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

[godsandmen]

Here in the U.S., it's Christianity destroying science, not the other way around. American politics has become a cesspool of religion, guns, science-denial, and anti-gay bigotry. Even the head of the senate environmental committee does not believe in climate change! It's unbelieveable, and it's getting worse all the time. Somehow gay rights had made great progress, but now that the right-wing crazies are in charge, that could change. Maybe I should flee to Australia. Honestly, it's refreshing reading posts from so many people who actually believe in evolution.

[Anonymous]

tasfleur wrote:

It's all too big for the mind, so some levelled it down to the lowest denomination of their primal IQ's of the time.  They still do now I suppose .... 

 how does that make you feel mr rabbitearbandicoot?  

[the_great_she_elephant]

 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?

[tasfleur]

It's okay Julia, Mr.Rabbitearbandicoot knows exactly what I meant and didn't take it out of context  xxx

[myoclon1cjerk]

No leap of faith required.Science.

The best estimate for Earth's age is based on radiometric dating of fragments from the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. From the fragments, scientists calculated the relative abundances of elements that formed as radioactive uranium decayed over billions of years.
"It was not until the 1950s that the age of the universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years," Lewis said. "Physicists suddenly gained a new respect for geologists."
For the record, the universe is now thought to have debuted, at least in its latest incarnation, about 13.7 billion ago.

[curmu-curmu]

13.7 billion years old?

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

And the bible knows this, because the bible is true - because god says so, and we know he doesn't lie, 'cos the bible says so - and tells us that everything it contains is true, because it's god's word, and he doesn't lie - it says so in the bible, and ohhh...I'm getting a headache from going round and round!

[curmu-curmu]

[k0llectable5]

---

@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" 

[myoclon1cjerk]

Is there a difference?

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@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?