Creationism To Be In Gcse Papers

[santagrow]

As a side note, anyone interested in how far science has gone to try and understand where we come from and why we are here should definetly take a look at the programs on this website

It pretty much brings you up to date with the latest ides - some of it is pretty mind boggling, have a smoke and watch and you'll definitely have some revelations!

EDIT: anyone interested in watching the bit relevent on Big Bang theory watch this movie

Thanks for the link to the website, fascinating stuff.

[Chris P]

Thanks for the link to the website, fascinating stuff.

Yeah very fascinating, sparticles & extra dimensions

I sat through 3 hours of String Theory this morning and watched some of the other programs.

Mind boggling stuff.

[Father McPot]

Good'un on the new thread catagory!

[randomnut]

Creationism has no place in the SCIENCE class. They don't go teaching evolution or other science topics in the RE class. This is BS, they should keep each subject seperate to it's respective class. Creationism is nothing but idealogical speculation and has no place next to other well grounded topics in the science class.

[jah420]

Creationism has no place in the SCIENCE class. They don't go teaching evolution or other science topics in the RE class. This is BS, they should keep each subject seperate to it's respective class. Creationism is nothing but idealogical speculation and has no place next to other well grounded topics in the science class.

Why though?

The big bang theroy is taught in science classes (if i remeber correctly) as the way things happened, yet there is alot of discrepiencies apout the theroy itself and its validity, so why shouldnt the other options and opions about the creation of the universe ect be taught with the same conviction. The creationism is just another theory as to how the universe came about, so why should it be dogmatised?

[Guest dr rockster]

Because its based on superstition and not science.

[kilgore trout]

the fact that the universe is so finely tuned for our existance proves nothing apart from the fact that we exist, which is obvious. If it was not tuned to our existance, we would not even notice that fact, as we would not be here to notice it. So, by the fact of our very existance it is obvious that the universe is tuned exactly in such a way as to create us. This fact of fine tuning does nothing to prove or disprove the existance of a guiding hand in our creation.

We are looking back down the road of our creation and saying "ah, it was all for us", the dinosaurs may well have said the same.

There is sooo much misunderstanding as to the basic premises of evolution, they are these:

for evolution to occur with in a single population three things must be present:

1. variation in traits within that population.

2. variation in fitness (ability to survive and produce viable offspring) due to those traits.

3. ability to pass on those traits.

so, for instance, will evolution occur within a population of humans?

for it to occur there needs to be variety in specific traits within that population, and that viariation must affect fitness (ability to produce viable offspring), and those traits must be able to be passed on.

if these three prerequisites are present, then those traits that convey increased fitness will increase within the population over those that do not, and so evolution will occur within that population

now that is called micro evolution (change of the freqency of traits within a population over time) and is observable in the breeding of food plants, for example, where humans act as the selecting agent, increasing the occurance of traits such as large fruit size or speed of ripening, for example.

it seems that as micro-evolution gives us all the food plants we eat it would be unreasonable to denie its existance.

but that does not mean that macro-evolution (change, over time of one species into another) has occured, just that the basic prerequisites are there for it to occur.

[jah420]

Because its based on superstition and not science.

Altough the idea of creationism came from religion, alot of science supports the ideas put forward bt the theory.

[Guest dr rockster]

Altough the idea of creationism came from religion, alot of science supports the ideas put forward bt the theory.

I'd be really interested to hear how science and which branches of it support creationism.

[Boojum]

The theory of evolution and the big bang theory, if the school in question is teaching science properly (that's a whole different question), should be being taught as just that - theories. They should be being taught in context, with the history of how they were arrived at and where current science stands. That's the difference between the theory of evolution and creationism, people with an understanding of science know that the theory of evolution is simply a theory, the current best fit based on examination of the evidence, not a statement of fact - science rarely deals in absolute fact, it deals with best current theory based on the available evidence and experimental analysis (I think that's a mistake a lot of people make about science, perhaps because of the way it's taught, learning things by rote to be repeated parrot fashion instead of learning the way things have been arrived at in terms of their context and the current available evidence), whereas creationists put forth creationism as a statement of indisputable fact. That is the main reason why it has no place in the school curriculum, except in comparitive religion, because it is NOT a theory, it's an article of faith

[kilgore trout]

i think ya right boojum, evolution and the big bang is seemingly taught as truth instead of theory in secondary school, atleast, when you take it further you are taught alternative theories etc. For instance the theory of pansperma as the cause of life ion earth is a valid scientific theory, which states that life may have come from elsewhere in the universe and been transported here and then evolved from there, i was taught that as a theory in degree level evolution.

So the theory that we evolved frm aliens is seen as valid in evolutionary science.

the thing people tend to forget about the arising of life is that there is aproximately 700 million years between the stablising of the earth and the first evidence of single cell life, man, that is a long time. Also, the jump from single cell organisms to multicellular organisms took around 2 bilion years to occur and from our reconning, thats a good portion of the total time the earth has existed.

[Guest dr rockster]

But the fundamentalists in America have christian scientists of various branches who do argue with snippets of supposed science.

There was an aincient riverbed somewhere in Africa I think,and the creationists on seeing this grabbed it as science in their favour as it looked ever so rudimentarily to be a place with lots of animal and human footprints.Also it showed dinosaur prints or what was believed to be.

So they photo'd and took casts but it was so plain to see it was natural erosion and trying to match these marks was pathetic really and true scientists just said what it was,natural geological action.

They've got this creationism museum,which is just witchcraft really in the 21st century,where superstition holds sway over reason.

Fucking scary,what with that monkey chump george bush being one of em.

Let me be your servant Lord!

Who would Jesus bomb?

Sorry,I should add:They tried to make out that dinosaur and human prints there proved the world was less than 6000 years old.

Edited July 15, 2007 by dr rockster