......wouldnt put it past some folks:alien: :angel: :shotgun:
I have heard some very strange attempts to rationalise scientific theories of evolution with the creation myth as found in Genesis...

Takes all sorts... leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss - and they wouldn't understand the truth if it hit them in the face anyway.:rolleyes:

On a personal level I agree, I hate getting into arguments about such things as they get no where, however DanaC brought up the issue of what to teach in schools.

Not many creationists will believe this but good science is without an agenda, it is amoral, it is process. Scientific progress should be made with out supposition to the result, many advancements have been made where the originator of the hypothesis himself disagreed or disliked the conclusion, Darwin himself sat on evolution for 14 years before publishing because he was very uncomfortable about his own conclusions. As such evolution fits soundly in the mainstream of scientic process, it is required teaching for anyone who wishes to study biology, it has many uses outside biology, e.g computional science. Learning of the process of evolution is important to understand our modern world and should be required of all high school level students.

Creationist science starts with a conclusion, hides a religious agenda in scientific language that is attractive to those with little scientific knowledge and should be considered religious instruction. Whether religious instruction should be thought in state funded schools is another matter, I attended a school run by a religious order and as such believe all religion should be kept out of all schools, save the mental indoctrination to after school hours, schools should stick to the facts and to moral codes that all society agrees on.

The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.

While children are undoubtedly highly impressionable and susceptible to religious instruction (the main argument for not teaching some of the more obscure, contraversial religions in schools), it is important also not to underestimate their decision making capabilities and power to filter in and out things and theories they may or may not agree with. My schooling had a religious element that I have subsequently (and indeed at the time) rejected. On this basis I think it is essential children are taught as wide a variety of religions and philosophies as time and cognitive ability allows.


Yelof "save the mental indoctrination to after school hours"

It is a sad thing that it should happen at any hour.

Creation Science isn't.

It's wrong on two differing levels.

1) it doesn't follow the scientific method,
2) why try to prove something you have faith in? Contradictory, paradoxical.

and,

3) it's a load of bollocks.

Here Here!!!

I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.

There is no proof in science. Only support for or against a hypothesis.

Evolution has its issues, but it has a lot more support than creationism.

The problem with claiming that there are "gaps" in the fossil record is that whenever something is found that goes in a gap, two more gaps are created. So, even with more information available, there are more gaps for creationists to complain about. Unless every single historical animal is found and documented, there will always be gaps. I haven't read the book that this article is critiquing, so I can't speak to what is or isn't in it, but it's simply not true that there are no transitional forms (as defined here) known. Here's a list.
This seems to be primarily picking apart a poorly written section of a sceptic's book. Which is precisely what I'm doing here, but I'm not claiming that what I'm doing is science.

As for the content, it seems to parallel the eye problem, saying that feathers are too different from scales to have suddenly mutated. Of course they are. It didn't happen that way. The feathers slowly evolved, and there are currently tons of different types of feathers, of varying complexity. A kiwi's feathers are much simpler than those described in the article - they have no hook and barb system, and hang loose.

How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.

Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.

And even the few 'laws' are just theories that have survived so many attacks that it is generally accepted.

In this case, your religion could suggest bias.