What if creationism did get into the science class

I disagree with you. There is benefit to having creationism in class: it gets the students thinking, and plus it helps students realize there are problems with the ToE, as well as helping get rid of old evolutionist and creationist arguments (ie as John says, there wasn't a reducing atmosphere, thermodynamics isn't against evolution, only it allows arguments against the plausibility for a mechanism for converting negative heat entropy into negative entropy allowing abiogenesis, stop those teachers still teaching Haeckel's fudged embroyology diagrams, etc). If creationism can't be proved, how can abiogenesis? It is basically history. This type of science is more of an interpretational than experimental one-you just can't equate this kind of science to the stuff that put people on the moon.

But evolution on the origin of life is not science either-it has to be experimentally testable. Also, it depends on what type of evolution you are talking about-macroevolution or microevolution. Microevolution has been demonstrated-macroevolution hasn't. Unfortunately however, at schools many students are being taught what is simply wrong. If you classify evolution as science, you have to classify creationism as science too. They are simply different interpretations of the same data.

quote:

---

All science is, it is basically man's logical interpertaion on a particular problem based on FACTS AND OBSERVABLE PHENOMANA. [mispelled] You have to interpret all the data somehow.

---

And thus the interpretation of the data is what we are debating about There is an article here comparing the theory of evolution and the theory of creation.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-11-2002]

quote:

---

Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

​

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

---

--John D. Morris, Ph.D.Morris has a paper on this here[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-12-2002]

If you read the article, note the difference he puts-using the evolutionary tree, macroevolution is vertical (ie reptile-bird) while microevolution is horizontal (new breeds, maybe speciation?).

quote:

---

You can switch any two adjacent skulls in the line and you wouldn't know the difference unless you have dates for the individual skulls. Even specialists ultimately turn to dates for the order. You could switch any three adjacents skulls with much the same result. So where is the line?

​

It magically appears when you compare a skull from the end with one from the beginning, but this doesn't represent the issue properly.

---

That's why it is such a problem to classify such organisms; just take the many different breeds of dogs for example-wide range in size, body shape, colour, ratio of body parts, etc. So how do we show they come from different species? Evolutionists assume that those fossils "show" the evolution of hominids. Like you said, how do we know they are "new species"?As for the line, changes from reptiles - birds could definitely be classified as macroevolution; one type of organism to another. However, just give me one example that you suppose would be classified as macroevolution.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-14-2002]