientific Method vs. “God did it”.</p>
<p>
I am not sure that’s legal, but if the school accepted the money on the stipulation that such a theory be taught, then yes. You are confusing private donations with public taxpayer money, though.</p>
<p>
What other places? If people are paying school taxes and want creationism taught in schools, I don’t see why they shouldn’t campaign for it. It’s not like they are given the option of not paying school taxes if they don’t support the curriculum. Should “anti-science” be taught at home, then? Do we really need more parents fighting with their kids and with their kid’s schools?</p>
<p>
Why shouldn’t they? Have you heard of the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution? It makes no exception to “Unscientific speech.” People purport nonsense all the time, this is nothing new and tying to eliminate it from the outset is futile and undemocratic.</p>
<p>
No, I was using “agenda” in the same way you were. Scientists want beliefs to be supported by scientific evidence, want the scientific method taught in schools, etc. Something is not exempt from being characterized as an agenda simply because it relies on objective evidence.</p>
<p>
Why wouldn’t they? Science is impersonal and doesn’t care about what people want. So, why should people care about science?</p>
<p>
If they want to.</p>
<p>
If they think your argument is better and more convincing than another argument, then I suppose they might.</p>
<p>
Oh, I think evolution is a lovely scientific theory that is more valid than creationism purported as a scientific theory; it is your scientific absolutism that I disagree with. Challenging conventional scientific thought can be a wonderful thing–just look at QM.</p>
<p>
Then, it’s meaningless. I don’t think we really need to get into a discussion on historical certainty. Arbitrarily comparing the validity of evolution to the validity of the Revolutionary War does no benefit to evolution, and is utterly unscientific.</p>
<p>
So everyone who disputes evolution is a religious fundamentalist? I don’t think I need to respond to that. “Evolution sucks rhetoric”? Haha.</p>
<p>
So absolute belief without evidence runs contrary to absolute belief with evidence? Riveting. What a groundbreaking epistemological assertion.</p>
<p>The basic problem here is that you do not understand what I believe. My skepticism of evolution is not because my Bible states it to be untrue. As pointed out by openspaces and others, the Genesis account can be interpreted in terms of evolution, and this may be the correct interpretation.</p>
<p>However, I AM UNCONVINCED BY THE EVIDENCE.</p>
<p>I can restae the reasons why, but if you’re just going to ignore them and continue beating straw men then I might as well not bother.</p>
<p>You make the analogy that Evolution is just like the American Revolution, since we have no video recordings of it. No video, maybe, but we have many, many written and oral accounts by eyewitnesses that have been passed down. We have no such accounts of Evolution.</p>
While I hope people are not getting fired for their personal beliefs, a science teacher who teaches creationism in place of evolution should probably be fired, if that is what is happening. I think that asking schools to discuss creationism in parallel with evolution is one thing, but I think that it is unreasonable to ask that only creationism be taught. I think that having both described is the best compromise between views.</p>
<p>^ I agree. And I’m sure that in many cases the person fired was at least partly at fault. But nonetheless there are many stories about teachers, professors, and even research scientists being fired for stating that they disbelieve Evolution, or at least claiming that that was the reason they were fired.</p>
<p>My point is just that I don’t think you can get very far with the “poor persecuted evolutionists get fired” argument.</p>