Creationism vs. Evolution in the Classroom (Page 3)

Okay... so, speaking strictly about coming up with a theory of origins, isn't it possible to come up with an alternate to evolution (as a theory) based strictly on the scientific process?   If so, what would be wrong with examining  that alternate in the classroom?

You seem to be making an assumption that any examination of Creation is based on the Bible or some other religious text.  It is true that a good number of these examinations are, but many of them also address the question without referring to God or the Bible or any myths at all. 

So explain to me a creation theory that doesn't involve a God.

And explain why evolution precludes a God.

Origin of what?

No, they're different.  Here's a blurb from the wiki post on scientific theory (as good a place to start as any):

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence

Evolution is clearly a scientific theory (and as close to substantiated as you can get), creationism simply is not, given that it's pretty difficult to constrcut a self-consistent model via any experimental evidence.  For that reason, creationism should not be taught in schools, period.

It does not mean, however, that the two ideas are or should be mutually exclusive.  I'm perfectly comfortable with evolution being the "how" and creationism (of some form) being the "why".  But given the highly subjective nature of various belief systems of who or what God is, and what his/her/their intentions for us are, that kind of education should be provided at home, or in a place of worship, or in some kind of media available in passive setting (as in, NOT in a classroom where an authority figure, the teacher, is telling you what to think.)

My 2 cents worth...anyway. 

The Big Bang is a theory of how the universe was created, supported by some observable, quantifiable measurements and observations.  There are some inconsistencies still, and scientists are still trying to bolster or refute the theory (hopefully without bias in either direction).  As such, it merits discussion in schools at the appropriate level.  The belief that God (or some other driving force) caused the Big Bang (or created the universe via some other mechanism), cannot be supported by any observable, quantifiable measurements - it's really a matter of faith.  As such, it does not merit inclusion in schools as a subject of study, at least not in a science class.  World religions, comparative religions, sure, why not?

To my previous post, it's about the "how", not necessarily the "why". 

Neither one of those is what I said???

You said "You seem to be making an assumption that any examination of Creation is based on the Bible or some other religious text.  It is true that a good number of these examinations are, but many of them also address the question without referring to God or the Bible or any myths at all. "

I was wondering how you could possibly explain creation (the act of creating. by a creator.) without referring to a God. How can you purport creation without a creator?

The second question was a corrolary.

Okay... There are many attempts at examining the concept of Creation without referring to God or the Bible (and other religious ideas / texts).  Yes, eventually they have to make the correlation that  there is a creator.  I intentionally used the word "referring".  It is a logical fallacy to say "God said he created everything, therefore God is the creator".  It is fine if someone wants to believe that, but it is not a sound argument by any means.  It is just as invalid if someone says "Because the Bible said it!"  Again, I fully support anyone's right to have blind faith and believe what the Bible says... but, it is not a valid argument. 

 With all that said, there are many approaches that take steps along the line of; here is the evidence, here is how we examine the evidence based on a legitimate scientific process, here is an alternative model we can assume, and wow it points to a Creator.  (This is extremely simplified).  These approaches do not reference the Bible or God, or etc... So, here is the question.  What would be wrong with introducing these approaches in the classroom?

And, your second question, to explain why evolution precludes God, is more of a red herring.  If you did not intend it as such, well... it would take much to lengthy of a discussion for this thread.

Nothing.  Just not in a science class.  It's not science.   

Right...as Renee said, talk about it in a comparative religion class, but not in biology. You can pretend all you want, but teaching creation *is* teaching religious dogma. Saying talking about creation without talking about God takes the religiosity out of it is like saying teaching the ten commandments without mentioning where they came from isn't teaching religion.

Hmm... A bit of a circular statement.... 

What?  I get from your post on page 2 that you don't think evolution is science, but you are wrong.  It is science. 

If we can't agree on that though there is no point in discussing this because we are too far apart to have any meaningful discussion.   

This is also a circular argument.  More so, however, it misses the point... which has been explained ad nauseam. 

Wait, I think I saw it move....hit it again

I've been rather verbose on this subject, so I'm not sure exactly which post you mean.  At one point, I did say that Creation does not necessarily = religion and that Evolution does not necessarily = science.  I explained that there are a lot of qualifying conditions that could invalidate either statement.  It is also dependent on what we mean when we say "science"  are we talking about the scientific process or are we talking about accepted facts that have been established by the scientific process.  Also, it depends on what we mean when we say evolution.  It is also a very broad concept that gets discussed in very narrow confines.   

Now, to the point as to why your last statement is circular:  You say, Creation isn't science therefore it must not be taught in science class.  This is circular logic.  It begs the question "Why is creation not science?"  If you believe creation is not science, that is great, but it doesn't change the spherical shape of your argument.

LOL... freakin' funny 

Unfortunately, the Creationism v. Evolution debate is no longer isolated in the US.  It is gaining significant ground across the pond too.

No, haven't you heard? The Europeans are godless. It's true, I asked them.

Creation isn't science because it isn't based on the scientific method: it's not testable. Creation in the context you're using it is story contrived to justify disbelief in evolution. Evolution, on the other hand, *is* very much science. It's supported by observable micro-evoultion, and macroevolution is supported by the transitional species in the fossil record, and  interspecies DNA testing of currently existing species. 

Snerk.

That's only the Germans.

Creation contrived to justify disbelief in evolution???  Okay.....  if you say so???