If creationism can be taught without using the Bible or any other religious text then I don't see how I or anyone else coudl object to it, as long as some physical evidence can be found to support it.

Science today is about empircal observation leading to hypothesis that have at least the potential to be proven. If creationism can fit with that somehow then jolly good.

That can be taught no problem at a college level, but in highschool its a bit complicated. Just like Darwinism is dumbed down in highschool to make it sound more crazy.

Because it all relies on complicated math equations and philosohpy of origins.

So gravity is a form of discretized entropy, you mean? It sounds interesting.

Right, but this is science we are talking about. It has to be applicable to science to be taught in a science class - if I had to do anything more than basic maths in science I would not be happy.

If it is applicable it should be able to be explained in basic enough terms to fit into the general science syllabus.

When I took chemistry in highschool my teacher said, and I paraphrase...
"The atom wants to have a complete shell, and will go find his nearest buddy to share electrons with"

How is that more scientific than

"The creator set up the rules so that atoms will rearange themselves so that they have a complete shell"

Also, which of those statements do you think is more accurate? The atom has a brain of its own or theres an outside force affecting the atoms?

We have some evidence of what you teacher said fitting a theory.

We don't have evidence that there is a creator other than 'stuff is really really complex so there must be'.

Please show me evidence of atoms having a brain and desires and even understanding the concept of friends.

Good to know logic is no longer in practice in favour of fairytail stories about objects that arn't even large enough to be affected by gravity.

Sorry, your last sentence is just really bothering me...

We don't have evidence.... other than "evidence"


The more empyrical evidence and scientific discoveries we make, the more we see the universe is not all that random; indicating order. Order, according the the laws of chaos theory and entropy must come from an outside force. Put whatever label you want on what that force outside the universe causing order is.

Empirical evidence, something we can see and count and measure.

you caught me me edit scroll up.

Heh, don't you love edits?

Order still does not have to point to a creator and does not give us any evidence of a sentient creative concious that we can attribute everything to.

I believe in a creator myself, just not in a scientific way.

Explain to me where order comes from then... and in that explanation you must take into account Entropy and Chaos theory.


See, in the 1950s when all this stuff was being discovered, it was assumed that the world was just random, that things just happened and there wasn't much structure or rule to it. For example... Quatum mechanics and Gravity have yet to find a theory or method that links them together. As scientists try to come up with links and theories, each new theory leads to a greater and greater understanding of order and interconectivity that leads further and further back to an both A. An orgin of the universe (which requires a cause) and

B. an -Increasing- amount of order in the world, rather than an decreasing amount as Entropy would have you believe. This means that the longer the universe is around the more it shapes itself into a structure.

First, the statement about the atom 'wanting' to have a complete shell is deliberately anthropomorphized (is that a word?) to aid in understanding a difficult concept. This is not generally the way it is taught.

The difference between the two is that the first is almost entirely observational, while the second contains intent.

"We see atoms tend towards a state with complete shells, achieved by sharing electrons."

as opposed to

"We see atoms tend towards a state with complete shells, achieved by sharing electrons, and God wanted it to be like this."

The first is not exclusive to anyone's personal beliefs (unless they don't believe in atoms, but then both statements are invalid). The second is.

You got it backwards my friend.

The first explanation (which I ahve heard on PBS, Highschool, Community college, and University classes.. so I have a hard time believing that teachers don't often use that technique to teach) implies intent. The Atom and electrons -want- to have some sort of shell arangment.

The second explanations that states a creator clearly explains that laws of nature are set up to make such things happen (if you want to understand those laws you'll have to take an advanced mathmatics and quatum mechanics course later in college)

I'd much rather be left with the question of what rules and systems were developed to create my world, than trying to figure out which secton of the proton hold the friendship desire for atoms.

Apparently people are so afraid of religion and the concept of a creator they would rather make up stories than just state the obvious with little to zero confusion about it.

And yet this is not the way I was taught. Perhaps it is an American thing.

The 'purely' scientific explanation sets out the fundamental laws and theorems, as does the second. This is not a point of difference between them.

The difference is that the second explanation adds something extra that does not actually contribute to understanding the physics.

Perhaps it is the case, but since a great proportion of the world believe it is not the case, and there is nothing to suggest the truth tends towards either of them, I find it more morally acceptable to allow the student to form his own opinions about causality. Rather than forcing my own upon them.

The first explanation implies nothing about a God not existing.

Edit: Oops, didn't quote the whole thing. Fixed.

Your right, it just turns science itself into a religion where you have to take things on blind faith.

If you do a quick search on the net you'll find most scientific explanations involve some sort of intent on the side of inorganic material, and my favorite is intent of 'life' or a species as a whole.

My favorite sentence is "A species wants to stay alive and have as viable a genepool as possible".... does it now? Who is this spirit of the species that is passing on this intent to each animal so that it works in a group to enhance the genepool?

I would also disagree that the notion of a creator does not add something to the understanding of science. Knoweldge of a pattern or order increases your ability to find the connecting pieces.

A good example of this is the old story of the store bought, build it yourself electronics kit. You find 10 widgets but only have room for 9 of them. If you assume its a random manufacturing thingy, you throw out the widget and go oops a weak later when you realize what it was for. However if you have the piece of paper that says "this box comes with 10 widgets" then you will spend that extra effort and figure out where the 10th piece goes and not have to fix your thingy later.

I don't know those theories very much at all, so that aint gonna happen .

My opinion would be that order is abstract, it doesn't come from or go to anywhere. It's a name we put on things.

This increasing amount of order would, in my opinion, actually be just our increasing understanding - so we think - of how things work.

Thats an interesting fun philosphy to play with... if we had a different perspective, entorpy would actually be increasing order not decreasing it. "decay" with the right perspecitive and understanding is like taking a glob of paint from the tube and spreading it out into a painting of a masterpiece.


But increasing in order doesn't mean that the puzzle pieces fit together, it means that as things move about 'randomly' they form structures and stable energy states.

Rubbish. I fail to see how you come to that logical conclusion.


Indeed, but saying 'the creator wants it so', does not convey any understanding of the pattern or order. It implies that pattern or order exists, but contributes nothing to knowing what it is. Unless you presume to understand the intentions of the creator, which I believe is something not usually accepted in most Judeo-christian religions.