Comments on: Creationism vs. evolution: the meaning to our schools and society

By: NJ

NJ — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:00:45 +0000

Anonymous Hadley @ 5:

Well i think

Well, there’s your problem. You don’t think. Feel free to come back when you can.

By: Anonymous Hadley

Anonymous Hadley — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:44:07 +0000

Well i think that there is nothing wrong with creationism being taught in schools and people should stop being so afraid and try to get it to be taught!

By: hoary puccoon

hoary puccoon — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:36:48 +0000

As I understand it, the theory of evolution is currently in better shape than the theory of gravity. Nobody can find the graviton, but everybody down through high school kids (although possibly not in Louisiana) can learn about the gene.

I do wish Steve Newton had given a better answer to the claim that Steven Jay Gould said evolution is impossible. That was a ready-made opportunity to introduce the concept of quote mining. It’s ironic that creationists claim evolution makes bad people, when creationism has spun off one dirty-trick scam after another.

By: Mike Haubrich

Mike Haubrich — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:12:18 +0000

There are both laws of gravity and a Theory of Gravity. It might surprise you to know that the Theory of Gravity is as yet not complete because there are facts of gravity that have yet to be explored or completely understood. Is gravity of function of branes, or strings, or what is its source? Scientists can measure its effects, and has determined constants that are used in physical equations. Those constants are so invarying that they are considered “Laws,” but the laws are used to measure and test and do not constitute the Theory.

The Theory of Evolution is quite the same. There are facts of evolution based on tested and verified and non-falsified observations and tests. There are several mechanisms incorporated into the Theory of Evolution and there is still much to learn, and there are even constants that can be mathematically used for statistical analysis of data gathered to study evolution. They are “Laws.”

So, both gravity and evolution are facts, laws and theories.

Creationism is quite different in that it has no basis in tested observations nor falsifiable hypothesis. It is in large part based on denialism of science, and takes its authority from a series of writings of questionable historical origin, said series of writings contradictory in several ways; its lack of descriptive and predictive power is also a weakness in reference to calling it “Theory.”

Evolution and gravity in definition A. Creationism doesn’t even fit in definition B.

By: guthrie

guthrie — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:07:32 +0000

Nope, evolution is in column 1. It has been observed in a number of animals and others, like bacteria. Bear in mind that evolution is not about creation of life. That has various theories bracketed under Abiogenesis. But evolution, the changes in life forms once they exist, is well established and has been for decades now.

By: ron

ron — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:35:52 +0000

Gravity is a theory? Gravity is supported by a lot of evidence and should be taught (51:20)?

Dictionary.com on theory:

1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

gravity is column one (synonym: law)…creation via evolution is column two, not column one (unless someone has an experiment I can duplicate)
So who is hijacking the meaning of “theory”?