Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?

2007-04-08T07:32:26Z

Thememan:

The question has not meaning as natural selection does not occur in human civilization where virtually every individual live to child bearing age and Marxism does function in nature only in human civilization.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest that natural selection does occur. Even if it were possible to ensure that each person had two children, the act of ensuring it happened is a form of selection. Some people have more kids than others, it might not be an active process but that is not in the nature of natural selection.

I would suggest that whoever thought up this topic explain exactly what is meant here. The two are almost completely unrelated to one another(Other than the idea of change). So, really, what is being got at here?

Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?

2007-04-01T22:19:47Z

Thememan:

And how would it do this again? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 10:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking the same thing. Honestly, bigotry and racism are pretty much the antithesis of Darwinian evolution, for many reasons. Requirement of genetic diversity, adaption to environments, etc. People who actually state this haven't an idea of Darwinism.

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2007-03-13T08:34:28Z

Thememan: /* '''yes...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

It depends how you do you interpret democracy. If democracy means walking around naked,not being interested in where your daughter sister or mom is sleeping tonight , being able to deny the presence of God, Drinking alcholol all night and then staggering like an ill-minded animal on the streets,not respecting your parents by putting them in retirement houses when they become old, kicking out your children out of your houses when they become 18,not knowing your neighbours after living 30 years door to door with them,having disposable marriages , watching two men kissing each other on the street AND yet claim to be socialized and free then the answer is NO.

but If democracy means having free right of speech in the ways that God permits,(by not doing all of above and some others) , being able to question the ruling authority , women's right of voting,equality of women and men in terms of religious moral ethical social conjugal and political rights, respecting each others lives and possessions, and many many more righteous aspects which have already been explained in the Holy Quran, then the answer is Yes.

and if you want to know more about democracy please do read the history of first 50 years of Islam where the complete democracy was introduced to the mankind for the first time.

It is not a matter of me being right or you being wrong, it is a matter between you and your God so contemplate before you leave.

==='''We're not even democratic.'''===

Quite honestly, our system of government is only very loosely democratic(In that we "vote", but that's it-more of a Republic), and the structure of our government was based largely and a series of events. As well, there are forms of Democracy in the Mid-East, such as Iran does infact hold elections(Yes, they do). However, the largest problem dealing with countries such as Iraq is that the people are more or less split into a few prominent groups, with a minority of them actually causing the problems. But bleh, I don't want to go into specifics of Middle Eastern politics right now, so yes and no. Yes, a form can exist(Under the correct circumstance-which is why Iraq is a cesspool of a civil war right now-because of a lack of acknowedgement to the reality of the situation), but not actual democracy.

==='''no...'''===
democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose.
democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. the man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog.
the forefathers knew about a democracy. that is why they created a republic.

'''Comment:''' I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a ''democratic'' republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you...to an extent. After a while democracy, alone, begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elcted legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy, (no tyrants, self government...) without some of the problems, (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. that said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Er, I rather suspect it would be better for everyone if, rather than "installing" democracy, one attempted to ''instill'' it. Just a thought.

:Some nations are born democracies, some achieve democracy, and some have democracy thrust upon them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the sake of argument here, let's presume that "republic with democratic elections" is the meaning of democracy in the question. Anything else is a bit nitpicky, that's obviously what's intended in context. This being said, however, something else makes the question rather hard to answer. Turkey has a large Muslim population, and is a republic. Iran is as well, but is most certainly not. Egypt? Syria? Just what country are we talking about here? Those aren't any more similar than the US and the Netherlands, despite the fact that both are predominantly Christian.

So, this being said, it is more than "possible" for a democracy to exist in a Muslim country, it is a fact of life in Turkey. (And perhaps more, but certainly that one offhand.) If we are speaking of ''Iraq'', on the other hand (and whoever wrote the question most certainly thinking of it)...

Unfortunately, to that one, no. Iraq has been botched terribly, and at this point is likely unsalvageable. There's going to be a long civil war there. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I don't see it ending any other way. I really don't know if it could've ever been salvaged, but at this point I don't think it's possible. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 00:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Yes==
Yes, indonesia is the the world's third largest democracy, and the world's largest muslim country. There you go.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:We're talking extremist, e.g. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have a strong foothold and will not abandon it without Jihad. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So, should the original question read "Is it possible to install a democracy in a country that's run by radical mideastern fundamentalist Muslims?". Perhaps the question should have been more precise. And what do you mean by "not abandon it without Jihad"? Indonesians aren't exactly fickle, and I don't think they'd abandon their power anytime soon without some sort of struggle (literal definition of jihad). Oh, and Lebanon and Yemen are middle-eastern Muslim republican democracies.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I guess I should be more precise in my answer too. Installing democracy strikes me as fundamentally naive. The very nature of democracy is supposed to be power derived from the people. Coming in and artificially imposing a democracy strikes me as nearly impossible, especially in such a foreign environment. Yes, democracy is possible in a predominantly islamic country, no, "installing" it probably is an incredibly naive idea. Bush, bleh.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==='''no...'''===

Its not possible to "install" democracy. It is something that must evolve of the people. The question that needs to be asked is is it even right for us to try to install our system on anyone else? Why are we so assured that the way we do things is the only way that they can be done that will work. We came to our democratic system through our own will and process. No other country or people are going to replicate that process so why should they replicate the result? [[User:Little Suspicious|Little Suspicious]]

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-03-13T08:27:28Z

Thememan: /* '''no...''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

HELL YES! We should have nuked the communists in Russia and North Korean and Vietnam and China before they saw it coming. That would have solved everything.

Um... Communism is bad, right?

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

While I agree with the notion that communism is bad and that we should have eliminated communism in North Korea, there is more to the story than that. At that time, the U.S. government had agreed upon a policy of containment. It would have gone directly against that policy to rid North Korea of communism. But I still think we should have, given the circumstances we find ourselves in today.

[[User:David R|David]]

==='''no...'''===

The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.

:'''Comment:''' Pyongyang ''might'' have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==='''Uh...'''===

You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.

Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-13T08:05:40Z

Thememan: /* '''Misconceptions''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-13T08:04:22Z

Thememan: /* '''Post Your Thoughts''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.