RE: Creationism in public schools

RE: Creationism in public schools (Full Version)

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

Message

LaTigresse -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 11:40:49 AM)
I would be more specific though. Given that there are state funds involved. Rather than call it creationism, I would make it an overview of all religioun's views on the beginning of life. Totally equal time for each. Otherwise the students will not get a balanced point of view and you will be right back to making it specifically about one. Which would be seen as promoting a specific religious dogma. That is where I would, as a parent, have a problem with it. The idea of a separate class for each religioun, while admirable, isn't feasible. Too many and too few funds. Not to mention you would have kids going to school for nothing but these specific classes just because of the vast number of them.

hoodie -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 11:42:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I would be more specific though. Given that there are state funds involved. Rather than call it creationism, I would make it an overview of all religioun's views on the beginning of life. Totally equal time for each. Otherwise the students will not get a balanced point of view and you will be right back to making it specifically about one. Which would be seen as promoting a specific religious dogma. That is where I would, as a parent, have a problem with it. The idea of a separate class for each religioun, while admirable, isn't feasible. Too many and too few funds. Not to mention you would have kids going to school for nothing but these specific classes just because of the vast number of them. Fair enough. I could go along with that idea. I say Creationism, because outside of the Bible, I don't know what other religion's teach about the origin of man.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 12:29:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluepanda I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I'm afraid it is. What you don't seem to understand is that evolution is a proven fact. There's no question about that at all. The theory of evolution is, itself, a constantly evolving study of the basic details of how that all works, but the fact that science can't explain every detail of how evolution works doesn't mean there's any question that it does. If you attempt to argue that creation mythology is just as valid as evolutionary science because not knowing a few details about evolutionary science is exactly the same as not having any evidence whatsoever for creation mythology, then your argument is, unfortunately, borne of ignorance. Sorry. The Theory of Evolution is a proven fact....when applied to bacteria, viruses, and very simple organisms. Yet, the scientific community has yet to show a single instance of an ape evolving into a human being in our modern world. Given that most of the research in "evolving behavior" comes from a superior thinker (human) teaching a inferior thinker (an ape) how to do something, wouldn't you say that casts some doubt on the research? The Evolutionary model may apply to some organisms; however, it has been suggested to apply to ALL organisms which is where my problems with the application of the theory begin. For those with the scientific mind, something can only be proven to be false. There is a complete lack of contradictory evidence regarding God creating the universe, which makes it scientifically as valid as any other Theory of Creation.

NihilusZero -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 1:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking The Theory of Evolution is a proven fact....when applied to bacteria, viruses, and very simple organisms. Yet, the scientific community has yet to show a single instance of an ape evolving into a human being in our modern world I take it you somehow expect this to happen in front of your very eyes?? quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking The Evolutionary model may apply to some organisms; however, it has been suggested to apply to ALL organisms which is where my problems with the application of the theory begin. It applies to every animal that interacts with a geological environment. quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking For those with the scientific mind, something can only be proven to be false. Only if you're desperately trying to hold on to metaphysical parameters to materialism...which no honest scientist does. quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking There is a complete lack of contradictory evidence regarding God creating the universe, which makes it scientifically as valid as any other Theory of Creation. How many logical fallacies can you shove into one sentence? Argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance)? False Dilemma? Begging the question?

NihilusZero -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 1:45:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie Fair enough. I could go along with that idea. I say Creationism, because outside of the Bible, I don't know what other religion's teach about the origin of man. Creationism isn't supposed to be about the bible. At least that's what its proponents want you to believe. Here's a short of list of creation stories that should demand equal time, unless creationists want to be bigots about which theory they get to parade more prominently: quote: excerpt of writing by Michael Shermer --No Creation Story from India, where "The world has always existed as it is now, unchanging from eternity." --The Slain Monster Creation Story from Sumeria-Babylonia, where "The world was created from the parts of a slain monster." --The Primordial Parents Creation Stories from the Zuni Indians, Cook Islanders, and Egyptians, where "The world was created by the interaction of primordial parents." --The Cosmic Egg Creation Stories from Japan, Samoa, Persia, and China, where "The world was generated from an egg." --The Sea Creation Stories from the Burmese, Choctaw Indians, and Icelanders, where "The world was created from out of the sea." --The Spoken Edict Creation Stories from the Mayans, the Egyptians, and the Hebrews, where "The world sprang into being at the command of a god."

philosophy -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 2:12:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking For those with the scientific mind, something can only be proven to be false. There is a complete lack of contradictory evidence regarding God creating the universe, which makes it scientifically as valid as any other Theory of Creation. ...scientific theories also have to give rise to testable hypothesis.......perhaps you'd be so good as to point out how the Christian story of creation does so.

Racquelle -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 2:28:27 PM)
What it really comes down to is this - proponents of "Creationism" as a subject in public schools are never speaking of anything but the Christian Creation story. They are not proposing a scholarly exposition and discussion of ideas. They are proposing a distinctly religious agenda, just one religion, just one small sub-sect of that religion. Trying to bring creationism or intelligent design into the science classroom is an end-run around the separation of church and state. Neither of these concepts is science. They simply aren't. They are matters of faith. I am a Christian, and I believe in God's creative power, but I am not so narrow as to believe evolution is not part of that. I do not desire to have my beliefs forced on children in public schools, and I certainly don't desire it done under false pretenses. The hope of those that promote "creationism" is that we, as a population, are already pretty ignorant about science, so that we don't realize how apocryphal their position is. I have seen rather average, sensible folks in this thread acquiesse to a position which is a logical falacy. No one proposes an actual "discussion" of creationism - simply the right to delare its truth. The declaration of "creationism" is essentially a religious declaration, and it belongs in the religious institutions that promote it, and between individuals, not as a matter of curriculum in public institutions.

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 3:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife 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. Maybe this is my fault for not making the post you responded to clearer, although I have tried to clarify in subsequent posts. I am not suggesting a class on creationism and I'm certainly not suggesting there is a valid point to be debated between evolution and creationism. I only suggested there was nothing wrong in discussing it as a religious concept, preferably in a broader discussion of those concepts, such as in a class on religious philosophy. There is nothing to "debate" critically about. One is a scientific theory that has met the rigors of research and testing. The other is an ancient story created by people who had very little understanding of the natural world. It is a belief. It relies solely on faith and has no standard of proof other than that belief. Which is fine if you choose to believe it. Religion is about faith, but it has no place being presented as a viable alternative to evolution, even as an elective.

DomKen -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 4:01:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking The Theory of Evolution is a proven fact....when applied to bacteria, viruses, and very simple organisms. Yet, the scientific community has yet to show a single instance of an ape evolving into a human being in our modern world. Given that most of the research in "evolving behavior" comes from a superior thinker (human) teaching a inferior thinker (an ape) how to do something, wouldn't you say that casts some doubt on the research? The Evolutionary model may apply to some organisms; however, it has been suggested to apply to ALL organisms which is where my problems with the application of the theory begin. By any reasonable definition humans are a great ape. Our morphological, biochemical and genetic features are virtually identical to the other great apes. For instance the broken gene that in other mammals makes vitamin C is broken in the same way in all the great apes. quote: For those with the scientific mind, something can only be proven to be false. There is a complete lack of contradictory evidence regarding God creating the universe, which makes it scientifically as valid as any other Theory of Creation. No. You must produce some testable hypothesis based on your goddidit claim for it have any scientific credibility.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 4:10:10 PM)
quote: By any reasonable definition humans are a great ape. Our morphological, biochemical and genetic features are virtually identical to the other great apes. What about our linguistic intellectual features? Dont they count ? With regard to morphology Ken , which is it with you, are you hairy or ugly. Only arskin'.

DomKen -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 4:12:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: By any reasonable definition humans are a great ape. Our morphological, biochemical and genetic features are virtually identical to the other great apes. What about our linguistic intellectual features? Dont they count ? With regard to morphology Ken , which is it with you, are you hairy or ugly. Only arskin'. What about them? Yours seem to be failing. It doesn't change that humans are great apes.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 4:23:29 PM)
quote: You must produce some testable hypothesis based on your goddidit claim for it have any scientific credibility One of the things I would teach in comparative religion is that the God hypothesis is basically untestable but does address profound concepts. both philosophical and scientific. The NS hypothesis is equally untestable but is generally held to be true by those whose basic rationale is an antagonism to the God hypothesis , a committment to a simplistic reductionism. and not infrequently no understanding of what it is they claim to believe. Scientific creationism involves life arising from inert matter. eg maggots from rotting meat. See thats how creationism would be included in schools.

DomKen -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 4:34:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: You must produce some testable hypothesis based on your goddidit claim for it have any scientific credibility One of the things I would teach in comparative religion is that the God hypothesis is basically untestable but does address profound concepts. both philosophical and scientific. The NS hypothesis is equally untestable but is generally held to be true by those whose basic rationale is an antagonism to the God hypothesis , a committment to a simplistic reductionism. and not infrequently no understanding of what it is they claim to believe. Scientistific creationism involves life arising from inert matter. See thats how creationism would be included in schools. What part of natural selection is untestable? That mutations occur? Definitely testable and has been tested and mutations do occur. That some organisms in a population reproduce more successfully than others? Testable and tested. That organisms pass on their genes to their offspring? That's been pretty thoroughly tested as well. Looks like you were just blowing smoke.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 4:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Racquelle What it really comes down to is this - proponents of "Creationism" as a subject in public schools are never speaking of anything but the Christian Creation story. They are not proposing a scholarly exposition and discussion of ideas. They are proposing a distinctly religious agenda, just one religion, just one small sub-sect of that religion. Trying to bring creationism or intelligent design into the science classroom is an end-run around the separation of church and state. Neither of these concepts is science. They simply aren't. They are matters of faith. I am a Christian, and I believe in God's creative power, but I am not so narrow as to believe evolution is not part of that. I do not desire to have my beliefs forced on children in public schools, and I certainly don't desire it done under false pretenses. The hope of those that promote "creationism" is that we, as a population, are already pretty ignorant about science, so that we don't realize how apocryphal their position is. I have seen rather average, sensible folks in this thread acquiesse to a position which is a logical falacy. No one proposes an actual "discussion" of creationism - simply the right to delare its truth. The declaration of "creationism" is essentially a religious declaration, and it belongs in the religious institutions that promote it, and between individuals, not as a matter of curriculum in public institutions. And this was my point earlier. If we're talking about discussion and debate, it couldn't be presented to kids too young to realize that there is anything -to- debate. And if older kids are going to be presented with this as part of discussion/debate, they should probably hear as many of the creation stories as can be dug up. (I heard a really awesome one by one of our Native American tribes recently, told by a traditional storyteller, that was truly good listening. It is a shame that we've lost so many of our traditional storytellers, IMO). And it should be offered in an atmosphere that has risen to actually encourage critical thinking skills. Presenting creationism in our schools as they stand right now would be like setting the kids in front of a Mack truck -- they have no critical thinking skills left to offer any kind of defense or debate. Calla Firestorm

farglebargle -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/7/2008 5:49:58 PM)
quote: Yet, the scientific community has yet to show a single instance of an ape evolving into a human being in our modern world. That's because Apes and Modern Humans co-evolved. You'd have to examine the fossil and biochemical evidence to determine their closest common ancestor. They're saying Sahelanthropus tchadensis is 7 million years back. For a modern example of Evolution-In-Action, consider Antibiotic resistant Staph.

meatcleaver -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/8/2008 12:06:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hoodie 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. Reading the bible as a great story book is fine, I don't know any other people who believe in science that are against literature as far as I know. It's when people start taking stoneage literature as fact that bewilderment at people's intelligence starts. Like most religions the catholic religion can be questioned, especially about being the first one true church because it wasn't the first and it saw no problem in destroying its rivals, quite literally.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875