"Truth is Constant," the Periodic Table of Elements of Kansas.

1. MrTrilby
   November 30th, 2006 at 5:21 am

   This is great. When will people realise that just because science doesn’t have all the answers, it doesn’t mean that creationism is true?

2. Rob
   November 30th, 2006 at 8:04 am

   Awesome! Another excuse to mock people and persecute them for their beliefs! People moan and groan that Christians are the kings of intolerance, but this is one more example of how unbelievers are just as willing to put up artificial barriers when given the chance, even if those barriers are more subtle. At least the Intelligent Design people want evolution and ID taught alongside one another; the evolution people want it their way or the highway. The hypocrisy is amazing!

3. Lasagne
   November 30th, 2006 at 8:48 am

   Yeah, they want ID taught alongside evolution in a science class. ID is NOT science. Teach it in a religious class - no problem, but it’s got nothing to do with science and it won’t be tolerated there.

4. Moon
   November 30th, 2006 at 9:41 am

   When it will it end? WHEN WILL IT END???

   

5. Moon
   November 30th, 2006 at 9:43 am

   Geez, Rob, you are RIGHT! Christians are the most persecuted people in the US of A. Gosh, did you see that “War on Christmas” last year?

6. pld
   November 30th, 2006 at 9:56 am

   Rob: What’s wrong with you americans? (of course, not everybody in the US is a dumbass, but you don’t see this happening *anywhere* in Europe) Intelligent design? Why don’t you teach a theory about humans decending from the alien race Kryx of galaxy Fwzyrg 82-X in science class? Are you going to fight the theory of relativity next and claim that Newtonian physics is the real thing?

7. Theory
   November 30th, 2006 at 11:22 am

   Theories are just that. They are not proven. Evolution is a theory; it is not a scientific law. Creation is a theory; it is not a scientific law. Relativity is a theory; it is not a scientific law. If teaching Creation theory is wrong because it seems so strange, then teaching Relativity should be outlawed because that stuff is just weird.

   All ideas should be taught. Whether or not you like them.

8. aware
   November 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am

   what, no flying spaghetti monster on the periodic table?

9. Rob
   November 30th, 2006 at 12:19 pm

   People need to admit that there actually *is* a decent amount of real science behind ID. There are plenty of books on the subject, and I heartily suggest them. In the end, there is a great deal of evidence for both evolution *and* creationism. You have three choices: you can bias all your thoughts towards evolutionism and choose to rip apart offered evidence for creationism, or, choice number two, you can perform the opposite. The third choice is to find a happy medium — a place quite comfortable for anyone looking to keep an open mind. Intelligent Design, my friends, is that happy medium: a place that incorporates both the scientific evidence for evolution *and* creationism. As far as I’m concerned, until science once and for all — beyond a shadow of a doubt — disproves the existence of God, ID should always have a respected place in the circle of origin theories.

   Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say on the subject. I don’t want this comment section to turn into a raging debate better left to a real forum.

10. Alex
    November 30th, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    The word “theory” in the English language is often used to mean conjecture or speculation, but in science it actually has a special meaning:

    ” A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

    So, when something is proven by science (or has not been proven false despite many, many decades of repeated testings), it’s a “theory.” When scientists are guessing, they call it “hypothesis.”

11. Alex
    November 30th, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    For an interesting argument about the existence of God and the role of God in the life of everyday scientists, I recommend The Language of God.

    It is written by Francis Collins, one of the most famous and influential geneticists on the planet today. Here’s a story about it on the Sunday Times.

12. Andrew
    November 30th, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Alex - in that same direction, I’d suggest “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. I would also classify it as “an interesting argument about the existence of God”

    Rob - there’s a big difference between Evolution and Creationism. Would you accept the Anasazi, Norse or Pastafarian creation myth being taught to your children as science? your child comes home with “scientific proofs” (no doubt the same as the Christian scientific proofs) telling her that we all live on the back of an invisible intergalactic turtle?

    Also, clever wording there, about disproving the existence of God. Try this: I believe there’s a nice china teapot somewhere between the orbit of Mars and Jupiter. it’s been there since the beginning of the universe, well before man. Sound irrational and even a little crazy? fine, prove it doesn’t exist. you can’t.

    The burden of proof is on me to prove the teapot exists. Just as the burden of proof is on you to prove God’s existence.

13. Alex
    November 30th, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    Andrew, Time magazine had an interview w/ Collins and Dawkins. Both are great scientists and it was quite a neat interview. If I remember correctly, at the end, Dawkins agreed that a “greater being” can exist, just not in the form of Judeo-Christian God.

    In regards to burden of proof - yes and no. Strictly speaking the First Law of Thermodynamics has not been proven (and cannot be mathematically proven). So, despite of being supported by experimental evidence, it has never been proven and this law remains axiomatic in nature.

14. Lasagne
    November 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    Rob, ID is not the middle ground between creationism and atheism. ID IS creationism and this nice link shows you why.

    And I’d really, really like to see this “decent amount of real science” you’re talking about.

15. MisterTrilby
    November 30th, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    There is no science in ID whatsoever. It’s just another word for creationism, based on logical fallacy. It makes claims that are not testable and not provable and more importantly not disprovable. By contrast, Darwinist scientists would abandon evolution if evidence against it were to crop up - fragments of a homo erectus fossil in the belly of a tyrannosaurus rex would do it - but no evidence of this kind has been found so far.

    What amazes me is that the ID people seem so proud of having these superstitious beliefs. And the modern culture of “freedom of religion” tolerance means the rest of us are expected to respect their right to have this belief, as if religion were exempt from criticism. A father prevents his child from attending school, and he goes to prison. If he were to cite religion as the reason, we’d be expected to understand and respect his wishes. Likewise, if someone were to say “I believe that there is a giant chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter”, I would not be reasonably expected to respect this belief. Someone says “I believe the world was created 6000 years ago by an invisible, psychic being” should I be expected to respect that? No. I’ts barmy.

16. Rob
    November 30th, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    If anyone would like to discuss this issue with me, please click on my name and it will lead you to my website, “Progressive Dementia”. You can find my email address on the “Profile of a Madman” page. It’s a very simple site. If you’re interested, I also have a (what seems to be monthly these days) blog there called “Distributed Ignorance”.

    But as I said in my last comment, I’ll not discuss this issue any further here on Neatorama.

17. FFFish
    November 30th, 2006 at 9:37 pm

    “In the end, there is a great deal of evidence for both evolution *and* creationism.”

    And that, folks, is the root of the problem: too many people who believe that because it is in a book, it must be true. Why, creationism has a great deal of evidence — I’ve read it in a book! Why, the bible is without error — I’ve read it in a book!

18. Sara
    November 30th, 2006 at 10:07 pm

    *looks at arguments*

    Oh, internet.

19. DW from Gainesville
    September 16th, 2008 at 8:47 am

    “And the modern culture of ‘freedom of religion’ tolerance means the rest of us are expected to respect their right to have this belief”

    Indeed, the world would be a much simpler place if only no one disagreed with each other. Maybe all of us believers of logic should get together and kill all of the Christians off. Then we’d all agree and the world would be great.

    In general, if someone else’s argument does not seem sane or reasonable to you, it’s generally because you don’t understand it.

20. hihi
    February 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am

    hi, at school i am in set 1 for science,,,, i am not a neek

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT