Hot Storm

(Weather facts) What Not to Teach in School

By Maxine Clarke

 As rumours persist that the Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin believes in the teaching of Creationism in American schools, it is pertinent to offer an opinion focusing on why religious opinions should not be imposed on children.

The sheer magnificence of scientific achievements should be held in reverance; a celebration of the ability for humanity to understand and influence the world for the greater good. Without some of the world’s greatest scientists we would not have vaccinations for diseases. That is not to say that followers of religion do not acknowledge the fundamental need for scientific endeavour, but when it comes to the greatest question of all, the reason of the religious is cast from the mind.

The major point of contention that separates atheists with the deeply religious is, of course, the origins of the universe. The very likelihood that a super-being (aka God) completed such a task just six days is preposterous for such an occurance can be countered with the simplest of questions: if God created heaven and earth, then who created God? A childlike question for which religious beliefs provide no answer.

Creationists, however, often refute such an issue with what is often called the ‘argument from design’: an argument stating that if something is complex it must be designed by a super-intelligent being, God being the very being in question. Ergo, God exists. However, should that be the case, God itself is an extremely complex entity that would have required an even greater being to be its designer, and so on and so on for infinity.

For this very reason alone, Creationism has no place in schools, particularly as a substitute for the widely-evidenced theory of evolution. Yes, Darwin’s theory is just that - a theory. Yet some of mankind’s greatest minds have studied his work to find the evidence irrefutable. Many of these same minds have also turned their attention to the views of the Creationists, only to fall at the first hurdle: there is no evidence to examine. Creationism is not a science, it is a faith. Forcing impressionable children to believe that one being was the architect of the universe, which itself is only 10,000 years old, is a nonsense.

What’s more, Creationists often appeal to the scientific to open their minds to the realms of faith and the possibility that God was the almighty creator. However, such a request is highly hypocritical since the majority of Creationists will dismiss any notion that science is correct. Accordingly, for those in-between, the presence of evidence should be the defining factor.

Perhaps it is a deeply-set part of the human psyche that makes many so insecure in their own existence and so scared that their time in life is all that there is that the need to believe in something more is all that keeps them going. If that is the case, then having a personal belief in a greater being is fine. It is the enforcing of this belief in others - namely children - that shouldn’t be allowed. After all, living life in fear is barely living at all. Let children make their own decisions on whether to follow reason or seek comfort in faith.

Max Clarke is a copywriter for holiday services company, Holiday Extras, currently writing about Gatwick airport parking, Manchester airport hotels, Heathrow airport parking and UK music.

Find Out The Latest Details On Weather Forecasts Around The World

Is Darwinian-Style Evolution a Scientific Fact?
By Russ Miller

 The word evolution has many meanings, but only one is testable, repeatable and observable. In other words, only one of the many definitions of the word evolution is a scientific fact.

This observable type of evolution is not Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution. I will discuss that one form of evolution that is validated by real science later in this article.

Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian-style evolution would be one kind of plant or animal changing into a different kind of plant or animal. This has never been observed to have occurred within living plants or animals.

Never!

The fossil record, despite a handful of dubious and fraudulent claims to the contrary, does not support any form of Darwinian evolution either. Darwinian-style change would require that nature be able to add massive amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to already existing gene pools. This would be the addition of the types and amounts of new and beneficial genetic data that would cause one kind of being, let us say a dog, to evolve into a completely different type of creature, such as a pig, for example.

The addition of the required new and beneficial genetic data has proven to be yet another major problem for Darwinian-style change. If Darwinism had actually taken place scientists should have no trouble showing a million easily identifiable examples of nature adding new and beneficial genetic information to pre-existing gene pools.

However, as of this writing, and after literally millions of observed scientific experiments, Darwinists can show no viable example, not even one, of nature adding appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a plant or animal gene pool.

Not even one!

The only meaning for the word evolution which actually is testable, repeatable and observable is Micro-evolution. Since the word evolution is generally thought to mean Darwinian-style change, it is best to remove the confusing term and refer to these observable changes as Micro-adaptations. These are simply changes within the same kind of plant or animal. For example, a brown dog giving birth to a yellow puppy.

Micro-adaptation is a dog birthing a dog or a finch hatching a finch, although there can be a wide variation within a particular kind. Dogs will only bring forth after their kind. And finches will only beget finches.

This is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands: finches bringing forth finches displaying some different adaptations, but still fully remaining finches. These are Micro-adaptations, which are kinds bringing forth after their own kind.

This is an observable scientific fact and millions of examples could be shown. It is important for people to understand this because at least ten times in the Book of Genesis we are told that plants and/or animals will bring forth after their kind, and this is exactly what real science proves to be true.

Everyone needs to clearly understand this so they can choose what to believe.

Russ Miller is author of The GENESIS Report Series. Register at http://www.new-earth-thought.com to receive FREE his 50 Facts vs. Darwinism e-mail series.

storms

Monday, September 29th, 2008 at 4:35 am and is filed under science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.