now i have been given the definition of the word theory and i have been told that a theory and a fact are not the same thing. why then do evolutionist insist that only evolution be taught in schools and not along side the creation theory and vice versa for creationist? are both sides too scared to let people make up their own minds. and are both sides too scared to admidt this by giving me an honest answer?
213712
Theory is theory, period.  Which one you accept should be a choice, not programming.  \n\nInsisting on an evolutionary theory which precludes the existence of God IS theology, because it makes assumptions about something that is not observable, testable, or repeatable.  In the marketplace of ideas, any time one group claims autonomy of intelligence, then intellectual dictatorship follows, and people soon forget how to think and reason for themselves -- they become societal automatons, incapable of doing anything more than following the crowd.\n\nThe puppets of bad science continue to spout the doctrine of "DNA", not even understanding for themselves that micro-evolution at the DNA level does not alter the length of the DNA strand, and that there is absolutely NO PROOF that DNA can or ever has "evolved" from one strand length into another, substantiating the claim that every DNA strand length which is in existence today was also in existence at the origin of species, pointing directly to intelligent design, and therefore a Designer.\n\nBottom line, when interpreting evidence for the purpose of supporting a theory, GOOD SCIENCE DEMANDS that ALL possible interpretations be presented, and that opposing theories which they support should also be discussed, but NO THEORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT DOGMATICALLY!  It is our individual right and obligation to choose our own beliefs.\n\n(Rant over!)
11336
Evolution is the most explanatory theory we have for the origin of the species.  I wrote up a little essay a while ago on it.  I've listed the original page below - I suggest you check it out if you are interested, as it has the original pictures in tact.\n\n-----------------\n\nEvolution is actually a combination of theories, much to the surprise of the creationists I often encounter. Typically when I encounter a creationist their idea of the multiple theories of evolution involve a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.\n\nThis is, of course, nonsense; macro-evolution is just a description of evolution above the species level. It does not actually act on separate principles from microevolution.\n\nI will explain as best I can, using cites from actual experts in the field.\n\nNow then, I made the allegation that the theory of evolution was actually comprised of several theories...so without further ado:\n\nAccording to Ernst Mayr (who died recently) the five principle theories that comprise the theory of evolution are:\n\n\n\n1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution).\n2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).\n3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities).\n4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity).\n5. Natural selection. [1]\n\n\nSo those are the five theories...what do they mean?\n\n1. The nonconstancy of species: What this basically means is that every individual within a species is genetically different. Every individual's DNA has unique variations (not to the point that every individual constitutes a new species though). These variations usually express themselves in the phenotype.\n\nTo put this in a simpler fashion; no two individuals in a species are alike. \n\n2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors: All this means is that we came from our parents, who came from their parents. To put it in more general terms, it also means that we all came from one ancestor. Although if I recall correctly Darwin was open to the idea that there could have been a few original ancestors. In any event, one way to test hypothesis is to look at our genetics and to see if we share a genetic history with other organisms. After all, DNA is made up of four nucleotide bases-Tyamine, Cytocine, Adenine, and Guanine- and there is absolutely no reason that the DNA of one species should be related to that of another species unless at some point both species descended from a common ancestor.\n\n3. The gradualness of evolution: Evolution is a gradual process, in that it happens slowly and over a considerable period of time. It's often at this point in the theory that creationists have the most difficulty. This is because they often confuse the 'saltation' with the process of evolutionary change involved in macroevolution.\n\nBefore we go any further I will define a few terms relevant to this part:\n\nSaltation: This was a belief prior to the modern synthesis in the 1940's that scientists attributed to speciation. It was the belief that fully formed organs was responsible for speciation, and it's often also called 'macromutation'-which probably helps the confusion. In the words of Tim Berra, in his book "Evolution and the Myths of Creationism", clarifies the distinction:\n\n\nNo knowledgeable biologists today, and that includes the punctuated equilibrium enthusiasts, advocate single-generation macromutational jumps (mutations with large effects). Amphibians, for example, did not arise from the lobe-finned fishes in a single-generation leap (saltation), but by seeing the muscular fins and lung of the aquatic ancestor gradually refined for terrestrial life. Macromutations do occur, but they are usually harmful (the recipients seldom produce offspring) and therefore relatively unimportant in evolution.[2]\n\n\nMacro-evolution: This is the change of a species above the species level. It d
246
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
83294
This is a topic that sets a lot of people off. Mainly creationism states god created everything, and the burden of evolution is, it being based on science, it must have hard evidence to prove the existance of evolution.\n\nSince Origin of the Species by Chales Darwin in 1859, moutains of evidence has come forward to prove that evolution is behind every living creature on earth. The one weak linkis that evolution hasn't yet been able to prove how life first started. It is this one point that creationist harp on, and state as their proof that god is behind everything.\n\nIt must be noted that until recent times teh age of the Earth was only believed to be 10,000 years old, this has been disproven. It can also be compared to medevil times when the world was considered flat and it was thought that the earth lay in the center of the universe. In time science will find a solid explination for everything that we consider impossible today.\n\nAs a chemist and a scientist, there are many things in science that boil down to beautiful mathmatical relationships, or theories that are very simple yet profound implications. What I believe, is that who was ever here before the universe made a very complex yet elegant system of particles and enegrgetic interactions that give us the world today. What I have against creationsim is that it doesn't seek to find the real awnser; their reasoning is that it is too complex to be understood, despite historical evidence of things being not understood only to be explained in good detail later. The people that say the bottom line in science is too complex to understand today are the same people who believed that the world was flat 800 years ago. \n\nWikipedia has a good breakdown on evolution and opinion, hope my thoughts helped
28535
I too am shocked at the amount of misunderstanding and especially the amount of animosity. I know many esteemed scientists (including anthropologists and geologists) that have no problem being religious and believing in evolution. If you search the internet you will find many websites giving completely non-factual descriptions of how istopic dating works and using the small amount of uncertainty to claim it refutes all sorts of science. I have even seen attempts at disproving the sedimentary record of the Grand Canyon using this. Never mind that these self-described experts have no qualifications to evaluate these things. In my opinion they are motivated by greed and not altruism. Debunking science seems to have become a cottage industry for what I consider pseudo-religious crackpots. \n\nI think the source is a recent trend as I don't remember this hostility in the 1970's or 1980's. There are now television programs that are done professionally and broadcast daily (TBS) that try to refute all sorts of science using PhD's of theology to describe why carbon dating doesn't work, and even to refute things like dinosaur trace fossils by citing the rate of diagenesis in carbonate rocks. There is a constant problem in Texas where the creationists try to remove and destroy fossils whenever a new location is found. \n\nThe mainstream media doesn't help because the reporters and editors appear to be poorly educated in science. I recently watched a CBS Sunday Morning news piece comparing evolution and intelligent design and to my horror they constantly referred to both as scientific theory- effectively equating them as equal in status to millions of viewers. They hardly even mentioned that ID is not science and that it will never qualify as scientific theory. \n\nThere seem to be so many people who never learned the scientific definition of a theory that it becomes easy to confuse the public by implying that anything labeled as a theory is only a conjecture, and I think with this weakness that far too many people decide evolution can be dismissed as unreliable and unproven. I almost wish science would create a new terminology to replace the word 'theory' in order to clear up this semantic confusion. \n\nI have been very impressed by the magnitude of this problem by watching Yahoo Answers. As a former science teacher I am very disappointed that at least part of it seems to come from many young participants. I had hoped they were getting a better education in science, and at the very least had learned better reasoning skills.
450706
I have read Darwins original works on the subject. \nThe way it is taught in schools today is not what was written by the \nauthor. \nThe other authors you mention created works based on a theory that was never proven and which can nevr be proven. It is merely a theory written to explain the, for the most part, unexplainable.\nAs with almost everything else these days, the science is bad.\nIn your case, you are attempting to use unproved theories to \nprove an unproven theory. The science is bad.
47004
>>>>Is God real or did evolution acualy happen?\n\nWe can’t know whether God is real or not. There is no objective evidence for the existence of God, the only evidence exists inside the minds of people. Since gods (and there are more than one) are supernatural and lack any objective evidence they fall outside the scope of science.\n\nDid evolution actually happen? Yes, that’s one thing that all the evidence agrees on.\n>>>>>I seen a story on the news and it was staying how religion in school was not taught because of the evolution therory.\n\nNo, you didn’t. You misunderstood the story on the news.  \n\nReligion is not taught in public schools because the US Constitution says that it can not be taught there. It violates the separation clause. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It has everything to do with that the law quite clearly states.\n\nWhat the story would have actually said was that some attempts to teach religious beliefs as an alternative to evolution are still illegal and unconstitutional because it is still the teaching of religious beliefs.
644236
I read the answer to the question "How did marsupials get to Australia?" and the article "The Grand Canyon, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid". Is it the same people that say evolutionists have no evidence and that their explanations are ridiculous? Whoa!\n\nGood to know that several christian churchs/organizations accept evolution as a valid theory and that it doesn't contradict their belief. And I wonder too, is it ok for christians to lie in such shameless ways?
31401
Creationism by our Creator. And the evolution theory would be okay if it werent contradictory to scripture... The bible says He created everything according to its kind.  See Genesis 1:20.  Also if we evolved, why are we not stil evolving?
500192
You haven't defined your terms - what is Darwinism? what is this religion controversy? why didn't you say scientific controversy?\n\nThere certainly is a controversy among fundamentalist Christians yet there is none among biologists – doesn’t this seem curious? Most creationists believe the literal account found in Genesis and scorn science in general. Most biologists believe the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics, and understand it has nothing to do with religion.\n\nIf you want to know more about evolution and understand why most educated people consider that it’s proven beyond doubt, check out these websites:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\nhttp://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html\nhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/\nhttp://explore-evolution.unl.edu/
254192
I have responded to the 'creationist' argument on a number of occasions.\n\nBasically people like to argue based on a premise that cannot be argued (i.e. prove God doesn't exist and wasn't responsible ... obviously impossible to prove).\n\nIn terms of the whole creationist argument I agree that evolution is flawed (remember though the Bible is CLEARLY flawed as it is contradictory and suggests behaviour that would get you arrested today) but it makes much more sense to an independent person (if there is such a thing) than the whole 'man in the sky got bored one day and knocked up a planet'.\n\nWhile arguing the whole fossils give incomplete record thing they never seem to explain the existence of dinosaurs which, for some reason, seem to get very low coverage in the Bible.\n\nOverall I am happy to respect other peoples rights to their beliefs but not necessarily their beliefs ... I would hope they would do me the courtesy of the same.  The problem with most creationists is that they infer stupidity on the part of non believers.\n\nPeace out
122949
:}\nEact is always acceptable\nremember evolution is a theory\nyou Ara in school to learn  learn the theory. but remember your beliefs. If you have questions ask them out of class to Christians who are well informed. go slowly at first until you find out how much you can say or challenge.
477023
Evolution is a fact, backed up by science. God is a hypothesis, 'backed-up' by the bible. The problem is that the bible is not backed-up by anything.
145904
Oh good grief.\n\nHow can someone not believe in evolution?  The evidence is freakin' everywhere.\n\nFirst off: evolution is not incompatible with creation theory.  You just have to widen your theological perspectives and stop being a tool.\n\nSecond, there is a host of evidence for evolution.  Just look at the biological tree.  Life has trended from simple life to complex.  There are also fossil records that demostrate quite concretely (excuse the pun) that creatures have changed over the centuries.\n\nIf you write such glaring evidence off as some sort of "demonic trickery" then I truly have to wonder about your gullibility.  I mean, some people seriously need to think about the full rammifications of their religious beliefs.
626359
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AskXuePpa94gGx4SZ6MNFDfsy6IX?qid=20060614234609AACFh0S\n\nCheck out fs, pastorJ and ddead_alive's comments. One of them actually included the infamous "banana argument," which, unbeknownst to creationists, is the laughing stock of intelligent people everywhere.\n\nAnd also: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkEkeuFumUCm_Sh38t1sUXzsy6IX?qid=20060611215843AAGeScT\n\nI provided scientific evidence refuting jayslug's idiotic claims, and he admitted that he completely ignored them, so I reiterated my scientific stance in the "Add a comment" part.\n\nAnd personally, I'm going to vomit if I have to read the word "evolutionist" one more time. The word is "scientist." Also, I'll hurl if I hear one more person say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is no science behind evolution, it is just a theory (which means it is accepted as a fact by the scientific community), and will never be proven (no theory in the history of science has been "proven").\n\nEdit (To Jackson): The "cop-out" theory that the universe has always existed is the most scientific and logical theory, and is accepted by most scientists. Due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.\n\nAs far as the "life from lifelessness" goes, I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the famous Miller-Urey experiments, in which it was found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be produced from non-living elements. I would suggest you educate yourself before asking stupid questions. Start here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\n\nEdit (To g2gtech): I'm not totally sure (or at all sure) that this guy understands what the fossil record is, how minuscule of a time 500 years is in a geological sense, and, well, this person's last point is completely irrelevant to any evidence that I've ever heard regarding the theory of evolution.\n\nEdit (To birddawg): I would be highly interested in seeing your sources for the Albert Einstein quote, because I happen to have a few works of his, and he was an atheist.\nFrom The Princeton University Press:\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but expressed it quite clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nAnd from The New York Times:\n\n"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."\n\nAnd from The New York Times Magazine, in an article entitled "Religion and Science":\n\n"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."\n\nAnd as far as other famous scientists go, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud, Francis Crick, James Watson, Richard Feynman, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Mayr, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Thomas Szasz are all either atheists, or highly skeptical of the idea of god and
571979
Sometimes the line between evolution and christianity is blurred. Evolution is not just the theory that we came from apes. Evolution is just the theory that all creatures can evolve over time its like is a bear is mainly living in one environment and then moves to another that is evolution. The theory that man came from apes should not be taught nor the theory that man was made by God. That way nobody is offended. But Evolution should be taught.
546
There's no reason that all three shouldn't be taught.  However, creationism and intelligent design should certainly not be taught in a science class because they're not scientific at all.  It's not a question of "making up minds," it's a question of science class.\n\nItelligent design and creationism should and could be taught by parents or at Sunday school or during a religious studies class at school.  They're not science, but there's nothing wrong with that.  The fact that they're not science does NOT mean that they aren't true.