[metmom]

Nobody is saying *creationsim* IS science but most people simply do not see anything wrong with it being addressed when discussing the ORIGIN of life. IMO, science is restricting itself too much in an attempt to keep ANY *non-natural* explanation out of the picture. Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption. This biases their views and conclusions, whether scientists like to admit it or not.

[Coyoteman]

Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption. This biases their views and conclusions, whether scientists like to admit it or not.

You are right. Grandfather Coyote is the creator, just as Native Americans thought all along.

Do you have a problem with this?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Nobody is saying *creationism* IS science but most people simply do not see anything wrong with it being addressed when discussing the ORIGIN of life."

Whose version of the origin of life?

Is the science teacher now going to lead the students in a theological debate?

What are that teacher's qualifications on the subject?

Will we now expect the State to set up religion as a job requirement for Science teachers?

Will the debate and the curriculum be structured for him by the State?

Will the teacher not be allowed to interject his personal ideas and beliefs on Creation into the discussion?

How is this going to work exactly?

When tests are handed out, will the Hindu kids in the classroom fail when they answer that Brahma came from the Egg, and that the Adam guy is an impostor?

What the Hell are these science teachers going to say in the classroom?

"That was an explanation of the theory of evolution, of course, religious beliefs differ with science on the subject."

WELL....DUH!

Science belongs in the science classroom, Creation belongs in Sunday school and Church.

I can pick my preacher, but I can't pick my kid's science teacher's religious beliefs, the State cannot create a curriculum which addresses Creation as believed by one religion at the expense of another.

Why the hell can't people simply respect everyone's ability to decide on their children's religious education.

I want my kids to learn about evolution from a science teacher, and about Creation from the minister of my choice.

You have a choice to rear your child according to whatever you believe in, and if you believe in Biblical Creation, you have a wide array of schools and Churches that the can attend...you even have the choice of sending them to no school, and teaching them yourself.

Other people have the equal choice of raising their children to believe in what they want them to believe...why can't they send them some place where religious creationism is not discussed?

Why will you not afford them the same rights you are afforded?

[From many - one.]

If it isn't science, it shouldn't be taught in science class.

If it has to do with the origin of life, it shoudn't be taought in evolution lessons.

Scientists do not say there is no possibility of a supernatural explanation of phemonena, it's just not what they study.

Offhand I can think of a dozen easier ways of getting a football from one end of a stadium to another than having large men run at each other carrying it, but (for instance) loading it on a tractor doesn't quite square with the game.

Scientifically speaking using a supernatural explanation as a default option is a trivial solution and blocks the "game" of science.

[Ichneumon]

Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption.

That's why science doesn't do that. Happy now?

[Sola Veritas]

"Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption. This biases their views and conclusions, whether scientists like to admit it or not.

Very well said!

[ChessExpert]

"Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption."

True.

I think it is true that given enough time, life will originate and evolve. But how much time is enough time? What if we conclude that there just isn't enough time? What then? Well we might consider panspermia, the idea that someone seeded the universe with life. But if that someone is alien life, as we know life, panspermia would seem to invite an infinite regress. Another solution is to assume an infinite number of universes. These are two ways to save evolutionary theory, based on the assumption you articulated above. But the assumption is philosophical in nature. I don't see that it is necessary in order to do good science. For many, it is an article of faith. Many of that faith are intolerant, as the insults and ad hominem attacks on this (and similar) threads demonstrate.

[trashcanbred]

science is restricting itself too much in an attempt to keep ANY *non-natural* explanation out of the picture

And for good reason Science does this. It used to be thought that everything bad that happens to us, from illness to earthquakes to lightning strikes was the hand of God. Science has shown there are reasons why these things happen and how to predict them and how to save people from them. If Science used "God is the answer" every time they could not answer a problem, Science would never have advanced enough for us to be talking over the computer to each other.

[Bingo Jerry]

Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption.

The actual assumption is to avoid supernatural explanations along with the infinite number of other explanations that don't have any evidence for them, for the time up until some evidence is shown.

This is simple logic. This is the same reason when your newspaper is missing you don't assume that a ghost did it before you assume your neighbor stole it. If some sort of evidence emerged for the ghost, you'd be all over it (as would a scientist).

[Amelia]

IMO, science is restricting itself too much in an attempt to keep ANY *non-natural* explanation out of the picture. Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption.

Science is the study of the natural world.

I'm not saying there's not a place for the study of the supernatural, but by definition, science is not that place.

[Zeroisanumber]

science is restricting itself too much in an attempt to keep ANY *non-natural* explanation out of the picture.

Science can't measure non-natural explainations.

[Nickey]

Creationism IS science!!!