Perhaps what keeps the evolution theory alive is that it offers an alternative to a supernatural Creator.
What perpetually chains it to honorary theory status is that no scientific methods can recreate its claims, nor can it be observed. The crime is that there are laws of science that are universally accepted that in fact must be broken for evolution to work. Science is a wonderful, fascinating tool for examining how the world is TODAY, and seeking to understand nature’s mechanisms. Its shortcoming is that if it can’t be observed, tested, and repeatable (like what happened before man got here), one is left with only a guess (and Genesis). There are many topics that have reasonable explanations based on scientific observations to back up the Genesis account. If creationism can demonstrate scientific evidence for its conclusions, why shouldn’t it be taught as science. If evolution fails the scientific tests, why should it be taught, let alone as the sole option for consideration?
Oh dear. Just when I thought the thread was dead.
Samhouch, would you be so kind as to elaborate on a couple of things.
Specifically;
why can`t evolution be observed,
what laws of science must be broken,
what scientific observations back up Genesis,
which scientific conclusions has creationism demonstrated,
which tests has evolution failed.
I think if you answer those you`ll have a lot of folks convinced.
No, it does not. As mentioned before, it is a scientific theory, and therefore deals with the reality of a natural process. A supernatural creator, wether the christian god, zeus, aphrodite, or the gay purple pixie in the skie (he’s gay because he’s happy! 
), has absolutely no bearing on reality. It is SUPERNATURAL, or outside nature and reality.
Can you be more specific?
My guess is that you won’t mention a single one. Because you know it wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Let me make this clear to you: IT DOESN’T. There is NO debate amongst scientist about evolution. The debate only exists in the deluded minds of Creationists.
Again, can you be more specific? Exactly how does it fail as a theory? My guess is though, that you won’t be answering the question with specifics at all.
HH: *In other words a creationsist could make the exact same argument that you made by reversing the terms like this:
“Science and religion are two different kinds of truth. Religion is the truth as dictated by the almighty Creator of the universe and science is man’s attempt to describe a universe without God. Therefore we should teach religion in schools because God has dictated it and it is more reliable than the mere theories of limited mortal men. If parents want to teach their kids science then thay can do it at home but these limited earth based theories of existence have no place in comparison with God’s direct authority.”
It sounds like a rediculous argument to you and me because we don’t make the same assumptions as the (fake) person who made the above arguement. *
Actually, it doesn’t sound ridiculous; I think it’s just as logical a distinction between two different types of truth claims as the one I suggested. You’re quite right that which distinction appeals more to a particular person will depend ultimately on what their original assumptions are about science and religion.
However, I think what would save our materialist bacon when it comes to education is constitutional freedom of religion. Your suggested creationist argument might be perfectly logical to someone who starts from creationist premises, but it wouldn’t pass muster constitutionally. We have a protected right to freedom of religion, so we can’t teach any religious beliefs in school (not in the sense of espousing them, that is; we can teach about them historically and so forth).
There is no protected right to freedom of science, though, any more than there’s a right to freedom of spelling or freedom of math which would make it unconstitutional for a teacher to espouse a particular set of answers as the “right” ones. Within the scope of those subjects, we’re allowed to dictate what students are supposed to learn.
I thought you’d never ask…
I’ll be back as soon as I can
I agree (well said) – which is one reason why I support teaching only evolution in the classroom.
Perhaps not, although you did express the opinion that it is not worth teaching, which is almost the same thing.
You’re right, the OP isn’t about the withdrawal of evolution, it’s about whether creationism can reasonably be taught as being valid:
My position is that in order to be included in the curriculum, creationism should substantially demonstrate itself valid, which it has so far woefully failed to do, resorting instead to political manipulation and lame potshots at evolution.
Oh dear indeed - Is this the part where we have to stand by and watch the second law of thermodynamics brutally mutilated again?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics must be broken to add information from one generation to the next, to increase order and evolve rather than to slip into disorder and devolve. Change is normal, through the loss of information, or mutations that result in a weaker variety. Change of one kind of animal to another does not happen, however. Natural selection does not equal evolution. It merely selects one pre-existing trait over another, rather than developing a new one.
PERFECT timing Mangetout.
Evolution can’t be observed because it’s alleged to have happened in the past, unobserved. The fossil record is missing the crossover species. Why aren’t apes changing into men today?
Maybe it’s just me, but I think this has gotten far too out of it’s own bounds. IMO, both creation and evolution exist in a congrous reality. By it’s own symantic composition, there can’t be one without the other, a thing cannot evolve without first having been created, the very idea that these things are not two sides of the same coin absolutely baffles me.
That said, we’ve created the public schools, funded them, and with our tax money they have evolved. We charge them with teaching all manner of common curriculum, which includes science, and is not inclusive of religion.
If you send your child to a public school you schould expect a secular point of view. If you want your child taught creation, then YOU find acceptable curriculum, and YOU teach them, or find someone that will. It’s not the job of the people we all pay, to teach something that has no empirical evidence to back it up.
I don’t think, however, that failing to teach evolution is a deprivation of rights. It’s freedom of choice that a parent has, that does not involve imminent danger to the life, health, or general well being of said kid. Missing out on some education isn’t necessarily a good thing, but it’s hardly criminal.
Sam, I’m confused…
To prove that one scientific theory is wrong, you use another scientific theory to debunk it, and therefore prove the supernatural theory?
How?
Cite?
All scientific evidence agrees with Genesis. Some have come to contradictory conclusions, or have contradictory theories / hypotheses, but all observations can be fairly interpreted as agreeing with Genesis’ account. There’s no evidence to disprove it. Observation perfectly aggrees with Genesis.
Nothing has evolved since it was created, only changed and declined. In our current state, nothing can evolve. It’s baffling to me how a theory can be presented as science when it flies in the face of an observed scientific principle.
This is utter nonsense and isn’t how science is done anyway, but let’s see you put your money where your mouth is; The subject is Endogenous Retroviral Insertions: how they perfectly agree with the Genesis account. (perhaps you’d best start another thread to explain this).
You must be posting from a deep cave. Up here on the earth’s surface, the addition of energy to our system from the sun is perceptible.
You’ve actually seen God create something? What does He look like?
We’re really running the gamut of the PRATT list, aren’t we?
What if science class were to stop at observed facts only? What would be wrong with that, if it were so important to keep God out of the equation in the gov’t funded classroom?
Again, if scientific observation agrees with the Genesis account, then teaching that God was the creator would merely be a fact. Just because a French student is taught that George Washington was the first US president doesn’t make that student a US citizen. Acknowledging that God was the Creator does not make one a Christian.
Are we granted freedom of religion, or from religion?
I imagine quite a number of things must be baffling to you; you’re completely wrong about what the second law of thermodynamics means, heck, you’re wrong about what it says. This sort of sloppy thinking is precisely why creationism doesn’t belong in the science classroom.
HUH? What scientific observation agrees with the Genesis account? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE enlighten me. All I hear is creationists saying how wrong the theory of evolution is. How about instead of tearing down evolution without evidence of your own you just build up your side with facts? Then a reasonable debate would be possible. For all it is worth I think that any parent should be able to pull their child out of school at anytime… their child just shouldn’t be granted a diploma saying that they have a government approved education.