Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus (you can't keep a good idea down)

The Times of London ^ | 10 March 2006 | Tony Halpin

[Greg o the Navy]

AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.

[whispering out loud]

The statement we are breathing, was simply a statement of life. We life, and science cannot explain why we live, only how.

"It had to happen somewhere" I disagree, It didn't have to happen, the occurrence of intelligence in man, just happened by chance? As with the occurrence of all of our sensory organs, I think not. The origins of man, be it primordial slime, had no intelligence, nor sensory organs, they are to complex to have been left to chance.

I've not said teachers should say "the Bible says", merely that the arguments against evolution should be made, ie "This is the theory of evolution, it is a theory. Some people believe in the creation of the earth by a higher being. Some people are confused, or doubt due to the lack of continuous evidence." there are several other arguments to be made made but they are not presented. Atheism is a religion, has been declared so in the courts several times, and evolution is a teaching of atheism. I disagree with your disallowing creation based upon religious freedom, yet teaching unequivocally to children something that directly writes off my religious beliefs. Is that not a breach of my children's rights? We are taught by the schools all of our lives, if the school teaches us something, it must be right, and supersede any other teaching we might recieve. I do teach my children contrary to this, but most don't, if school is to be the authority, they should then present all possible options.

thank you.

[whispering out loud]

once again I would state, If the predecessors to man did exist on several different continents, in different climates, and weather conditions, why did we all evolve into the same species?

[whispering out loud]

"Must...not...comment...step...away...from...the...keyboard... :-) (Off to dinner.)"

I was referring to the tremendous restraint you were obviously showing in not commenting. It was obvious to anyone due to my last statement that you were referring to my "sanity, intelligence, or understanding" or lack there of.

As for your "magical triangle" triangles exist. everything has a shape, some things just happen to take the shape of a triangle, I suppose that if all three pieces landed in a straight line, then line segments would be invented. oh or if it broke into 8 pieces would it form an octagon, or a circle? I guess that would depend on who was looking at it, and weather they inserted mental arcs, or line segments. Oops does that mean that the person creates the shape in their mind? I'm sorry, and I truly mean no offense, but that is the weakest argument supporting natural selection that I have ever heard.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The evolutionists have no evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all more than anyone who would say it was delivered and/or engineered by extraterrestrials - - which may even be occurring unobserved in our midst!

The evolutionists have no more proof human life evolved from other Terran life than those who would say humans were marooned and/or engineered here by extraterrestrials.

Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’

What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space? They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is an Immaculate Conception.

Since not one human being knows the answers, it is only scientific method to consider other points of view on this issue in education. Doing otherwise would be like students dancing around idols, with professors as voodoo priests proclaiming taboos and making sacrifices.

I am tired of the evolutionists and other liberals ‘playing God’ with education...

[whispering out loud]

wow, well this one is easy, God made it that way, when you combine them a chemical action ensues. That is just how God made it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You are the one who is afraid even to have your children exposed to the idea that organized matter might be the result of intelligent design."

No.

You are fine with a qualified science teacher teaching a scientific theory to students. So am I.

The difference is that I am the one who refuses to:

• Have a State agency set a curriculum for teaching religion in public schools
• Have the NEA get access to my child's religious upbringing
• Have a teacher of unknown political and religious ideology discuss God's Creation with children of multiple religious beliefs in a classroom setting.

Why on Earth would people who call public school systems everything from governmental child abuse to socialist indoctrination camps believe that handing over part of our children's religious upbringing to that system be a good thing?

How can you possibly believe that ONE side of the argument having control of all of one side of the discussion, and part of the other side, equate to a fair presentation of both sides of the argument?

Balance is obtained by not allowing one side to control both sides of the debate.

How can you all be so damned short-sighted?

"Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The evolutionists have no evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all more than anyone who would say it was delivered and/or engineered by extraterrestrials - - which may even be occurring unobserved in our midst!

The evolutionists have no more proof human life evolved from other Terran life than those who would say humans were marooned and/or engineered here by extraterrestrials. Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’

What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space? They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is an Immaculate Conception.

Since not one human being knows the answers, it is only scientific method to consider other points of view on this issue in education. Doing otherwise would be like students dancing around idols, with professors as voodoo priests proclaiming taboos and making sacrifices.

[whispering out loud]

using macro evo, what are they transitions from? just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so.

[whispering out loud]

please prove to me it wasn't God.

[whispering out loud]

oh no, a typo, well then I obviously have no clue what I'm speaking of.

[VadeRetro]

Frivolous, yes. But asking people why you're impermeable to evidence ... what did you expect?

[From many - one.]

I use the perspective that every species, every individual, is "transitioning" to either extinction or continued adaptation.

[Coyoteman]

If the predecessors to man did exist on several different continents, in different climates, and weather conditions, why did we all evolve into the same species?

Good question.

First, here is an animated illustration of how the mtDNA currently suggests the migrations which populated the earth with modern humans occurred. Remember, at the time period this starts (150,000 years ago), Homo erectus had already been in Africa, Asia (including SE Asia), and Europe.

A second graphic follows:

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

If you will note in this chart, there were times when several different critters existed. In all cases, only one species, leading to modern humans, survived.

There is still argument over the "out of Africa" vs. the "multi-region" approach. This is essentially over how much influence on modern humans the earlier folks had; did the out of Africa migration shown in the Oppenheimer illustration (link, above) replace all earlier folks, or was there some interbreeding?

So, to answer your question, "why did we all evolve into the same species?" It looks like that the evolution of modern humans occurred in one place (Africa) and spread out from there.

[From many - one.]

Jackson Pollock, for one, used fractals, probably subconsciously.

[Coyoteman]

The evolutionists have no evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all

You repeated this post twice now. It is incorrect. Here is some of the evidence:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[From many - one.]

That's parmesan be upon him.

Pasta upon Spagheti is blasphemous!
Heretic!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Le's just dismiss the evidence and call it not evidence because you say so, then let's say that since you've dismissed the evidence and decided to call it not evidence, there is lots more things that you lack evidence to, and those things could equally be unevidenced truth.

"Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything."

That's an unbelievable lie.

The definition of evolution is to change after creation, or to change after having "started."

You have to continually misrepresent the other side in order to even have a weak argument.

"The evolutionists have no evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all more than anyone who would say it was delivered and/or engineered by extraterrestrials - - which may even be occurring unobserved in our midst!"

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll be willing to examine it, just like all evidence leading to evolution is examined.

But you don't have an, and the only way that you can structure your argument is by basing it on the lie that the theory of evolution was reached without evidence to support it.

The fact that you don't believe the available evidence is not sufficient to negate it.

[Virginia-American]

You, OTOH, are so chicken you think you need to have the notion of intelligent design quarantined from your children. Ha!

I just don't want it presented as though it were science. I support the actions the Brits are taking, the topic of this thread, making ID part of the history of science.

I also have no problem with it in philosophy, theology, or rhetoric classes.

[Virginia-American]

The notions of randomness and common descent are definitely not rooted in scientific evidence.

The random nature of mutations is an experimental result.

A common ancestor for all of life? I dunno. There are some very strange bacteria and archaea. But they all use the same genetic code, and a fair number of the same enzymes.

A common ancestor for all eukaryotes? A good part of the family tree has been traced already.

My own speculation, for what it's worth. Life probably arose several times, independently, from the pre-biotic "soup" or "pizza" or whatever, but only one of these has descendants living today.

Remember, life arose very quickly after the Earth cooled.

Eukaryotes, on the other hand, probably arose only once. It took much longer for them to appear than it did for life itself.

[Virginia-American]

isn't there an American expression about "the whole nine yards"?

Yep, and you're using it correctly.