[Deepblue]

@Kara, the problem with your anology is that those explanations are not widely accepted whereas both evolution and creationism are.

[karajorma]

So? Since when has popular acceptance had anything to do with whether something is correct or not?

Surely it's smart to only teach the correct version so that the incorrect version dies out. There are a lot of people who deny the holocaust happened. Should we teach that in school as a fact and let people make up their own minds? Or should we simply ignore the easily disprovable lies and only teach the most likely version of what happened?

Creationism is similar. It simply isn't scientifically valid.

[Ghostavo]

@Kara, the problem with your anology is that those explanations are not widely accepted whereas both evolution and creationism are.

Creationism isn't widely accepted by the scientific community. You know, the one that actually studies what is latter to be taught in science classes!

[aldo_14]

@Kara, the problem with your anology is that those explanations are not widely accepted whereas both evolution and creationism are.

A few hundred years ago or so the popular and accepted explanation for the disappearance of the horizon was that the world was flat.

[Black Wolf]

@Kara, the problem with your anology is that those explanations are not widely accepted whereas both evolution and creationism are.

Look up the Miasma theory. widely accepted at the time. Even fit a few observations. Still utterly wrong.

[Shade]

Indeed. The question is not whether creationism or ID are accepted by a lot of people, or whether they should be taught or not. The question is, should the be taught as science. And the answer to that is no, they should not. Not until they actually qualify as scientific theories. Until then, they can be taught in theology classes, which I don't think anyone here would object to.

[karajorma]

Let me put it like this. When it was first discovered that the Earth was round there were a lot of people who still thought it was flat. Should people of the day have taught both theories and let people make up their own minds? Or once the scientists had proved it should they have only taught the new correct theory?

When quantum physics were first discovered should we have continued teaching about the phlogiston? When Big Bang theory was discovered should we have continued to teach Steady State Theory? When it was proved that Autism wasn't caused by parental neglect should we have continued to teach doctors that it was and let them decide? When bacteria and viruses were proved to cause diseases should we have continued hearing explainations about evil spirits and let the patient decide on whether to take a pill or drill holes in their head?

Popular acceptance was worthless in all those cases. When a scientific theory came along that fit the facts better than the original one in every case the old theory was dropped. Yet in the case of creationism the old theory wasn't dropped. Even though it is full of holes some people want to cling on to it and claim that it is correct.

Fine, let them. But why should the next generation have to listen to this tosh? Because other people refuse to drop it? There were refusniks for all the other cases I mentioned. Hell in the case of quantum phyics the refusnik was no lesser personage than Albert Einstien himself. But he was wrong. The fact that your computer works proves that he was wrong. How damaging would it have been if everyone else had refused to accept the new theory and move on?

[aldo_14]

With regards to the above, I would like to point out and reinforce that despite claims to contrary, ID is neither new nor a theory.

[karajorma]

It's not a belief either though. I think we proved that one in previous arguments

[Kamikaze]

Wow, you're really serious about this stuff ain't you?

I personally don't mind both theories being taught - My issue is when either is presented as The Only Truth.

If you can't get anything else out of this thread, then get this. Intelligent Design is not a theory. Understand? Let me say that again. ID is absolutely not a scientific theory.

Therefore it has absolutely no reason to be taught in a science classroom.

Edits: Oops. This post has become a bit redundant. Sorry, I didn't notice the fourth page.

[Ace]

What about Lamarkianism! The TRUE, ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

How dare the scientific and religious communities deny Lamarkianism from our children!

(Note: If you understand what Lamarkianism is, you can continue to discuss in this thread. If you don't then please kill yourself so you cease spreading your genes and culture.)

[Ghostavo]

What about Lamarkianism! The TRUE, ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

How dare the scientific and religious communities deny Lamarkianism from our children!

(Note: If you understand what Lamarkianism is, you can continue to discuss in this thread. If you don't then please kill yourself so you cease spreading your genes and culture.)

If you are going to post such a thing, at least spell it right, Lamarckism.

EDIT:
Also the last time someone tried to subvert science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Sound familiar?

[Ulala]

Well since Creationists have to have faith that the Bible is the infallible inspired Word of God, then they'll probably use it as a source. Sorry. At least it was written down. I guess I could just write down, "I think that aliens created us, and all this other crap is a waste of time" and cite that as a source too, right? Just like saying that people took the written accounts closest to what actually happened and put them in the Bible so it'd look like fulfilled prophecy. I'm saying that these are all the same. If you want to piss about people using the Bible as a source, that's completely fine with me. But to then use your own mind/thoughts as a "source".. that's what was lame. Because if you can use that, then the Creationists using the Bible is hardly different. 

[aldo_14]

Well since Creationists have to have faith that the Bible is the infallible inspired Word of God, then they'll probably use it as a source. Sorry. At least it was written down. I guess I could just write down, "I think that aliens created us, and all this other crap is a waste of time" and cite that as a source too, right? Just like saying that people took the written accounts closest to what actually happened and put them in the Bible so it'd look like fulfilled prophecy. I'm saying that these are all the same. If you want to piss about people using the Bible as a source, that's completely fine with me. But to then use your own mind/thoughts as a "source".. that's what was lame. Because if you can use that, then the Creationists using the Bible is hardly different. 

Technically, though, it's not citing your view as correct but showing the equivalent of reasonable doubt upon cited evidence, and then letting the person decide which is the more likely event.  It's not 'this not prophecy because I say so', but 'isn't it more likely and feasible that this was just interpreted as prophecy, given the vagueness'. 

[Turambar]

where'd Zman go?

[NGTM-1R]

I ate him.

Crunchy and tastes good with ketchup.

[Turambar]

see, thats what we like to call "selection pressure" against being zman...  lol

[watsisname]

I think it's unfortunate that we all posted 4 pages of rather good debate in response to Zman's "textbook", and he's still going to believe that it's a reliabe source of accurate information.

*sighs, sinks into depression and falls alseep*

[Mars]

Give him a break, being sheltered ≠ being complete idiot. You've got to admit, admitting to yourself that everything you were ever taught was a lie is a lot harder than arguing endlessly over fine (and made up) details. Let's not prove that humans have evolved into a race of trolls; give him a break.

[watsisname]

I never said that Zman was an idiot.  I said that I find it unfortunate that while we all discuss these issues, some aren't making the choice to try to understand it.

The same can be said for almost any conflict between two opposing viewpoints.  It's not about one side being wrong and the other being right... it's about each side choosing to think logically about the entire argument and all viewpoints pertaining to that argument.

And please don't think that I'm implying that it's wrong for Zman to accept creationism or Inteligent Design.  I just wish that he would make an effort to learn more about it.