http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/11/26/erica-brown-edison-creation-vs-evolution-the-debate-goes-on-and-on-and-on/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:47:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/11/26/erica-brown-edison-creation-vs-evolution-the-debate-goes-on-and-on-and-on/#comment-20406 Sarah Martin Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:23:53 +0000 http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/11/26/erica-brown-edison-creation-vs-evolution-the-debate-goes-on-and-on-and-on/#comment-20406 Aethism is not a religion, we do not believe in science because to believe in something is to accept it as true without absolute proof and science gives us proof. And accepting a "truth" that is not proven is one of many things that atheists do not like about religion. The reason why evolution is taught in school is because it is a valid scientific theory with supporting evidence. The reason why creationism is not taught in school is because there is no scientific evidence to support that claim and kids go to school to be educated not to learn that imaginary friends are not only real, but he also made you and can send you to hell if you don't worship and believe in him. Aethism is not a religion, we do not believe in science because to believe in something is to accept it as true without absolute proof and science gives us proof. And accepting a “truth” that is not proven is one of many things that atheists do not like about religion. The reason why evolution is taught in school is because it is a valid scientific theory with supporting evidence. The reason why creationism is not taught in school is because there is no scientific evidence to support that claim and kids go to school to be educated not to learn that imaginary friends are not only real, but he also made you and can send you to hell if you don’t worship and believe in him.

]]> http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/11/26/erica-brown-edison-creation-vs-evolution-the-debate-goes-on-and-on-and-on/#comment-20252 Mr. Andoscia Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:26:33 +0000 http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/11/26/erica-brown-edison-creation-vs-evolution-the-debate-goes-on-and-on-and-on/#comment-20252 Some misunderstanding about what constitutes a theory in science. The term "just a theory" infers that it's a weak idea, or just a guess. It is not. In order for a theory to be valid it must explain the phenomenon fully and it must have predictive value; in other words one must be able to formulate hypotheses from the theory. The theory of natural selection satisfies these requirements and has done so better than any such theory for 150 years. Intelligent design, on the other hand may explain the phenomenon, but does not contribute to the formulation of hypotheses. It is akin to explaining a phenomenon by saying "a miracle happened." It may be true, or what you believe, but it is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as such. I have no problems with teaching creationism, but creationism should not be taught as being just as valid as a scientific theory as natural selection, because clearly it is not. Some misunderstanding about what constitutes a theory in science. The term “just a theory” infers that it’s a weak idea, or just a guess. It is not. In order for a theory to be valid it must explain the phenomenon fully and it must have predictive value; in other words one must be able to formulate hypotheses from the theory. The theory of natural selection satisfies these requirements and has done so better than any such theory for 150 years. Intelligent design, on the other hand may explain the phenomenon, but does not contribute to the formulation of hypotheses. It is akin to explaining a phenomenon by saying “a miracle happened.” It may be true, or what you believe, but it is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as such. I have no problems with teaching creationism, but creationism should not be taught as being just as valid as a scientific theory as natural selection, because clearly it is not.

]]>