I know this is a can of worms, but if we didn’t want to get into arguments we would have never found a web site called AMERICASDEBATE.COM.

So here is the question. While most schools now days teach Evolution in the classroom there is a huge debate. A debate that almost got me kicked out of science class in high school. Currently it is going strong in Alabama, and on a smaller front in most school districts in America. The theory of evolution is just that…a theory, by definition a theory is something that is taken as fact unless it can be proven otherwise. So evolution is NOT a fact. While most scinetist agree that evolution does exist in species, as in dogs evolve into different dogs, and human evolve into taller humans. But the idea of dogs evolving into humans is hard to explain and simply impossible to prove.

Creation is too a theory, it cannot be proven, and cannot be proven wrong. Why then is ONLY Evolution taught in schools. If it is alright to teach one religion, as in evolution, then why not another religion? It seems to be a double standard.

Since I can predict the next post…(evolution can be proven scientifically, creation cannot) explain to me the scientific proof of evolution. Where is the monkey that gave birth to the human, or the worm that gave birth to a spider… science is also ideas, a way of thinking, and you can take the same thinking that produces evolution and result in creation.

OK lets have fun.

They're dead...I don't quite see how the same mode of thinking would produce both answers. Science is based on the knowledge that we have gained through research. Creationism is based off of a book...hmmmm let me think about this one should I listen to some dead guys that were bored and wrote a book centuries ago or today's scientists...man you're right this is a tough one...My question to you since I've noticed that most republican choose to disprove others instead of proving themselves is What proof do you have of creationism...we can prove that man evolved...can you prove that someone snapped his fingers and made us...

The reason why it's taught in school is because it is a scientific theory, that is the closest thing to fact that we have been able to come up with based on our research...therefore it is taught...

Once I've been in the Museum of Natural History (NY,NY).
It was pretty nice there, you know... skeletons, mummies, stones imprinting 'prehistorical' birds...
There is also a hall devoted to the evolution of Homo Sapience.
Well, I was gazing at two skeletons behind the glass, of should be a human being and another of a huge monkey. You can easily imagin - one is like a question mark (?), another is like an exclamation mark 1.5 times higher (!).
A teacher with children 10-12 years came up to the display. Pointing at those skeletons she explained to the children : "this is a skeleton of a...... and that is a ..." And by the way: "You see, children, how they look alike... (well, well, I think, she is right... the only...mm, thing ... mmm, is size. And even the skeleton of a rat looks alike... mmm, just head does not. Uhh, but dino is obviously different...)... So, - she continues,- it prooves that we, humans evolved from them, primates!"

(- ????????????????????????????????????????)

(?) >>>>>>>>>>> (!) (???????????????)


BUT, TELL ME, WHY NOT
(!) >>>>>>>>>>>>> (?)

Ooo, a fun debate topic...

As to schools teaching what, I believe they should teach both. They are both theories and neither has (nor can) be proven as a fact.

The reason that creationism has such a bad rap is the fact there is so much widespread ignorance of it. Simply saying that creationism is not scientific is not a valid reason for not teaching it. It's as scientific, or even more scientific, than (macro) evolutionary theory.

The problem that I see with teaching creationism is that it tends to imply Christian dogma. If teachers teach creationism, groups like the ACLU or the NEA will advocate that ALL major religions' creation ideas get taught. And we can all recognize what kind of educational mess that would make.

Frankly, I never needed a teacher to talk about any higher creating powers to understand that there may be one. Such thoughts are natural to any free-thinker. I did, however, need teachers to explain evolution to me because there is so much scientific basis for it, one needs an expert to help map it all out.

As if we needed ANOTHER argument to support vouchers. This should be really should left up to the parents.

Evolutionism also implies the humanism dogma. And humanists admit that humanism is a religion. So, why the hypocrisy? Why should humanism be the only religion espoused in schools?

Creationism also requires no need to reference the Bible. Sure, you can mention the Bible, but it need not be the standard text. Creationism can be taught without reference to any particular religion.

Wow, where to begin! First of all, I should mention I received my BA in Physical Anthropology (which essentially means I majored in the evolution of humans), and I don't see too many people receiving any type of degree in Creationism. . . possibly the reason for that is that Evolution has actual scientific data to back it up, and Creationism has only faith to back it up.

I want to first start off by stating that I do not feel that just because I believe in evolution does not mean that I do not believe in God. I feel that a lot of the stories in the bible are symbolic in nature. They, like a lot of the stories that Jesus tells to his prophets in the Bible, are meant to make a point and not to be taken as a literal event. If we are to assume Jesus is the son of God, and that God wrote through the original authors of the Bible then it would make sense the God makes his points in similar manner. The apple didn't fall too far from the tree, so to speak. So the symbolic Adam and Eve could very well be simply the very first homo sapiens man and woman. But, that is, of course, just speculation. . . .like any interpretation of any story from the Bible is.

I think it is pretty obvious why creationism is not taught in public schools. . .it is an interpretation of a story that is in the Bible. Last time I checked the Bible is a religious text. Why would a public school go anywhere near it?!! If you want your kids to know about the stories in the Bible, send them to Bible School or a Private Catholic School. Religion has no place in Public schools.

It hurts my eyes to see some of you guys post that evolution states that a monkey gave birth to a Human. . . .it is pretty obvious to me that you didn't pay much attention in class when evolution was taught. Humans and Apes have similar ancestors (and genetics) but one did not give birth to the other. That would be the macro evolution that otseng brings up, conveniently, and is not how it works. Evolution does not happen overnight, it is a process that takes place over thousands/millions of years, through many minute changes. I will admit that it is a little hard to prove something that happens soooooo slow. These changes take place through genetic mutations that happen all the time.

I once knew a guy that was born with an extra finger, it was removed when he was born, but what if he were a primitive man and the finger was not surgically removed and somehow that extra finger made him a more effective hunter or tool maker and therefore he was a better provider of food, and that made him more attractive to primitive women, so he reproduced with these woman and then his genetic mutation was then passed on and maybe some of his kids also then had an extra finger, and then they were more attractive as a result so they had more partners and they may have had even more 11 fingered children. . . . .eventually 11 fingers would become preferred to 10 and more and more of them would be born, until (thousands/millions of years later) all people had 11 fingers. . .that is basically how evolution works (please excuse the run-on sentence). It is survival of the fittest, but actually it should be called survival of traits that increase a persons traits that make him/her more appealing to the opposite sex. So it is not surprising (and this is a fact) that human males (on average) have the largest penis to body size ratio of any other animal on the planet. . .woman have naturally selected it.
If you don't believe that evolution has any validity it is the same as saying that there is no basis in fact of genetics. . .the two go hand and hand. Because it is only through our occasionally flawed genetics that all animals have had a chance to evolve. Without evolution it is likely that all animals would be extinct, because animals would have no chance of ever adapting to their environment. And if you think that adaptation is not necessary and that the earth and it's environment had always been exactly the same as it is now and that continental drift never happened, then you have bigger problems with reality then just believing that evolution is just an imaginary theory, it also means that you should take on scholars in geology, biochemistry, meteorology, sociology, zoology, biology and of course Anthropology. The only way to believe that animals don't change with time is to believe that nothing does. Bad things happen to animals that do not adapt or do not have enough time to adapt. . .ask the dinosaurs. . . .oh wait, I'm sure they are just a theory too.


-Kisov

I think that we can all agree that it is both an act of Divine intervention and evolution that has caused us America's Debate members to be so extraordinarily intelligent.



Mike

Awe, shucks!!!

-Kisov

Perhaps we should just limit this debate on whether creationism should be taught in public schools. I'd love to start debating creation vs evolution, but perhaps that should be another thread?

Again, to counter the argument that creationism is a religious belief, I would counter that evolutionism is also a religious belief (humanism). Sure, evolution has scientific basis, but, so does creationism.

As for teaching creationism, I personally believe that the Bible should be left out. And also, creationism is much more than simply saying that God created everything. I can also say that evolution simply says time created everything. Of course, it's not that simple, and neither is creationism.

I would love to here the scientific proof on creationism!

I also love how you switched around evolution to humanism, and then finding a site on the internet that backs up your belief that humanism is a religion. . . I've pulled that trick before myself with other topics, and I've usually not gotten away with it. When in doubt, look to the internet, it is possible to prove anything on the internet. I found a site that claims the earth is flat. . . . doesn't make it so. And I just get soooo tired of passing all of those humanist churches on the way to work everyday.

Otseng, sometimes when people believe in something very strongly they refer to it as a "religion". . . but that doesn't make it so. Humanism is a philosophy that "asserts the dignity and worth of man and his capacity for self-realization through reason and that often rejects supernaturalism". Whereas, religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural", according to the Webster's Dictionary. These definitions are pretty contrary to each other. But, that is not what the discussion is about!!! It is about evolution not humanism. Just because humanists believe in evolution, doesn't mean that Catholics or someone that believes in any other actual religion doesn't believe in evolution too.
And why is it that you would like to switch the debate to focus more on whether creationism should be taught in schools? I thought I discussed that aspect, as well, in my last post; as did Jaime in hers. Otseng, you say a lot, but you don't explain anything. Anyone can post a whole bunch opinions and not back any of it up, but I think Mike and Jaime expect a little bit more of us than that.

-Kisov

Start a thread on it and I'll join in. BTW, I'm in no way claiming any scientific proof of creationism. All I'm supporting for is that it's a credible theory with evidence to back it.

Furthermore, I'd like to hear from you a scientific proof of macro-evolution.


You seem to imply that the site is not credible. As for the site, it's the American Humanist Association. I would assume they're a pretty credible site for humanism.


And the link I pointed to was to the Humanist Manifesto. That is the official position of Humanism. It is not I who says humanism is a religion, it is the humanists themselves.


Because that's what the first post of this thread was asking.


Not back up anything I said? The only thing really I've said is that humanism is a religion. And I think I've proved that.

As for debating creationism, I'll back that up in another thread where it's more appropriate.

Now, let me ask you some questions, if humanists themselves say that humanism is a religion, then why shouldn't other religions be represented in schools? Why should humanism be the only religion allowed in schools?

First of all, if you had actually read my post, you would have known that I state that evolution doesn't happen on a macro scale. So obviously their is no reason for me to prove it. Evolution happens on a very very slow rate over thousands/millions of years. . .their is nothing macro about it. So why are you trying to bring it up again?

The humanist can consider their philosophy to be whatever they want, but it doesn't make it so. And again NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION ARE HUMANISTS, SO WHY TO YOU KEEP POUNDING ON THIS BASELESS FACT?!!

The reason I have been discussing the validity of evolution in comparison with creationism is because that has a great deal to do with whether it should be taught in school. Why should schools teach a theory that has nothing to back it up?

But I really feel I'm just repeating myself. Try reading my posts instead of just gazing over them before you decide to poke fake holes through it.

-Kisov

Kisov--I am in the habit of always trying to apply a semantic definition to words and concepts that are used and are of importance. The words create or creation has always given me trouble. In using a semantic approach to the use of the term everything that is changed can be considered creative...perhaps not acceptable but nontheless creative. For instance glueing banana strips to your wall in decoration or as an art form might be considered creative but it is generally unacceptable. Creativity always means taking elements of an environment and putting them together in a way that is unknown or unheard of by those who view it. An invisible being does not have that option since all that is implied to have existance before creation was non physical. The arguement for creationism falls apart from the very outset in definition.

A similar argument exists for evolution. The concept of evolving implies development with direction. Thus throughout the writings of anthropologists and other scientists there are references to purpose, function, and adaptation as if the animal or the environment was in control. References to primitive and modern forms of life are rampant throughout these descriptions. Species do not have purposes, nor functions in their environment. Animals do not adapt any more than trees fall or that rocks roll down hill. There are forces which act upon these elements that are the causes for these phenomena. Of course I realise that the English language is not structured for this kind of referential or mechanistic definition. But it does cause as many problems in interpretation and false understandings as it does in facilitating our ability to communicate.

I personally prefer to use the concept of change and change only in describing physical phenomena. But that does not satisfy the layman's lust for "WHY". From this point of view there is no such need for why...only how.

I love semantics, thanks for the invitation Joemailman

Mutation has always been my preferred term.

Seeking out the "why" of our creation may be the blessing or curse of our many mutations. The human brain is a fantastically complex organ. Such is the result of our many mutations. Our brains can fire synapes near 100 meters per second(A Brief Sketch of the Brain). It seems natural that these synapses would reflect inward and thus, to our creation, evolution, change and/or mutation.

Then there is the original question of how or if to teach this. Perhaps I can too easily dismiss the need for teachng creationism in favor of evolution/mutation/changes. I think lessons on changes in species can be prefaced with the idea that a higher power may have set such changes in motion. I don't see a need for going into anything further in that respect. There is a lot of physical evidence to support the mutations and changes in species and so more time should be spent by teachers in this respect.

We are the smartest monkeys

Jaime--I'm not so sure I would agree with you that we are the "smartest monkeys". If you've ever read M Twain on The Damn Human Race and more specifially The Lowest Animal, you'll know what I mean. There is potential there but there is also potential for being the dumbest of animals.
Like the present president said so well about himself....."Smart comes in all kinds of different ways."..........It's true! He really said that! September 19,2000 on CNN in front of the whole world! Millions heard him and they still voted for him!

No animal ever put another animal on the rack.
No animal ever cut the head off of another animal and stuck it on a pole for others to see.
No animal ever committed suicide.

And on and on and on.................

Boy, sarcasm is totally lost on some people. Perhaps, the emoticons just suck.

I have no belief that we are the smartest monkey (thus the roll eyes emoticon). Frankly, I was a bit annoyed that all my other comments were completely dismissed.

When I say macro-evolution, I'm talking about single-cell organisms evolving into fish evolving into amphibians evolving into dinosaurs evolving into monkeys evolving into humans. Isn't this what you're talking about "happens on a very very slow rate over thousands/millions of years"?

I use the term macro to differentiate from micro-evolution. When I say micro, I refer to necks growing longer, hair getting shorter, etc. Of course, micro-evolution is a fact.


No, I never have said that all evolutionists are humanists. But I will say that all humanists are evolutionists. It's a vital part of their belief system.

I keep harping on this cause the argument that evolutionists always use to keep creationism out is keeping religion out of schools.

I agree that creationism has to prove itself as a scientifically valid theory in order to be taught in school.

I was going to start the thread myself on Creation vs Evolution, but I'm not sure where is the best place to start it. Moderators, any suggestions?

I think this topic deserves to be in a separate thread. And since this thread is really about creationism in schools and it's in the Social Issues forum, I think it should go elsewhere.

otseng - Kisov has got you covered. Check out the forum in religion, she recently started such a debate, partly due to your prior request. Keep it clean & have fun!

OK, thanks.

I'll try to keep it not too heated.

So osteng agrees that micro evolution is a fact (yah!).
Thousands of small changes over millions of years would eventually create many organisms that would not produce viable offspring. Meaning they either could not reproduce at all or they would produce offspring that are sterile (like a donkey and a horse produce a mule. . .which is sterile) because although they have compatible chromosomes they are different enough that the product is useless (from an evolutionary viewpoint). There are many reasons why an animal may develop in different directions, continental drift is the most major reason. There is a reason that you only find lemurs on Madagascar, because it separated from the African mainland when lemurs were the top of the line primate, over time bigger badder predators made it advantageous for primates to be a little smarter/bigger. . .so lemurs evolved further on Africa to become the great apes that we have today, but that was not the case on Madagascar, so lemurs stayed pretty much the same, because nothing changed in their environment. Another example, New Zealand separated from the mainland way before there were any animals at all, so as a result the only native animals on New Zealand are birds that could fly out to that island, and once they got there flying was very necessary because they were the only ones there. Hence New Zealand has a whole bunch of native flightless birds. These major geological events cause the formation of different species, among other things like floods, formation of mountains, etc.. Now as far as more major differences like a fish to an amphibian to a reptile to a bird. . .etc; that is pretty easy to see the similarities between all animals if you just look at their skeletons. Their are many similarities in the skeletal structure of all animals. When I studies osteology in college it was easy to see that the same bones that are in humans are present in birds and reptiles, just in different lengths widths and functionality. Another good indication is the fossil record, the farther down one digs the more you will see certain types of animals just stop showing up (because they hadn't evolved yet). And the fossil record shows very simple organisms showing up first then more complex fish and then reptiles and small mammals then birds then you see the reptiles diminishing rapidly and the rise of mammals (again, if a group of animals doesn't adapt fast enough or the world changes too fast they cease to exist). Reptiles like turtles and crocodiles survived from this cold era because of their ability to live just as well in the water as on land. I could go on and on. . .and looking at what I just typed. . .I did; but I just wanted to give everyone a little idea of how things worked out in this evolutionary theory. And that the term "macro evolution" is very misleading.

-Kisov

I would also love to debate evolution. Perhaps we can debate this after my closing arguments for creationism.

So, what terminology would you use to differentiate between my use of micro and macro evolution?

Micro-evolution is what actually happens, and Macro-evolution is like the X-Men. Obnoxious mutations that would never just all-of-a-sudden show up in one generation. Like a baby being born with wings. . . it just isn't going to happen and if it did it would surely take millions of years not just one generation to evolve.

-Kisov

Let me ask again, what would be the terminology that you would use to differentiate between animals growing longer necks and animals going from wingless to having wings?

The terms that I use, micro and macro evolution is widely used among creationists to differentiate between the two. (I'm not sure about terms the evolutionists use. Perhaps they don't see any difference between the two?)

Macro evolution just does not happen. . .it is false, genetics doesn't work like that. I thought I made that pretty clear, repeatedly in my previous posts!!





Macro evolution is just out their for creationist to poke holes in the actual theory of evolution. . . which in actuality only happens on a micro level through time. How many different ways do I need to say this until you understand me, cause I'm getting pretty tired of stating the same thing in numerous different ways. . . is their anyone else out there that has a lot of confusion about the point I've been trying to get across?

-Kisov

I understand what you're trying to get at, but for me, there is still a difference.

I would love to elaborate on why I see your long-term view of micro-evolution is the same as my view of macro-evolution, but perhaps let's postpone talking more about evolution until the evolution thread gets started.

I posted my closing arguments to creationism. I demonstrated that creationism is a valid scientific theory. And I also showed that there is no need to reference any particular religion or use any religious text.

Therefore, creationism should be taught in public schools.

Here in Atlanta, the Cobb country school board has just unanimously decided to allow teachers to teach different views about the origin of life, including creationism.

http://wsbradio.com/news/092702cobbevolution4a.html

Osteng, the only thing you have "demonstrated" is that you refuse to discuss facts that disprove the basis of the creationism theory on the basis that by disproving creationism it must obviously be proving evolution and therefore I would have to start a whole new line of discussion in order to discuss it. Isotope dating does not prove evolution it only proves that the world is older than creationists would have you think. But that's ok, heaven forbid you back up any of your statements. . .please, back peddle out of this (which I'm sure you will). . .I love when you do that!

-Kisov

I've created another thread Creationism vs Evolutionism: Free for all debate for doing a full-scale C vs E debate. I'll be posting my thoughts on isotope dating there.

It appears as though I have missed this fun discussion, but I will still give the opinions I got while reading through this. It is true that not all people who believe in evolution are Humanists. It is also true that not all people who believe in creationism are Christians. I am a Christian and I personally believe creationism and evolution can exist together. Religion really has nothing to do with whether creationism should be taught in schools though. Students should be allowed to know that there is more than one theory out there. Now I'll go check out the other thread.

However Kisov, teaching the evolutionary theory without teaching any aspect of humanism or creationism would be unethical. The scientific evidence supporting the evolutionary theory gives it academic credibility. However, it is impossible to teach facts without also teaching values.

The values represented in the "survival of the fittest" philosophy is at best questionable. It may be historically (and presently) true that "man is driven by biological urges and lives first and foremost for his/her own best interests", but a society - a public school for that matter - idealizing this value would be...

Anarchy governed by pagans!

If the fittest are the fittest then haven't they the right to rape, pillage, and destroy? Why not? They would be merely following their biological fate! The handicapped, the mentally challenged - send them out, string them up. Hell, it's their biological fate! '<_<'


jjirout

A literal reading of Genesis would suggest that Creationism and Evolution can not coexist.

Creationism hypothesizes that the universe is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Evolution theorizes that the universe is billions and billions of years old. Evolution needs this unfathomable amount of time in order for its theory to work.

Clue - yea - the facts projected by each certainly contradict each other - but Creationism is not soley based on the facts it represents. Creationism also includes discussions about morals, ethics, ideals, which science neglects. I'm a humanist personally, but I can see where Creationism might buffer what science lacks.

Cheers,

jjirout

I agree with you in that the conclusions that Evolution leads to are pretty 'unethical'. But I don't agree that these conclusions need to be ignored because it doesn't fit with humanistic values. I think they need to be ignored because Evolution is just plain wrong.

To me, nothing is 'unethical' without some kind of higher authority saying that it is wrong. I mean, who created your conscience in the first place? Evolutionary mechanisms? I would hardly think so.

Clue - But there's a distinction between micro and macro as discussed... With microevolution having been proved and macroevolution having not been.

Teaching evolution without including this distinction seems unethical as a macro understanding of it would be implied and since the theory as a whole represents questionable values.

However, teaching microevolution (while having pointed out that macroevolution is not proven) seems sound. It's science. There's facts. Crows with longer beaks win out. I don't see how we can avoid teaching this.

jjirout

Once again, I agree. Microevolution has been proven, Macroevolution has not. It is the latter that I think is just plain wrong and shouldn't be taught as proven.

Clue - I absolutely agree.

I wonder if this distinction is currently being made anywhere...

jj

I tried to bring up this distinction before (micro vs macro), but at the time, nobody was picking up on this.

I agree completely that microevolution is a fact. And it certainly should be taught in schools. But macroevolution is not a fact, nay, it's a fairy tale. And if macroevolution can be taught in schools, creationism should then be definitely taught in schools. Esp since creationism is much more credible than macroevolution (in my humble opinion).

Clue - And Creationism represents a value system. Although contadictory at times, it certainly acknowledges the need for one, which macroevolution sorely lacks.



jj

Yes, but I don't believe in Creationism because it has a value system. I believe in it because I think it is the truth.

I just want to know the truth. Whether Creationism is the truth, or Macroevolution is the truth, or Aliens are the truth, I want to know it, and all the consequences it brings. If I don't like the consequences, then that's tough for me. I can't simply ignore something, even though it's the truth, just because I don't like the conclusions that it brings.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I got very little sleep yesterday and am having a hard time being lucid.

Clue writes:

"I just want to know the truth. Whether Creationism is the truth, or Macroevolution is the truth, or Aliens are the truth, I want to know it, and all the consequences it brings."

What the hell are we and why are we here? I totally understand.

Somehow I think that there has to be purpose - even if the purpose is wacky or sinister.

Someone mentioned earlier that Intelligent Design is becoming increasingly popular - that the design of the universe (or of the human eye also) is so complex that there must be (or have been) a sense of purpose to the whole thing...

I find this comforting.

jjirout

Eventhough I don't really know which I believe in more, I do know that we should really think about teaching both in our high schools. Our country has this great fear of the church and state mixing into this giant monster that will control our thoughts and actions. Myself, being an educated person, don't see what the worry is all about. In order for our children to make informed decisions on what they believe, then they should be offered both views. In school, they would not get a theological education on creationism, they would just be offered this view along with the theory of evolution. We want our children to be the most highly educated in the world, then we should offer them choices and allow them to make informed decisions.

It's always been my assumption that evolution is taught in schools, because Creationism is taught in church. The Christian student should already know about Creationism, shouldn't they? And then secular public schools cover evolution.

Besides, where I went to school, they explained that evolution was just a theory, they didn't try to tell us it was fact.

I think most people falsely assume that it is only Christians who believe in Creationism, there are other religions as well as those who do not participate in organized religions. Creationism is just another idea and it should be thought of as an intellectual issue rather than only a religious issue, when it comes to education.

As for that second point, that's good, telling kids the truth should be the primary goal.

May I throw a few coals on the fire?.

The discovery of The Double Helix by Watson and Crick in 1953 threw the evolutionary theory into a bit of a quandry.

The sheer complexity of the Helix; app 35,000 genes of app 3 Billion chemical bases arranged in a PRECISE sequence, gave rise to the theory that such precise chemical mapping of all organic life could not be the result of random natural processes.

There are arguments to suggest that 'self organising' properties within the base chemicals created the first DNA molecule, or, external 'self organising' forces created it.
In my opinion it is illogical to assume that the material used to transmit this information also produced the information itself???.
The fact remains that the information within the genetic code MUST be entirely independant of the chemical composition of the DNA molecule.

All this points to one powerfull conclusion.

The Helix is so complicated and structurally sound that it could NOT have come about by random selection, as in the evolutionary argument. It had to be deliberatly designed.

Subtle evolutionary changes have taken place within subspecies but the basic Helix remains the same.

Now this begs the question, Who or What did this????.

The fact is that we do not know for certain but because of the human need to close the 'uncomfortably uncertain' question loop we give it a name........God.
Whats even more comfortable we give it our likeness.
It may be the ? that created our Helix copied ?'s likeness.
Whatever or whoever it was made absolutely certain of giving us a 'finite' mentality effectively trapping us within the confines of our Galaxy.
Our human history proves it correct.

Regards.........Alan

I havent read the entire thread, because I want to say all this somewhat rationally. I am sick and tired of people saying that a theory is "just that a theory." If you have ever read anything about science, a theory CAN NOT be proven, only disproven (which is why we still call the theory of relativity, a theory) A theory is supposed to consistently predict a conclusion, given certain factors.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is in exactly the right spot being in a science class. It is a scientific theory, and I dont know about how everyone else's science class went, but in mine, we learned about many theories, not just the ones that were "proven."

Creationism should be taught in schools also, but I feel it is more suitable for something like Social Studies or possibly History. It is not a scientific theory, why should it be taught there?

Kimpossible.

SPOT ON..........a theory is just a theory.
If proved to be correct they become FACTS.
If not, they remain theories.

NOW

The question is.............what are FACTS????

Regards.....Alan.

I'm wondering if in the early days of evolution you could reduce the gene's instruction code and the chemical base to one generic template which could then be programmed to reproduce itself identically many times and then as each one varied it would be selected for the survival advantage it brought to the organism and might then stimulate adaptive responses in other genes. This would seem to be a way out of your random selection problem.

It seems likely that over the years dna would evolve wonderfully efficient feedback systems, where one change would stimulate many adaptive changes in many genes. Your quote suggests more of a limit to our present imagination than the necessity of a guiding higher power.