appolose said:
Rath said:
Baroque_Dude said:
Rath said:
@Baroque_Dude. Is the big bang even taught in high school? If not then its kind of irrelevant to this discussion. If it is then there is plenty of evidence for it and with the Planck telescope its only going to get stronger - we can actually see the remenants of the big bang in cosmic radiation. As for evolution - the fact of evolution has been well known for a long time now and the theory of evolution is considered one of the very strongest in modern science. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.
|
It's not all about evidence, it's about how everyone INTERPRETS that evidence, mate. You have your opinion, I have mine and I didn't want to come here to discuss about our personal beliefs, but to answer the thread question. The question is not "Who wins? Creationism or evolution?", it is about what is to be taught in schools.
Regards.  -
|
And the one that is to be taught in schools is the one that is science. As I said, ID/creationism does not qualify as a scientific theory - it is not falsifiable.
|
I'm going to quote myself from an older thread here,
As much as I hesitate to say this, it's too often ignored: evolution (at least, most of the idea) is wholly unscientific. Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method, and not much of these can be applied to a large amount of evolutionary work (as much of it deals with the past). So much of it can't be called a theory, and certainly not science.
That doesn't necessarily destroy any certainty in evolution, but as many of you are moved to demonstrate the definition of theory, this mightIn any evense be a good thing to know.
One might call it a "historical" theory (in the branch of historical science), but that would be quite different than the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of gravity".
On a side note, I would like to point out that science can easily come to a supernatural conclusion; if we have two contradicting sets of well-established observations, then some kind of non-physical explanation would be needed to reconcile the two of them (can't have a contradiction). Therefore, it would not be in the interest of science to throw out the supernatural as a possibility (which is where ID is concerned (albeit, when it goes historically, it no longer is science, either)).
|
