Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Your a funny guy DA, simplistic, but funnyWhen and if you ever understand what the words creationism, ID and scientific mehtod, really are, then you will begin to understand that not only should creationism be taught, but you will begin to understand that it invloves nothing more than an examination of the physical world by a means of observation and evaluation to a valid or invalid conclusionthe war will continue to rage because people simply cant understand that both sides are IN FACT using the same approach. the science types like to exclude creationism and ID, because, they dont understand its approach and it might invlove the supernatural.religion involves the supernatural, creationism and ID do not need to invlove the supernatural to be valid and demonstratableDawn Bertot

Why?DB

Besides being a silly lie, the above comment is not the point. its not a matter of your opinion about what reality has to offer, but what it will logically allow, given the available evidence and information. Its is also not what you can prove, were it, evolution itself or evo by soley natural conclusions would fall to the same fate. its only what can be demonstrated from a scientific approach, which ID and creationism accomplish , having nothing to with religion or the spiritual Again you are geting involved in your opinions, not what is logically and scientifically demonstratable. When you can make this distinction, the light bulb will come on for you frako, stay with reality and that which is logically demonstratable, not opinions for or against frak my main man, why do you think there are only two scientific logical possibilites. because this is what reality and science will allow. dont get caught up in terms, they are not reality frako, dont be simplistic, be completely rational. Creationism is a rational scientific explanation of only two possible solutions, as such it should be included in any scientific approach. there is no possible way for you to win this argument, due to the fact you are in contention with reality and rational not simply a theoryDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

taq, the argument is scientific research, in all its parts. No one here as of yet has demonstrated, even by a wisp why it is not. Complaining that it is not is not the same as setting out an argument against itYet. they the (SC) cannot even get out of the starting gate, to demonstrate why an examination of physical properties to a valid and demonstratable conclusion is and does not follow a scientific research. Taq is what I just described above a scientific approach? Not does it follow you prescribeed method, but is it logically and philosophically a scientific approach What do you think this form is of sorts, chopped liver? the tenets and merits and the legetimacy of creationism, if that is what you wish to call it, have existed long before any so called scientific community. The fact that a few are so ingnorant that they cannot see the method, model and conclusion of creationism's approach, is nothing short of sillyit was science before the so-called scientific method. The so-called scientific method simply evaluates what is available and draws conclusions. Something ID and creo was doing while the SM title and its formal tenets was still suckeling the tityou fellas just put a lable on itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Logic class and science class are the samething, definitions aside, and especially where ther are only two alternatives, or two possible explanationsTaq, use your haed. Any examination into what is, how it is and why it is, is a logical approach to anything.Now tell me why an observation of the intricices of the natural world, by way of examination of thier order, or appearent order and the conclusion of design is not a scientific approach. its only science, the sameway "science" completes its tasksNow tell me what a so-called better scientific approach can tell me about the natural world, that wont be natural or observable, testable or verifiable. Your approach is no different and it will reveal nothing, that creo and ID will not. if so present itnow tell me why discovering minute details in nature, such as "science" does, is some how more scientific in its approach verses a detailed examination of its order and why any conclusions on "sciences" part are better scienceit should be obious that both are scientific approaches, even if one is more intricate If not please explain whythis time maybe you could be specific in a logical way and exclude the idea that more research is somehow better research, since more research will only reveal more details of what is already knowable. In thier approaches what capabilites does "science" have and what can it reveal that ID cannnot.

No problem. Bluescat, tell me what it is you do when you want to discover something in the natural world? How do you do it, what is your approach?change is to evolution, what order is to ID. Niether of us can know absolutely which one of these is the mechanism or spark of and for life, we can only draw tenative logical conclusionssince neither of us can know absolutely, we both use our best scientific approach, to draw exclusive logical conclusions., those where reality will allow no other. But one thing is for sure we are using scientific approaches, neith of which have anything to do with the spiritualBTVN of the case how could they

frako, Im not defending creo and ID to see if they pass the present day method and explanation of what constitues science. Im telling you they are science in every sense of the word. They are a physical observation and examination that allows very demonstratble conclusions. While both of us dont agree or like the conclusions of eachothers ideologies and examinations, both are atleast tenative scientifc approaches to explanationsThe only barrier that persists in this context is the fact that most science types believe creo and Id involve the supernatural, they do not, or they dont have toteaching creation or design is not a violation of church and state, because neither are initially religiously based. They are reason and reality basedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

taq, if you dont like the strict word Logic, then go with rational approach. logic is just a word to help define reality, its not reality. reality is the mind using a rational approach against the physical world, to solve problems and come to valid conclusionsthats what Iders do, indeed if we are on the same planet with the same abilites and limitations how could our APPROACHES be any different, terms notwithstanding Sure there are different levels of science, but the approach is limited to a few factors, correct. while there are more things to learn, there is no need to keep studying the laws of gravity to see if the are real and verfiable You can only conclude the ID is not science, because you are looking for the creator himself in the design principle, that is not required anymore than it is necessary for you to prove that the natural world is a product of itself. Your arguments and conclusions are valid tenative conclusions, as far as reality will allowas I stated in another post, experimentation does not need to be complicated, as in the things you describe to be science. To demonstrate this point beyond any doubt, the above description of science will only allow you an explanation of that which constitues reality as we know it,or the known physical worldif i am incorrect, please provide me an example of something the SM can describe outside that which we describe as the known world. the information you discover is already there for you to discover it, the SM wont reveal its initiation source, anymore than will ID.bring your more involved science to the table to answer the question of exisetence itself. It couldnt if it wanted to what you just described is nothing more than observation and examination by the human mind. You like to beef up the process with words to make it more complicated than it really isagain give me an example of something that the SM can reveal that is nothing more than what is alreadly present to discover. IOWs, your just using you brain by human deduction to explain the natural worldif i am wrong give me an example of something it has revealed using a process other than simple examination and experimentationNow isnt this what ID does? It examines the physical world, by means of observation and experimentation of order and complexity in order, to come to the conclusion of possible designif i did more complicated test or ten million ,ore tests they will all be the same and reveal the same thing Wrong for several reasons. Your asking for the designer himself in your request for research. the research for design is in the research and observation of physical properties. Like change is the result of the research of science, order is the result of the science and research of DesignYour mixing oranges with apples.this would be like me saying your not doing science since you have not demonstrated that the universe is a product of itself, or something else besides a designer.Your wanting a conclusion of my research and require none for yourself and say that i am not doing science since I have not produced the designerIf detailed order and law is not sufficent research for design, then it would follow that change and natural selection are not sufficent research for the conclusion of biological evolution. siince both clearly exist, but neither are knowableso we are both doing science or we are neither doing science.To demonstrate this further, tell me what hypothesis i should be looking for since you request one above and beyond what we have discovered?Dawn Bertot

Yes about things that are dicoverable and nothing more, so what. if enough "scientists" agree that order and law exist in the universe and they are using a scientific approach, is this sufficient to enough reason for them to conclude design. Ofcourse it is Would they be doing science, sure they would?Im not saying your method is invalid, im saying your requiring conclusions of myself, you do not require for yourselvesYou dont understand that your methods cannot produce anymore than anyother basic scientific approach. You will find more details but it wont be anything more than a simple observation, experimentation and examinationthats all science is at its coreDawn Bertot

What process of the human makeup do you use to carry out this process Im sorry where have I spent any effort explaining that ID does not follow the SM. More accurately I have stated that any examination of the human mind is science, that "scientists" have confused what science is to exclude ID on religious reasons and they have implied this both directly and indirectlyWhen i give you an experiment and a hypothesis you say it is not science because it does not meet your criteria, which is ofcourse is an inflated view of science and not an accurate explanation of scienceShould an accurte veiw of science and what constitues evidence ever be explained to those making law decisions, maybe the outcome would be differentAt any rate dont misrepresent me presentlydawn bertot

I really dont mean to be rude, but sometimes science minds are simplest of all. I was laughing really hard when i read that.taq these are just terms they are not reality. reality is you and I using our minds against the world itself by a process of examination and experimentation to give possible explanations to that process. E and R are intertwined in reality and in the process, you cant have one without the other when examining the worldnow i can have a thought with no application to the world itself and that would more accuratley describe rationalism How in the world and reality could they be if we are both using our minds and physical properties. taq, lets say both of us were going to work on a car but you had a more extensive knowledge of the can than I, my total expertise was limted to tires and tire changingOur method of examination wouldnt be any different, we would use the same process, but how much more would our examination need to be for both of us to know it had four tires. Would we keep examining it to see if that simple truth were true. while your same self method of exam moved forward to more extensive problems, mine would end with the knowledge that that truth was true, regaurdless of whether I knew who made the carwhen both of us do that it is called science Since that is not my position, your query makes no sense. Please refer to what I said above how did you test the null hypo that evolution was not the product of a designer? So if we cant test the null hypo of evo not being the product of a designer is evo invalid as a scientific truth?Come on guys give something hard>Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Ill strart here and with the rest of Taq latest post, God and Admin willing, when I return

Order and not chaos. Continued continuity and not persistent incontinuity. organisms and life that continues to produce a purpose and harmonious function. Oh I dont know simple things like that. Sounds like order to me, unless I want to be completely unreasonableIs it possible this happened soley by itself, possible but not probable. But thats not the point. When dealing w.questions where absolute proof is not available, the logical demonstration of the best answer will have to suffice. Especially when its only one of twoTo demonstrate my point and to show the unecessary nature of your question to begin with, Ill ask you, What are the rules for differententating between that which evolved soley by natural causes and that which was designed to evolve?Tell me what your rules are, C. tell me what your Null H is. Surely if I am required to have a set, you are, correct?Dawn Bertot

Can I help it if you are stupid, the way to measure it is to observe its behaviour, note its consistency and accuracy in producing things with a purpose and a function, that function accurately, your brain your eye, etc and a million other thingsthe way to test to it to see if it came from a designer, is to use the same method you used to decide that all of this functioning world is a product of soley natural causes. how did you come to that hard fast conclusion.what is the specific peice of information that all of science can provide to answer that question directly.tell me what your Null H, is in deciding that everything is a product of itself, when you werent there to observe its beginning, or the mechanism of its originationthe point simply is that neither you or I have the direct answer to that question, yet it is a conclusion of the TOE taught in science classroomsID and creationism employ all the same methods, for the answers to these questions, yet it is rejected because it is limited in the exact same way science isHmmmm, wonder why yeah I believe this is called examination and experimentation of physical properties already in existence, big deal. Did this give you an answer as to its ultimatel origination source, well noWe do the samething, with tenative conclusionsbertot writesI see Im required to go by your rules but your not, correct. ill try again, what is your null H for determing absolutely that evo is not the result of a designerOfcourse I believe the rule to be silly in the first place, but lets see if you will go by your standardsSo if you cant provide a Null H, does that mean you are not doing scienceDawn Bertot

Now your opinion is not the point is it. If we had to choose between order and chaos, which would you choose. what does it appear to be order or disorder?I noticed you avoided answering the question that you put to me. here it is again what are your rules for determining that evolution is the product of SOLEY natural causes, verses the fact that they were designed to evolveremember you answer cant just be an opinion, but a scientific developed Null H/ Lets see what the rule is