Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?

[RobinHood3000]

Care and love do not a Supreme Being prove.

[Pendragon]

Answering the original question, i.e. Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?, I will quote Thomas Jefferson: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to other. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to think there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Que sera, sera. For the record, I believe in both, that God started the world and evelution shaped it into what it is today. So if one wishes to disagree with me, it is nothing new. I always ask "Has it ever occurred to any of us that we all could be wrong?" Infinate universe with infinate possibilities somehow has always appealed to me, and others have wondered the same. What if? I bow out, as I wish no long arguments. This is one man's opinion, take it as such, with a grain of salt.

[cuppajoe_9]

Pen: everybody is, of course, entitled to believe whatever they please. They are not, however, entitled to have their beliefs treated as science and taught in biology class, and they are certainly not entitled to misrepresent evidence contrary to those beliefs to achieve that end.

[Nightshade]

Scraps of guesswork my arse. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution. The fact (that's right, fact) that evolution occurs is as sure as anything else in biology. Either we arrived at the truely breathtaking biodiversity that currently exists on earth through evolution, or it was designed by a cosmic prankster who took great pains to make everything look like it evolved.If you or anybody else has a convincing non-evolutionary explaination for that, I would be absolutely fascinated to hear it.

ok not saying your wrong but Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source!

[cuppajoe_9]

ok not saying your wrong but Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source!

I know, but it sure is a convenient one. If it was possible to post a link to the full text of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins I would've done that. I read through the article and it's cited fairly well, and it's all the information in one place. I'll take what I can get.

[Nightshade]

somehow missed this page when I posted the last one....

Pen: everybody is, of course, entitled to believe whatever they please. They are not, however, entitled to have their beliefs treated as science and taught in biology class, and they are certainly not entitled to misrepresent evidence contrary to those beliefs to achieve that end.

Im not being picky really and Im ot even saying I truley disagree with you but just for the sake of the argument...
look isnt all science belief? I mean the scientific method of proving somthing is to attempt to disprove it and if you cant then its proven, or somthing along those lines I fund it all very strange when they explained it to me. And the thing is representing evidence is in fact just that representing things in a certain light. and you do it all based on your assumcions and schema. SO if I belive in a supreme being then everything I see that is so perefct and amazig in life simply reinforces that belief, as well God made it that way like a little self sufficent program. but if you dont belive in God then the fact that everything runs so smoothly on its own well it reinforces that belief doesnt it?

What is science anyway, where does science stop and belief begin?
I do however think that eveloution theory should be thought in schools not as the gospel truth but as a very viable theory and along side it can be mentioned other theories but not I suppose in a science lesson although they should be mentioned in the lesson as a side note like 'How we got to this point in human exsistance and how human exsistace came about in the first place has lots of differant theories as this is a science lesson we will study the most popular scientifically accepted theory while others like creation will be covered in things like RE and whatever you belive is truly immaterial as you should still be aware and have an understanding of both sides of the argument'

or thats how Id do it if I was tecahing it.

[cuppajoe_9]

If there was a good reason to think that the theory of evolution is essentially incorrect, then it would warrant quite a bit of class time, but there isn't. Granted, science is based on belief in the validity of empirical evidence, but I don't think that's a belief that is subject to very much serious debate. If the empirical evidence suggests that species evolve, that's what should be taught in biology class. If the empirical evidence suddenly began to suggest that species were actually intelligently designed, then that's what should be taught, but it doesn't. If the ID crowd want their ideas taught along side evolutionary theory in classrooms, they had better have a pretty good scientific theory to work with and they don't. Scientific theories, for one thing, have to be falsifiable and testable in experiment.

[Nightshade]

Maybe evloution just shouldnt be taught in schools- well not the whole we all decended from a single anscestor who was a monkey thing( although to tell you the tuth I get a bit confused is that evolutionary theory? I vebeen planning on reading darwin since I visited the natural history museum ( has it really been 2 months?!)ago. But rather they should teach the bits no one argues about like narurl selection and say right the rest is taught at a higher level where we are les likly to completly shape your opion also or say right go away and read this this this and this look it up and make up your own mind about what you tink come back and write me a good essay ( like for PSHE or somthing) on what you belive why you do - no answer is wrong.
Because lets face it Your never ever going to prove to either side that the other is 100% right.
I for one like Pen belive in both, quite conveniantly I might add and I really dont see the huge and enormous conflict if betweeen the 2.

[RobinHood3000]

For one thing, Night, if something is not disproven, the scientific method does not dictate that it is automatically proven. That's why evolution is still around, because there's mounds of support for it and nothing disproving it, but no empirically rigourous evidence. The fact that humans are required to admit they don't know everything is one of the more appealing aspects of science for me.

The thought that humans are descended from a single, ape-like ancestor doesn't bother me any. Considering the similarity, it only makes sense.

Science is so much more than belief. Believing you can fly will not put you in the air for very long. Belief alone will not take you where we are today, although all things considered, perhaps we'd rather not be here. Science and belief (namely religion) have one thing in common: they can be as grossly misused for ill as well-used for good.

[cuppajoe_9]

That's why evolution is still around, because there's mounds of support for it and nothing disproving it, but no empirically rigourous evidence.

I completely disagree. The fossil record, georgraphical distribution of similar animals, all the plant and animal genomes decoded thus far, observation of existing plants and animals and the correct predictions of their behavior, as well as the physiological similarities across entire phylum constitute rigorous empirical evidence in support of the theory. One could just as easily say that there is no rigorous empirical evidence for atomic theory because nobody has ever seen a neutron.

[RobinHood3000]

Well, just trying to step carefully.

[Pendragon]

Pen: everybody is, of course, entitled to believe whatever they please. They are not, however, entitled to have their beliefs treated as science and taught in biology class, and they are certainly not entitled to misrepresent evidence contrary to those beliefs to achieve that end.

And I would be grateful to have it pointed out to me just where I have done this. "One man's opinion, take it with a grain of salt." I believe were my exact words. Where do you think I learned about evolution, mon ami, in a revival meeting? Why do you think I believe that evolution took place? Here's a good question for creationists only, not for one's like myself. What color skin did Adam and Eve have? Then why do we have so many different races? Evolution, adaptation to environment, change over time. How long? I cannot even guess and do not try. If science wishes to try to measure the time as accurately as they can, I will not argue. I don't think you could place a being like a God into time anyway, so their measurements certainly cannot be thrown out. I am not going into a classroom to preach. That is what a church is for, and there I will answer to no one who tries to tell me what I may say. The school is for the sciences. Now argue with me if you still wish to do so. I have no argument with anyone.

[Nightshade]

What color skin did Adam and Eve have? Then why do we have so many different races? .

well Im like you sort of but Adam was black and eve was white- clay and bone.

do I get popcorn?

[cuppajoe_9]

Pen: I was acutally aware that you don't do that, and I wasn't trying to accuse you of it. I guess I could have been clearer about that. Sorry.

P.S. Adam and Ever were totally plaid.

[Pendragon]

well Im like you sort of but Adam was black and eve was white- clay and bone.

do I get popcorn?

Why not? I ask that question a lot because believe it or not, some people who should wake up and live in this century, not the dark ages, still claim "The Mark of Cain" was turning him into a black man. Prejudice will always be with us I fear. I don't know what color Adam & Eve were and it doesn't matter. It ends up the same, we change over time and become many races. But know what? Our blood is all the same color!