RE: Creationism in public schools

RE: Creationism in public schools (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/6/2008 3:21:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar There was no God until he was invented by the Jews. What about all of the Gods before him. There was no God in other countries of the world before it was forced upon them. If you were to have religion in schools. Whose religion would it be? Whose God would it be? What about the people who belive it is all crap. Would you have them stand in the corner for their belief. You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating teaching a specific religion or specific religious concepts. I am advocating exposing children to the many different beliefs that exist, including atheism. Religion, for better or worse, is an important influence worldwide. The very fact we're debating this proves it. The only thing shielding children from religion in schools accomplishes is a reliance on whatever they are taught at home and an ignorance of, and even prejudice toward, other beliefs.

LadyEllen -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/6/2008 3:24:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating teaching a specific religion or specific religious concepts. I am advocating exposing children to the many different beliefs that exist, including aetheism. Religion, for better or worse, is an important influence worldwide. The very fact we're debating this proves it. The only thing shielding children from religion in schools accomplishes is a reliance on whatever they are taught at home and an ignorance, and even prejudice toward, other beliefs. But isnt this the problem? The godless liberals are likely OK with the discussion and presentation of religion - but they resist because they think the godly are looking for discussion and presentation of a particular religion. The godly meanwhile interpret that as an attack on their particular religion. E

Racquelle -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/6/2008 3:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monkeyontuesday And since Darwinism hasn't been duplicated...they're technically just theories as well. And which. precise posit of Darwin are you referring to here? And what does "just a theory" mean in any case. I will post this link since the entire article is buried many pages back: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?... Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/6/2008 4:00:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monkeyontuesday No, I'm not saying evolution is wrong at all. My personal thoughts on the subject are mix and match of religion and science. I'm just saying they're both theories and perhaps if people are so in favor of Creationism being taught in schools, it could be approached as I mentioned previously. No, they are not both theories in the same sense of the word. And it's really starting to irritate me that we have to keep covering the same ground. Would you please scroll up and read the posts addressing this. I can say I have a theory that the Red Sox are going to win the World Series but do you think that just may be a little different from the theory of gravity?

Owner59 -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/6/2008 4:26:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf But they are already indoctrinated, just not to relgion but to be good, behaving citizens that follow the government no matter what. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol I still don't want my progeny to be indoctrinated at the public school they attend. If people want to brain wash their brood, let them do it at home. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that: I thought America was engaged in a war against theocracy abroad. It's good when countries practice what they preach, you know. And just who are these "citizens who follow the government, no matter what"? I`m not sure who you`re talking about(other than conservatives).

Owner59 -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/6/2008 4:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating teaching a specific religion or specific religious concepts. I am advocating exposing children to the many different beliefs that exist, including aetheism. Religion, for better or worse, is an important influence worldwide. The very fact we're debating this proves it. The only thing shielding children from religion in schools accomplishes is a reliance on whatever they are taught at home and an ignorance, and even prejudice toward, other beliefs. But isnt this the problem? The godless liberals are likely OK with the discussion and presentation of religion - but they resist because they think the godly are looking for discussion and presentation of a particular religion. The godly meanwhile interpret that as an attack on their particular religion. E Not quite true Lady E. We godless liberals have no problem with anyone`s religious beliefs.From Agnostic to snake handlers and everything in between,let freedom ring. It`s when the power of the state is mixed with religion(and it`s nut jobs),that we take offense. And of course the perpetrators of this mixing will cry foul and take it personally. We`re de-facto against Jesus if we`re against teaching ID in public schools,after all.Basic fundie logic. And of course ,the Jesus lovers have it right and not us Jesus haters.[8\|]

hoodie -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/6/2008 7:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I've been poking around the blogs recently, and this seems to be a common subject in regards to Sarah Palin. Her words on it seem to be that Creationism should be allowed to be debated in public schools, but it doesn't need to be a part of the curriculum. What's wrong with that exactly? Now, I am not a believer in Creationism. I accept evolution as a perfectly reasonable explanation for life's origins and our origins. I believe that we share a common ancestor with the great apes. Simply put, I am a believer in evolution. But I don't see any harm in debating it. I've always thought educational institutions were the places for debate. I enjoy debating on a variety of subjects, and I don't understand the opposition towards allowing that debate. I can remember an 11th grade history teacher that firmly believed in JFK assassination conspiracy stories. He taught them to us for the last 9 weeks of the 2nd semester. I firmly disagreed with him, and I told him so. I enjoyed that experience. It was one of the best educational experiences I had during high school. I thought the teacher was a nutter, but he provoked debate and inspired free thinking. Debate provokes free thought, and free thinking is essential for education. A professor I had for "History of Civilization" discussed man's origins in my freshman year of college. He mentioned the debate between creationists and believers in evolution. He remarked on how important that debate was. The point he made struck home with me. We need skeptics in all fields of study, no matter how crazy they seem to us. Skeptics keep us on our toes, they compel us to think and to reason. Skeptics (no matter how crazy they sound) are important to learning. We wouldn't have made it this far without them. I thank them, and I welcome their contributions to humanity. So again....what is wrong with allowing this debate in public schools? There is nothing wrong in discussing Creationism in schools. What is wrong is presenting it as a valid alternative to evolution theory. One is based on scientific methods while the other is purely based on faith. Teaching evolution as science and Creationism as religious philosophy is fine. Exactly. I've advocated a seperate ELECTIVE class for Creationism for several years. I live just about 15 miles from the Dover School District in Pennsylvania, who made it manditory to teach Intelligent Design, in place of Evolution as our origin. They're first mistake. Making it mandatory. Their second mistake, not allowing any dissent to the matter - none from faculty, students, their parents or the community. The debate, when had, is a good one. Allowing young minds to think critically, and expand beyond what they see in a school book is quite refreshing.

DomKen -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/6/2008 8:53:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie Exactly. I've advocated a seperate ELECTIVE class for Creationism for several years. I live just about 15 miles from the Dover School District in Pennsylvania, who made it manditory to teach Intelligent Design, in place of Evolution as our origin. They're first mistake. Making it mandatory. Their second mistake, not allowing any dissent to the matter - none from faculty, students, their parents or the community. The debate, when had, is a good one. Allowing young minds to think critically, and expand beyond what they see in a school book is quite refreshing. An elective class in creationism is unconstitutional in public school. Even as an elective it would be an endorsement of a specific religion and government may not do that. What the Dover area school board did wrong first was attempt to slip creationism in by the back door when they found out they couldn't bring it in the front.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 3:07:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Do you think creationism should be taught in public schools as if it were a valid scientific theory? Sure. I just can't wait to see the testing process for the theory. After all, there would have to be an experiment for it.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 3:20:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen An elective class in creationism is unconstitutional in public school. Even as an elective it would be an endorsement of a specific religion and government may not do that. Now now now, ancient beings from Mars could have done something special to Earth before they left their planet. But I guess Science isn't ready to accept any part of Scientology for now. Maybe one day, we'll have an achiological descovery of a space ship or something kind of like Star Gate.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 3:33:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie Exactly. I've advocated a seperate ELECTIVE class for Creationism for several years. In such a class brings huge controversy. Which god/s, supreme being/s, or alien/s created us all? Without starting a fight between people of different faiths and Sci Fi fanatics, all you can teach is that something greater than our comprehension created us. In that retrospect, what would be the classes coriculim? What kind of test do you come up with? It all sounds like an easy A Class to me.

LDRandAstarte -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 8:52:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Note I don't disagree that they could include creationism in a course on Crackpotheorism, make that a brand new line of research. Throw in the Sasquatch, little green men and Nessie, and you've got one hell of an entertaining class for today's youngsters. Excuse me, but taking into consideration a few sentient points The shear vastness of space. The number of stars in that staggeringly vast space. The number of those stars with planets around them (as we are now finding) The number of those planets circling those stars that have been spared the hand of the creator and went the more believable evolutionary route. I would say that the little green man subject is a much more plausible theory and does not belong in your new Crackpotheorism curriculum

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 9:18:51 AM)
~fast reply to the OP~ I haven't thrown my hat into the ring on this one, but I think that my comment would be that the debate over creationism depends on when, in the course of a young person's education, creationism would be introduced and debated. Let's face it. Youngsters below a certain age don't understand that two things they're told that are, scientifically, diametrically opposed are not both true. Below, say, 8 years old, they still believe that fairy-tales are real, that babies come from under a cabbage leaf, and that Santa Clause, the Christmas Fairy, or an elf put the presents under their Christmas Tree. You can't debate the relative merits of two or more diametrically opposed concepts of universal creation with a child who doesn't understand that there is even an issue to debate. If we're talking about high-school students, and even some jr. high school students... sure, let -em- go at it. Let them debate, and let them have a chance to weigh in on stuff... IF we're really going to ask them to think about things, weigh them, and really -evaluate- the arguments on both sides and discuss them. Shoot... anything that would teach kids in our schools to think should be encouraged. Right now, they're not taught -any- thinking skills at all... just rote memorization in, and spewage on a test form out. Toss in some Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, some Brave New World, and some Farenheit 451, some Animal Farm, and some Lord of the Flies, and a hint of Kalil Gibran into literature discussion and we might actually have a curriculum that encourages kids to think again. (All of those authors/books were on required reading lists when I was in school... and now most of them are -banned- by the school districts! Our local school district wouldn't even let 6th graders read Red Badge of Courage!) Calla Firestorm

bipolarber -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 10:20:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LDRandAstarte quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Note I don't disagree that they could include creationism in a course on Crackpotheorism, make that a brand new line of research. Throw in the Sasquatch, little green men and Nessie, and you've got one hell of an entertaining class for today's youngsters. Excuse me, but taking into consideration a few sentient points The shear vastness of space. The number of stars in that staggeringly vast space. The number of those stars with planets around them (as we are now finding) The number of those planets circling those stars that have been spared the hand of the creator and went the more believable evolutionary route. I would say that the little green man subject is a much more plausible theory and does not belong in your new Crackpotheorism curriculum I tend to agree with you on this one. There's a difference between believing in something that can't be true, according to the laws of the universe as we understand them, and believing that there's a good chance of something (like extraterrestrial life) BECAUSE the laws of the universe seem to make it's existence probable. There's still no proof for E.T. as yet, but everthing we find out about the commonality of other stars like ours, and the planets that swarm around them, and how easily garden variety elements can combine to create life's building blocks, it seems the odds are getting better every day.

hoodie -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 10:44:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie Exactly. I've advocated a seperate ELECTIVE class for Creationism for several years. I live just about 15 miles from the Dover School District in Pennsylvania, who made it manditory to teach Intelligent Design, in place of Evolution as our origin. They're first mistake. Making it mandatory. Their second mistake, not allowing any dissent to the matter - none from faculty, students, their parents or the community. The debate, when had, is a good one. Allowing young minds to think critically, and expand beyond what they see in a school book is quite refreshing. An elective class in creationism is unconstitutional in public school. Even as an elective it would be an endorsement of a specific religion and government may not do that. What the Dover area school board did wrong first was attempt to slip creationism in by the back door when they found out they couldn't bring it in the front. Would it be an endoresement of a specific religion? Or when placed next to evolution, would it be seen as allowing young people to look at them, look at the strengths, weaknesses and then draw independent conclusions of their own. I see it as a powerful tool. Evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans all use the same Bible, though each is considered it's own "religion". Which one would be endorsed and which one wouldn't? And the government cannot mandate something religous be taught. However, the government shouldn't be allowed to say something religious in an elective class shouldn't be taught either. And if endoresement were the true factor...the simple fact that at the beginning of the school year, sending home material to the parents about the boy and girl scouts of america would be endorsing religion, no?

hoodie -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 10:51:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie Exactly. I've advocated a seperate ELECTIVE class for Creationism for several years. In such a class brings huge controversy. Which god/s, supreme being/s, or alien/s created us all? Without starting a fight between people of different faiths and Sci Fi fanatics, all you can teach is that something greater than our comprehension created us. In that retrospect, what would be the classes coriculim? What kind of test do you come up with? It all sounds like an easy A Class to me. But if it starts a fight over which God created us, you'd have to wonder why a person signed up, no? See that's the beauty of elective classes. No one is required to take them. Only those that are interested can and should. All I'm saying is it's not this big no-no that everyone tries to make it be. The pendulum swung too far to the other side. We went from requiring religious education in public schools to now saying that nothing religious can ever enter in. This all or nothing approach makes me cringe, because those are the only mediums the government can ever be in. Thinking outside the box should be the "cool" thing to do on all levels. That's where I'm coming from. I'd sooner a graduating class of people who can look at all sides of an issue and come up with their own opinion's and belief systems than I would one that's indcotrinated, no matter what the indoctrination is.

meatcleaver -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 11:25:03 AM)
Science looks outside the box all the time. One of the fundemental principles of science is to ask questions and not be satisfied with the answers until there is nothing left to be answered. Religion is about accepting the answers without ever asking a question in the first place!

LaTigresse -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 11:25:25 AM)
If they want to teach creationism, they certainly can. Just not in a state funded public school using state funds to do so. It must be done on private or church property and funded entirely by either the church/s sponsering it or the students attending. Otherwise they will have to include ALL religiouns beliefs as a balance for the common christian point of view.

hoodie -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 11:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse If they want to teach creationism, they certainly can. Just not in a state funded public school using state funds to do so. It must be done on private or church property and funded entirely by either the church/s sponsering it or the students attending. Otherwise they will have to include ALL religiouns beliefs as a balance for the common christian point of view. And they couldn't do that? They most certainly could have elective classes for every religious belief out there. But the debate is about Creationism, and on an elective level, I think there is nothing wrong with it. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with having classes about other religious beliefs as well. Indoctrination is one thing I despise the most, and that includes when children are brow beat by their parents to believe in a certain religious affiliation. Critical thinking is key. Looking at various facts and then drawing one's conclusion is the greatest thing we can teach our children.

hoodie -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 11:38:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Science looks outside the box all the time. One of the fundemental principles of science is to ask questions and not be satisfied with the answers until there is nothing left to be answered. Religion is about accepting the answers without ever asking a question in the first place! Not necessarily. Reading the Bible for the first time, I thought it was the greatest storybook out there. My favorite teacher, in Catholic school, was my religion teacher who allowed us to question the Catholic faith, and gave us the answers as the facts supported them. At no time were we ever told we just "had" to believe it, but she supported our right to be inquisitive, and that actually made the class WORTH having. I'll agree that many people just blindly follow. However, for others, they've done their homework.

Page: << < prev 18 19 20 [21] 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875