Slashdot Mirror
Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools
sandbagger sends this news from io9:
In what's being heralded as a secular triumph, the U.K. government has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all existing and future academies and free schools. The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the "requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school." So, if an academy or free school teaches creationism as scientifically valid, it's breaking the funding agreement to provide a "broad and balanced curriculum." ... In addition to the new clauses, the UK government clarified the meaning of creationism, reminding everyone that it's a minority view even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church.
Because sometimes, just sometimes, we actually have a brain.
A beautiful victory for intelligence (as opposed to intelligent design (TM)(R)(C))
INB4 endless butthurt from Cretinists, er, Creationists.
You could just read TFA:
"[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution."
Basically, if you claim that anything other than simple biology was at work in creating animals, then you lose your funding (and possibly right to call yourselves a school).
You can claim that God made biology possible by creating a universe in which biology could make them exist, but you can't claim that God "created" animals at all.
Actually, if I read the summery correct and it is actually representative of the article and life in reality, by creationism they mean scientific support of creation either all animals created at once or by God creating them.
Or in other words, it doesn't ban the teaching, just the teaching that it is " as evidence based theory". You could likely teach it as a "this is what people used to believe until evidence showed this" and get buy with it.
Personally, I'm Eastern Orthodox Atheist.
But I'm not religious about it. :)
You're dealing with Anglicans here. They tend not to interpret the bible all that literally. If you were to say to one that the Universe was created in an instant over ten billion years ago they'd be much more likely to say "well, duh" than to start ranting about how it was hashed out over a week only 6000 years ago.
Britain Rules Teaching Children Known Falsehoods In Science Class For Religious Reasons Now Deemed Inappropriate
Good. Honestly, though, this isn't a huge deal for Britain. Almost every developed country has this policy either formally or de-facto.
If this came out of the US, though, holy balls it would be big. The US seems to be the only country where a sizable body of Christians are allowed to lie for Jesus to impressionable children, or worse, genuinely believe creationist excrement and are still permitted to use their authority to teach it to others.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Sure. And that's fine. You can have religious questions in philosophy class, alongside Greek myths, African tribal legends, etc. If a student chooses to believe Zeus had sex with a swan and had a daughter that's okay, as long as it's not presented to the students by the faculty as plausible.
It's only when the school is presenting any religiously influenced doctrine as true when the scientific consensus disagrees that we have problems.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
With just one little comma...
"Teaching Creationism, As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools"
Not really - old, new, or entirely unrelated to Christianity - if you claim that the creation of life by a supernatural being is position backed by scientific evidence, you are either misinformed or outright lying. At best you can insert a "God of the Gaps", but even that, by definition, has no supporting scientific evidence.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You could just read TFA:
I guess....
You can claim that God made biology possible by creating a universe in which biology could make them exist, but you can't claim that God "created" animals at all.
This seems like a pretty dumb rule. If I claim human beings created computers, am I wrong because it turns out that computers are actually directly created by industrial machines?
By saying you think God created the universe you are still saying that God created all life (and probably that he knew he was creating life), but that evolution is the mechanism by which life was created (i.e. evolution can still be true even if God created the animals).
So really it seems that the heart of the issue is more to do with whether you are allowed to claim evolution is false, and less to do with claiming that God created life (which I would assume every religious person believes).
Evolution is falsifiable - find a modern rabbit fossil in the Precambrian.
Just because you can't setup a laboratory experiment for something *doesn't* mean you can't test it.
Basically, if you claim that anything other than simple biology was at work in creating animals, then you lose your funding (and possibly right to call yourselves a school).
No, only if you make it those claims (because they violate the scientific method) in a class that you label as "science." Nothing is preventing a school from teaching it in a class labeled as "theology." The point is to be clear that one idea is based on evidence backed up using the scientific method ("science"), while the other is based on belief without evidence and/or despite evidence to the contrary ("faith" or "theology"), or with supposed evidence that cannot be validated using the scientific method (pseudoscience).
Science is not consensus, but non-experts would do well to heed scientific consensus, as it's likely to take them closer to the truth. Not always, but it's the best we've got.
Actually, the best we've got is the scientific method, which democratizes knowledge by insisting that instead of simply *asserting* something, authorities must present a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
Experts may be necessary to construct these hypotheses, or even collect the data necessary to test them, but non-experts would do well to insist on the scientific method rather than a vote of a group of people in lab coats.
Feynman said it best, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Science, at its most basic, requires falsifiability.
The "God" question (or the "which God" question), is not subject to falsifiability, and therefore, clearly doesn't belong in a science class. If that question should come up, it should be clearly answered with "gods are not falsifiable, so they don't belong in science class - ask a theologian or philosopher".
Now if by denying a 7 day creation period for the planet in science class, we're implicitly denying the existence of God, and your kids pick up on that, I'm not terribly sympathetic. Science may not speak to whether or not God exists, but it has no responsibility to avoid contradicting any particular mythology with the scientific method.
Yes, you could teach it in a balanced way by looking at several creation myths from various religions, include it in a discussion of the enlightenment and maybe more people will leave HS understanding that religion and science split because blind faith and reason are fundamentally incompatible.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Um, no. The relentless path of universal entropy doesn't exclude localized reversals of entropy. When you create waste heat while building your lego house, you're creating localized order, but still, entropy is increasing in the universe as a whole.
Perspective. Get some.
Cite one.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You found a modern rabbit fossil in the Precambrian? Pics, or it didn't happen.
Oh, and "the fossil was obviously disturbed and moved to a different strata in the earth" is a *valid* explanation.
Actually, the best we've got is the scientific method
Not for normal people who have no time to go around designing their own experiments or constantly reading about others' findings.
but non-experts would do well to insist on the scientific method rather than a vote of a group of people in lab coats.
Yes, and when there is scientific consensus, it's a good bet that the scientific method was used.
You are correct. Life on earth can't get more complex over time, because that would require energy and the sun doesn't exist.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
can you think of a repeatable experiment that would prove or disprove that there is a creator?
I suppose this would be similar to thinking of an experiment that would prove or disprove that some same particular species of spider lives in the rainforest.
The experiment is "look for the spider", and if you find it, then it exists, and if you don't, then you don't really know, but it makes sense to tentatively assume the null hypothesis (that it doesn't exist).
In this sense, the God hypothesis is not unfalsifiable in principle, just in practice. It's important to note this difference between falsifiability in principle and practice. The Higgs boson hypothesis was falsifiable by an experiment involving the LHC. The LHC didn't exist in the 18th century so if the Higgs boson were proposed in the 18th century would not have been practically falsifiable, but it was still falsifiable in principle (i.e. a machine like the LHC could one day, maybe hundreds of years in the future, be constructed).
There is a good argument to be made that the existence of God is also not falsifiable in principle. You could have a super powerful alien capable of destroying entire worlds and causing us to hallucinate in anyway it desires. You could never really trust that an entity claiming to be the creator of the whole universe was telling the truth. Any beings significantly more technologically advanced than us would be practically indistinguishable from a God.
Also, even if there were really a God that created our universe, this God could not know for sure that he was really God in the sense that he couldn't know that there was nothing greater than himself (for the same way that we atheists can't know that there is nothing greater than us).
But if it turns out that God's existence is unfalsifiable in principle, then this means that even God presenting himself to us, is still not sufficient proof for his existence, because we don't even have a way to verify that a being is really God (i.e. that there is nothing greater) and not just some extremely powerful being.
If a powerful being showed us a video of himself creating the universe, we can probably assume he is powerful enough to fabricate a video. Obviously the proof is probably not going to be a conventional video, but whatever form the proof takes, it doesn't matter. We can assume that a sufficiently powerful being could convince us of anything, regardless of whether it's true or false.
And it's been that way for a while. The Archbishop of Canterbury, more-or-less the leader of the Anglican Communion, announced his enthusiastic acceptance of the basic tenants of the theory of evolution...in 1884.
A "good" lawyer/politician is not looking for the truth, they are trained to debate either side and "win". Their job is to obscure the evidence that supports their opponents view and to do that they must know the subject. In such a system it is up to the jury/voters to judge their arguments, unfortunately they often do not have the ability to research an answer for themselves, nor do they have the training to see through the deliberate distractions and half truths of the debating process.Add to that the tribal nature of party politics and the subjective qualities of "good policy" and it's easy to see why decisions appear to be random.
It's damned hard work to understand every issue, so the whole thing devolves into rhetoric and propaganda, normal people who try to understand the big issues simply become frustrated and lose interest in the political process (but not the issue itself). At that point they tend to lose track of who is arguing for what and simply vote against the most appalling soundbite they've heard lately.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Nope. You can find plenty of examples by doing your own research, I'm not doing it for you. It won't take long, a simple Google search for "out of place" fossils. When you look at results you will find plenty of examples that are either discounted, "explained" away, or outright covered up.
And, you, as most other ardent Darwinian's won't give half a thought to the bigger picture and happily swallow the "explanation" knowing full well it doesn't make sense.
You were offered a chance to present evidence and refused. You lose the argument.
A post which is signed, but posted as Anonymous Coward, is worth nothing.
This response isn't to the GP, it's to anyone who might read the above and nod along.
There are no "arbitrary system boundaries between the earth and the sun". In truth, between neutrinos and other such space weirdness, there are no truly, perfectly closed systems. But we use the term in every day engineering, physics and chemistry discussions because it is useful. We accept that there are no perfectly spherical frictionless cows, but seemingly ludicrous simplifications like that are made every day.
We use them because they are useful. Not because they are the literal representation of what we are trying to model, but because they allow scientists, physicists, and engineers to make predictions. For example: I predict a perfectly spherical ball on a perfectly flat plane will roll in the direction of that plane's tilt, even if that tilt is infinitesimally small, or remain motionless if that plane is perfectly perpendicular to the sole source of gravametric pull.
Of course, we do not have a perfect sphere, nor a perfectly flat plane, nor a region of space completely devoid of any and all gravity except one source. This doesn't mean that rough spheres on roughly flat planes on Earth will not roll if we tilt that plane a bit.
The model is not perfect -- with a small enough tilt, and enough imperfections in the ball, it might well roll a different way for a time or not move at all -- but this allows us to make predictions.
So. The Earth, although commonly assumed to be a closed system (makes sense, right?) is really not. It's bombarded by radiation of all times, meteor impacts, it passes through the tails of comets and stellar gasses and neutrinos and all manner of things. If you drive out to the countryside the Earth at night might seem quiet and alone, but in reality the Earth is drafty. We eject atmospheric material, matter, energy, and all manner of things into the universe and it regularly bombards us with stuff in return.
The Earth is not a closed system. Evolution completely obeys the laws of physics; insects used to be huge, back when the planet had much more oxygen and could support such life. As the planet's atmosphere changed, creatures grew smaller as -- you guessed it -- the big ones died out, and the little ones survived to pass on their genes. The littler, the more chance of surviving, so insects shrank and shrank until being being smaller presented problems and the size stabilized.
There was no way evolution could conquer this lack of oxygen. Instead, the creatures merely adapted to survive in their new environment. This part's the most important: they didn't change the laws of physics to survive, they changed themselves instead.
That is the most important piece of the puzzle. The laws of physics aren't something that are a problem for evolution; in fact, they're critical to its success.
Side note: Biologists, as a whole, aren't interested in creating new species. That's not their job. Neither is the creation of a device that heals itself, reproduces, or feeds itself in death. Biologists, in general, study things and attempt to know. There are practical implementations of this knowledge, but the quest to create life from nothing is not, in a broad sense, one of them.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
A large number of people off-topic are still off-topic.
When the rest of the planet tells Americans that they are arrogant, this is exactly the sort of thing we're talking about.
Oh please! There are thousands of things in climate science that are falsifiable. It's going to take falsifying more than a few of them to discredit AGW. I suggest you get started.
This came out of a row in Britain over an investigation into schools in Birmingham. Unlike the US situation, what brought this about was a charge that Muslims were trying to take over schools in Birmingham and alter the lessons to support Islamic Ideals. The term you can search on to find this is Trojan Horse Investigation, along with Birmingham.
For example: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...
For a more sensationalist view, we have the Daily Fail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
One of (many) things charged was teaching creationism. Others were teaching in sex ed that wives weren't allowed to "say no" and must submit to their husbands.
How much of this is true depends on who you ask and, no surprise, it's quite a controversy.
But, to put it in context, this came up in response to charges of Islamic influence. Apparently any Christian state funded schools teaching creationism didn't raise this level of concern.
null hypothesis --> there is no god or he/she/it/they do not interact with the observable universe in any meaningfully detectable way.
your hypothesis --> there is a god and he/she/it/they do interact with the observable universe in a repeatable detectable manner.
The null hypothesis is the default in science. Proving something is not due to random chance is how science works. That's why we have confidence limits, these limits may be very small but there is still always the chance that it the null hypothesis is correct. This caveat, that a scientific theory must always be falsifiable, is the core of the scientific method; the thought that whatever phenomena we are measuring could still be due to blind luck is why science works as well as it does because it means that we only accept something only after rigorous testing.
Also, as an aside, saying that life evolved from simpler organisms into more complex forms as opposed to fully formed ex nihilo does not automatically preclude the existence of a god. Deism is perfectly compatible with evolution for example.
No I won't take anthropomorphic climate change as an example, and you trying to assert it isn't science is no different than a creationist claiming evolution is a religion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Can you think of a repeatable experiment that would prove or disprove that there are magical unicorns?
See, it's not up to science to prove some imaginary thing you or anyone else comes up with. It's your idea, so you prove it. If you can do that, science will suddenly become interested. But, seeing as how the "God" superstition has exactly as much fact backing it up as the magical unicorn idea, that is to say, none whatsoever, the balls in your court. Not in science's.
Here's the metric: reproducible, consensually experiential, testable. None of "I had an idea", " I read it in an old book" or "someone swore to me it was true" equals "it's Science!"
Yes there is. There are literally thousands of published papers in this field.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Climate science is very complex so while it is in principle falsifiable in practice it is difficult if not impossible to come up with a relatively simple practical test that would falsify it in a short period of time. In the long run if the temperature/energy content of the Earth's geosystems doesn't continue to increase that would falsify AGW. Here is a blog post on the subject that contains a list of 10 things that could falsify AGW. But I expect you will reject it for some reason or another.
Sure, in theology or philosophy class.
Not in science class.
England != UK. This is the Dept of Education for England not Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland - all of which are UK yet, strangely, they are not England.
Yes, you could teach it in a balanced way by looking at several creation myths from various religions, include it in a discussion of the enlightenment and maybe more people will leave HS understanding that religion and science split because blind faith and reason are fundamentally incompatible.
Yep, you can look at the various creation myths, spot the similarities (throw in Pastafarianism for shits and giggles), compare these myths to science and get students to spot the flaws.... The fundies would shit a brick.
The big problem behind creationism as science is that you're not meant to think critically about it. You're not meant to question it. Its entirely faith based. You have to accept, with no evidence that god exists before any of the rest of it makes sense.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
What evidence is there to disprove Zeus?
Millions of people throughout history have believed, totally and completely, in the existence of Zeus as a real, literal God who interfered with the Earth in a direct way. Not as many believe in the Aramaic God, of course, but the truth is not a popularity contest.
Any argument you can use against the existence of Zeus can also be used to argue against the existence of God, except the following:
"I feel a great, personal, tangible connection with God and I know in my heart he is real."
So did the 9/11 hijackers. They felt that Islam and their interpretation of God and his commandments was so real and so true that they killed themselves and thousands of other people. They felt what you feel, equally, or even stronger.
And it's not just Islam. People also felt the same way about Zeus. Or Shiva. Or Ra. People killed for these beliefs. Died for these beliefs, singing the praises of whatever God they believed in on their lips. They believed as you believed.
So that's not evidence of God. It's probably more evidence that, for a significant part of the population, they feel these powerful "feelings" that some interpret as divine inspiration. And these invariably follow cultural norms; people raised in Islamic countries hear the voice of Allah, people raised in western countries hear God, Indians hear Shiva.
So what's more likely? Some kind of tangled, complicated, cryptic "God moves in mysterious ways" incomprehensible wheels-within-wheels justification for why an all-powerful creator God would reveal himself as a totally different entity in different lands, or the idea that a strange quirk in human biology causes us to see connections that aren't really there.
"The Christian/Muslim/Mormon Bible has scientific foreknowledge that proves it to be real!"
No.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/i...
"God exists outside of space and time and is completely untestable and unfalsifiable."
If anything exists outside of what we can perceive with our senses and outside of its ability to interact with the universe in any way at all that we can measure with even the best instruments, then, for all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. Christians like to use analogies like: "Well you can't see air, but you'll die if you hold your breath!". This is correct, but we can measure air. It spins our turbines. It cools our bodies. We can perceive it, even if we can't see it.
Neutrinos are extremely hard to detect. They have almost no influence on our existence at all, and only through the most sensitive and carefully planned experiments can we hope to observe them with instruments. Yet if there exists, say, another type of particle which completely defies even our most theoretically sensitive detection methods, then we can neither prove it exists, nor prove it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean we should kneel down and worship it. When dealing with things we cannot observe in any way, such as guesses, hunches, daydreams and Gods, the latter scenario -- non-existence -- is much, much, much more likely than the alternative.
So yeah.
If you're asking the question: "Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that supports the non-existence of a God?", then I'm afraid you've wasted your education and allowing your biases to frame your point of reference. If I told you that a billion light years away an alien race were making space-waffles, you wouldn't demand peer-reviewed evidence that supports the non-existence of the Wafflicons. You'd just dismiss it as ludicrous because that's what it is. You only don't apply the same logic to magical zombie-Jews because you were raised in a Christian country and, I presume, by Christian parents/friends/family who encouraged your beliefs.
So I'd like to ask: Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that supports the non-existence of Santa Claus?
For the same reasons you completely and utterly dismiss my question as rude, offensive, stupid, malformed, and flat out dumb, I also reject your own question.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Sorry you lost your wife and son. I think experiences such as yours shows the background and reason why humans had to invent gods. Originally those gods were in the Sun, or Rocks or Trees or anything else mystical, and they gave comfort to humans. Which is fine, but let's not confuse that comfort with something that actually exists.
Explain how evolution and physics are not "science in the [same] sense"
You look at the evidence and come up with stories that agree with the evidence.
Pretty much explains physics.
I too am sorry for your pain. It means nothing to reality, though. Reality is reality, it doesn't care about your feelings or mine, your wishes or mine, your faith or mine.... it is reality. In reality, there is no evidence, and never has been any evidence, that God exists... none, not a single shred, ever in the history of the human species. Teaching that there is to a bunch of impressionable children, should be considered a vile form of abuse.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Neither 'science' nor 'Christianity' nor 'creationism' can prove any sort of causality between the beginning of the universe and anything else.
Of those, science grows. (So long as the Buddhists don't burn your library). With each passing generation more and more of the universe is understood.
I think "science" probably can prove some sort of causality between the beginning of the universe and other things. Given time.
Wow. There isn't a better post one could write as an example of cognitive dissonance.
I feel sad for you. Trapped in a belief system that you will see you dead family again instead of actually moving on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When you get right down to it the existence of a Creator and an Afterlife are completely independent concepts - either could exist without the other, nor does the existence of one imply the existence of the other.
As it happens I believe in neither (agnostic, not atheist) and have come to regard the questions as largely uninteresting, instead adopting something of a Zen Taoist "faith". Which is really no faith at all, but simply an alternate and more personable way of looking at the simple fact that the distinction between an organism and it's environment, like the distinction between cause and effect, is linguistic rather than fundamental. The two are inextricably interlinked with each other, and no line can be drawn at any point to say that everything on one side of it is only one and not the other. So long as the universe continues so shall the ripples of our existence. Ever-diminishing of course, but eternal. And when you know yourself and your loved ones to be fundamentally inseparable from the eternal cosmos, then all death can rob you of is your ego's ability to continue to interact with theirs. Still painful of course, but a clean pain of personal loss that will heal cleanly if you let it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
And all of your evidence turns out to be hoaxes or creationist propaganda.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Riddle me this , Batman.
"by looking for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement."
well, here are 6.
1) Visible Light strikes the earth. Falsifiable and tested.
2) When Visible light strike something, IR is generated. Falsifiable and tested.
3) CO2 is invisible to visible light. Falsifiable and tested.
4) CO2 absorbs energy from IR. Falsifiable and tested.
5) The amount of CO2 in the air exceeds what can be absorbed.Falsifiable and tested.
6) The Amount of CO2 in the air is rising due to human output.Falsifiable and tested.
So, where is the energy going? If it isn't cause the total energy trapps ot go up(heat) going up because of the excess CO2, it must be going somewhere. Well, where?
I look forward to you well tested and falsifiable paper that win you the noble prize for completely changing how we understand fundamental science.
You sir, are a fucking idiot. AGW is a solid science. As solid as chemistry.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I suppose this would be similar to thinking of an experiment that would prove or disprove that some same particular species of spider lives in the rainforest.
The experiment is "look for the spider", and if you find it, then it exists, and if you don't, then you don't really know, but it makes sense to tentatively assume the null hypothesis (that it doesn't exist).
Also, to be more complete, when you've searched the whole forest, several times over, and had a hundred cases of believers saying "there, that's the spider!" and then you caught it and it turned out to be ... not the spider, then you can a) put more confidence on the null hypothesis and b) ignore the next time the believers say "but this time, over there, certainly!".
There is a good argument to be made that the existence of God is also not falsifiable in principle. You could have a super powerful alien capable of destroying entire worlds and causing us to hallucinate in anyway it desires. You could never really trust that an entity claiming to be the creator of the whole universe was telling the truth. Any beings significantly more technologically advanced than us would be practically indistinguishable from a God.
There are two excellent arguments that disprove creator-of-the-universe type gods quite thoroughly. The first is by extrapolation, like above: Everywhere we have looked and thought we'd find godly influence, it turned out to be not so. This has been going on for hundreds of years, so it's safe to assume it's not a fluke. If we can assume that it will continue, then god will retreat further and further the more closely we can look. In the end we will end up with something that a few religious people are already postulating: A being that supposedly created everything and is allmighty, but can never be found because it's actually a total hands-off guy. But then, Nietzsche really killed him, because the argument becomes really simple: A thing can be defined completely by the effects it has upon other things. If it has no effect on anything, then it does not exist. From this follows a) there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself and b) there is no such thing as a no-touching-the-universe-god.
The second is that we know entropy to increase over time. God, however, is a highly ordered state and explaining how the universe went from a high entropy state to a low entropy state, and from high complexity to low complexity turns out to not make the claims more likely or simpler, but the opposite.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Now the 2nd law of thermodynamics says: "All natural systems (e.g. nature) progresses from a state of order (creations) to a state of chaos (puddle of mud)".
When your assumption is wrong, all of your argument is bullshit, so I'll ignore everything after this because it is a flat out lie.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics actually states that the entropy in an isolated system never decreases.
Keyword being "isolated system". You can absolutely decrease entropy within parts of a system. In fact, life is pretty much a system for reducing entropy locally. But here's the catch: Life requires energy input from the outside. Sunlight for plants, food for animals, to put it simply. That's just a fancy term for entropy exchange. Life can exist because the entropy reduction it accomplishes is paid for by decreasing entropy elsewhere. Breaking down your food accomplishes that for you.
So, please fix your understanding of entropy and then try again. Your argument is false because you ignore an important part of the law. That's like leaving out parts of the bible and concluding that "you shall murder your neighbor" is part of the 10 commandments. Uh... yeah... those words are in there, in that order, but there are some other words in there are well which kind of change the overal meaning.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Do you need it?
If there's a god, the evidence points to evolution. I there's no God the evidence points to evolution. The same applies to relativity and ionic bonding.
You should neither teach that there is a god or that there isn't as part of science.
The faith is strong in this one. Your education is lacking.
Is the GPs statement that you've quoted wrong? If there is some evidence of the existence of a god, please let us know because if so, then I (and every other "non-believer") am obviously lacking some education as well.
I did what you said, and I got the result that Hinduism was true and not Christianity.
Yes, please share this actual scientific evidence of God's existence. I've heard so many devoutly religious people spout all sorts of complete bullshit on the topic, and not understand that if there ever had been any evidence, God's existence wouldn't be a matter of faith, but of science.... but there is none, regardless of what made up fantasy bullshit you pull out of your ass. More likely is the simple probability that you do not understand what the word "evidence" means, and you've been brainwashed by a bunch of lying sacks of crap abusing you.... keeping you stupid and delusional.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's