Should we teach both Evolution and Intelligent Design in science classes?

[the_bob_delusion]

Should we teach both and let the students decide for themselves?

Go

[curmu-curmu]

---

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

 But imo the idea of billions of years of time also requires a leap of faith to accept (as a concept, regardless of carbon dating techniques and other ways science determines the age of a fossil)

Why does it require a leap of faith to believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? We know it didn't appear yesterday, I can testify  to its being it is at least  73 years old, written records suggest it is more than 3000 years old,  so  what age could you accept for it without a leap of faith. 10,000 years? 100,000? 1000,000  and why would any of these ages  be more credible that 4.5 billion?

---

Because throughout scientific history the processes of  determining the age of fossils has changed.  The guesstimation techniques to determine how old certain fossils could be has changed.  At one point scientists thought the earth was 60,000 years old, now they think 4.5 billion, I've heard probably hundreds of possible ages the earth could be from different scientists, archeologists etc. The fact of it is there is no way to determine exactly how old the world is and when all this evolutionary creation of life started to occur.  So as open minded humans we have to believe whatever the scientists are telling us at the time.   We know science is extremely critical of itself (much more critical than religion has ever been) we also know that science isn't "constant" whereas the bible pretty much is.  Not as a scientific resource though.

True open mindedness toward this subject imo is considering the possibilies of both sides of the coin.  Theres much more to life than what science feels the need to put a label on...  Because I'm not so much interested in "proof" I'm more interested in "truth" 

---

That's the sheer beauty and elegance of science. Constantly re-evaluating itself as new information comes to hand. Revising and reshaping evidence to better fit the information as it's discovered. Never content to rest on it's laurels, it is always striving to develop a better understanding of the world around us.

Sadly, every time someone tries to provide evidence for that 2000 year old book, it's proven to be either a mistake, or a gross fabrication. Nothing outside the bible, not even a scrap, proves it to be true.

It is however, clearly a plagiarisied version of many even more ancient tales that preceded it! It demonstrates a clear imitation of the well-documented and dated epics of earlier years. The similarities are astounding.

The epic of Gilgamesh, the Egyptian god Horus, Homer's Iliad, etc, etc...

Too many coincidences to be a coincidence!

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

 But imo the idea of billions of years of time also requires a leap of faith to accept (as a concept, regardless of carbon dating techniques and other ways science determines the age of a fossil)

Why does it require a leap of faith to believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? We know it didn't appear yesterday, I can testify  to its being it is at least  73 years old, written records suggest it is more than 3000 years old,  so  what age could you accept for it without a leap of faith. 10,000 years? 100,000? 1000,000  and why would any of these ages  be more credible that 4.5 billion?

---

Because throughout scientific history the processes of  determining the age of fossils has changed.  The guesstimation techniques to determine how old certain fossils could be has changed.  At one point scientists thought the earth was 60,000 years old, now they think 4.5 billion, I've heard probably hundreds of possible ages the earth could be from different scientists, archeologists etc. The fact of it is there is no way to determine exactly how old the world is and when all this evolutionary creation of life started to occur.  So as open minded humans we have to believe whatever the scientists are telling us at the time.   We know science is extremely critical of itself (much more critical than religion has ever been) we also know that science isn't "constant" whereas the bible pretty much is.  Not as a scientific resource though.

True open mindedness toward this subject imo is considering the possibilies of both sides of the coin.  Theres much more to life than what science feels the need to put a label on...  Because I'm not so much interested in "proof" I'm more interested in "truth" 

---

---

Because throughout scientific history the processes of  determining the age of fossils has changed.

That's because science is not a set-in-stone-for-all-time discipline. As technology and and methodology improve so does the reliability of research.We now have an atomic clock so accurate that it will not lose or gain a second in 5 billion years .http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2544130/The-worlds-accurate-clock-revealed-wont-lose-...  If we can make instruments  that accurate, why does it require a leap of faith to assume we are capable of measuring the age of the world?  

You say you want truth not proof - but how can you have one without the other? A few centuries agao it was the accepted truth- based on a leap of faith -  that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and everything, including the sun, revolved around it. Was Gallileo lying when he produced scientific proof that this was not the case?

And if you cannot bring yourself to believe the Earth is that old, how old do you think the think it is and did it require a leap of faithon your part to reach that conclusion?.

[the_great_she_elephant]

A few centuries agao it was the accepted truth- based on a leap of faith -  that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and everything, including the sun, revolved around it. Was Gallileo lying when he produced scientific proof that this was not the case?

And OMG It appears there are actually some Creationists who do believ he was lying.

http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html

[k0llectable5]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

 But imo the idea of billions of years of time also requires a leap of faith to accept (as a concept, regardless of carbon dating techniques and other ways science determines the age of a fossil)

Why does it require a leap of faith to believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? We know it didn't appear yesterday, I can testify  to its being it is at least  73 years old, written records suggest it is more than 3000 years old,  so  what age could you accept for it without a leap of faith. 10,000 years? 100,000? 1000,000  and why would any of these ages  be more credible that 4.5 billion?

---

Because throughout scientific history the processes of  determining the age of fossils has changed.  The guesstimation techniques to determine how old certain fossils could be has changed.  At one point scientists thought the earth was 60,000 years old, now they think 4.5 billion, I've heard probably hundreds of possible ages the earth could be from different scientists, archeologists etc. The fact of it is there is no way to determine exactly how old the world is and when all this evolutionary creation of life started to occur.  So as open minded humans we have to believe whatever the scientists are telling us at the time.   We know science is extremely critical of itself (much more critical than religion has ever been) we also know that science isn't "constant" whereas the bible pretty much is.  Not as a scientific resource though.

True open mindedness toward this subject imo is considering the possibilies of both sides of the coin.  Theres much more to life than what science feels the need to put a label on...  Because I'm not so much interested in "proof" I'm more interested in "truth" 

---

So, how do we go about in determining what truth is?

---

The obvious answer is "well you need proof dontcha"

I'm not talking about it in that type of context.  Proof is generally referred to something like physical evidence.  Truth on the other hand is usually related to something somebody has said (without getting too hung up on semantics, I'm pretty sure you know what I mean)  If people were honest and truthful there would be no need for proof... 

In response to the poster who bought up the "Is Science killing Christianity" dabate their kids were having at school. My answer to that would be inadvertantly yes.  Not because there is some evil power working behind the scenes to crush Christianity per say but because  science has taught us that there is more evidence for the existence of evolution than there is evidence for the existence of God. That humans are not special rather just another animal on the food chain, thats it's all about adapting to ones environment and survival of the fittest and common ancestors, that mutations + environment +billions of years = life as we know it.  There is no God in this picture. 

[Anonymous]

As a poll reveals that more than a quarter of science teachers believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution, Oktar is offering an implausibly large reward to anyone who can point to a single fossil that proves evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/dec/22/atlas-creationism-adnan-oktar-harun-yahya

[rabbitearbandicoot]

@curmu-curmu wrote:

13.7 billion years old?

Wait a minute...the genealogy of the bible tells us that the Earth is only 6-7000 years old.

NO, it doesn't! We have discussed this in a number of different threads. Look them up.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

As a poll reveals that more than a quarter of science teachers believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution, Oktar is offering an implausibly large reward to anyone who can point to a single fossil that proves evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/dec/22/atlas-creationism-adnan-oktar-harun-yahya

---

Well Oktar is pretty safe there as one single fossil could never prove anything.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

As a poll reveals that more than a quarter of science teachers believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution, Oktar is offering an implausibly large reward to anyone who can point to a single fossil that proves evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/dec/22/atlas-creationism-adnan-oktar-harun-yahya

---

Well Oktar is pretty safe there as one single fossil could never prove anything.

---

ele, can you explain to me just how fossils prove evolution? The fact that there are animal fossils (of now extinct animals) throughout the various rock layers etc - how does that prove evolution? ** I use the word 'animal' in it's losest form.

[curmu-curmu]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

@curmu-curmu wrote:

13.7 billion years old?

Wait a minute...the genealogy of the bible tells us that the Earth is only 6-7000 years old.

NO, it doesn't! We have discussed this in a number of different threads. Look them up.

---

Ok...so please tell me - what's your take on the age of the Earth?

[curmu-curmu]

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

As a poll reveals that more than a quarter of science teachers believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution, Oktar is offering an implausibly large reward to anyone who can point to a single fossil that proves evolution.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/dec/22/atlas-creationism-adnan-oktar-harun-yahya

---

Great article. Shame there's absolutely no citation for the 'poll' mentioned. Wonder where the stats came from?

And here's a link to the list of associations that specifically advocate that creationism is NOT taught in schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design