Does Creation Science Threaten Science Literacy? (reject, Darwin, beliefs, followers)

[kbc_1963]

teaching our kids that our beginnings were in a prebiotic soup in school is wrong and untill science can back up their assertions

Ceridwen018 says;
Newsflash--they can.

would you like to prove that?

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

would you like to prove that?

Backing up assertions is not the same as proving the assertion. You provide plenty of evidence for your opinion but they do nothing to prove the intelligent design as derived from Biblical source.

-pah-

[kbc_1963]

kbc says:
teaching our kids that our beginnings were in a prebiotic soup in school is wrong and untill science can back up their assertions

Ceridwen018 says
Newsflash--they can.

Ceridwen018 also says
I'd like to add though, that nothing can be fully 'proven' by anyone, let alone science

so which is it can they prove it or can they not? there is a bit of confusion in your post

It is my assertion as a creationist that only that which can be proven absolutely should be taught in school, so what is wrong with that? If they want to teach unproven things then abiogenesis/ evolution should be taught along with religious concepts since neither is empiricly proven by science but both sides have a huge following. what could be wrong with just telling the truth:
"We don't know how we got here but there are 2 schools of thought and we believe it was either evolution from chemicals or GOD did it and let the children choose their own way by their own reasoning". Is that too much to ask or what?

[kbc_1963]

Backing up assertions is not the same as proving the assertion. You provide plenty of evidence for your opinion but they do nothing to prove the intelligent design as derived from Biblical source.

-pah-

the basis of evolution and abiogenesis rests in the area of science, science is the empirical proving of assertions so by rights I should be able to ask for proof from science in regard to those BELIEFS.
The Bible will always be either believed or not as is with no scientific backup since it didn't come saying it was backed by anything. Only those who find that science has no backup for their beliefs try to apply the same level of proof to another belief.
So I recommend that if you believe in science then let it do its job of proving what its supposed to and if it doesnt fit your beliefs then make a choice of what to believe without the backing of science.
As for backing vs. proving I think they are the same, hydrogen and oxygen form water it can be proven by the reproducible experiments of science, pretty simple I would think.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

the basis of evolution and abiogenesis rests in the area of science, science is the empirical proving of assertions so by rights I should be able to ask for proof from science in regard to those BELIEFS.

Why? There is nothing better to present.

The Bible will always be either believed or not as is with no scientific backup since it didn't come saying it was backed by anything. Only those who find that science has no backup for their beliefs try to apply the same level of proof to another belief.

Exactly!!!

So I recommend that if you believe in science then let it do its job of proving what its supposed to and if it doesnt fit your beliefs then make a choice of what to believe without the backing of science.

exactly!!! Which is why in this case, Inteligent Design has no business in science.

As for backing vs. proving I think they are the same, hydrogen and oxygen form water it can be proven by the reproducible experiments of science, pretty simple I would think.

I distinguish evidence (which is given in court) from proof. Testimony can be a lie, a misunderstanding of the facts, or the actual facts themselves. It's all evidence. Guilt is not even proof but only an opinion of a unanimous jury or a single judge.

-pah-

[Mr Spinkles]

When I was in public school, they taught us that scientists think life started in some kind of primordial soup, but they aren't sure exactly how this happened. Evolution from common ancestors, however, since it is overwhelmingly evidenced, is taught as fact, as it should be.

There is no mention of an Intelligent Designer in public schools because science has nothing to do with a transcendent God--God could have established the laws that made primordial soup turn into life as easily as he could have sculpted it from heavenly clay.

One more thing kbc--there are not two schools of thought. There is a scientific school of thought, and there are many, many diverse religious schools of thought. Let the religious schools of thought be taught in philosophy/religions courses.

[Ceridwen018]

so which is it can they prove it or can they not? there is a bit of confusion in your post

No confusion if youtake your time and read it through. Science can provide evidence for evolution until your ears turn blue, however the theory is still incomplete, and as a whole, cannot be regarded as indisputable fact. Components of the evolutionary theory ARE regarded as fact though, and so the entire theory is considered more accurate than creationism, which is not factual in the least.

In schools, we teach that which has the highest probability of being true. This probability is discerned through rational empirical evidence. After analyzing said evidence, it is clear that evolution is much more probable than creationism.

[Raphael]

The fact of Creation as taught by the Catholic Church does not include any teaching on the time involved in the accomplishment of God creating the universe. Second it is benefical to know that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of energy or matter. Evolution exists throughout the universe at many levels. A cup evolves. It was once clay, that was taken and shaped by man or machine and from their it evolve from user to user until the end of its story. Evolution is the existance of a story of the observed changes that matter takes throughout history. Evolution can only exist where there is already observable matter. Creation explains that the first motion within existance had to be accomplished by something not in motion having the power to cause the first motion. "Intellectual Motion," explains that the complexity of the end result of that oringinal motion, which is the entire universe and all existance on the physical plain, is sufficent proof that the something which caused the first motion is intelligent. "Immutability," shows us that all attributes of this intelligent being that caused that first motion are infinite or that being would be in motion, (growth, developement, loss) and that being would have to have been created by something else existing from all eternity not in motion. The something that existed from all eternity not in motion which had the power to cause the first motion we call God.

[kbc_1963]

I distinguish evidence (which is given in court) from proof. Testimony can be a lie, a misunderstanding of the facts, or the actual facts themselves. It's all evidence. Guilt is not even proof but only an opinion of a unanimous jury or a single judge.
-pah-

reproducible experiments = emprical evidence

Do we not understand this term or what? how hard is it to look at what I wrote and understand that if you can reproduce the same results every time from an experiment you prove something and it becomes empirical proof by science. there can be no comparison to testimony by a witness, otherwise we may read something like this;

...Well Mr. Urey we are satisfied with the oral EVIDENCE you have brought us so don't worry about doing any real experiments we will have faith in the evidence as presented.......

[kbc_1963]

Science can provide evidence for evolution until your ears turn blue

If science can show uncontested proof then that would be great however you can't prove that we evolved from lesser to greater, I could just as easily say that we are devolving from perfection to more and more imperfection.
My GOD could very well have made everything perfect and when we disobeyed him he took away his protection and everything has been devolving since then

I like this analogy that I saw somewhere recently and it apropriaate here and now:

Imagine you have a computer program that does simple math calculations now imagine that every so often there is a copy mistake as we copy it an pass it from person to person how long would it be before we would get a copy of Windows XP?

Not understanding exactly how cells work from the inside out is a reason why most people think that everything is evolving, but a simple cell tells volumes since at any point in time even the simplest cell is more complex than the most complex computer on our planet. in order for evolution to be factual then it must be proven that we began as chemicals and that chemicals became cells otherwise we can argue all day as to whether evolution as you call it is a fact of science theory or a fact of the creation of GOD that can adapt or are possibly devolving and appearing evolutionary.