RE: Creationism in public schools

RE: Creationism in public schools (Full Version)

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

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 1:34:16 PM)
[sm=applause.gif] Bravo. Why is that so difficult to understand and accept for creationist advocates? Do it at home. Edited for spelling [:(] .

Raechard -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 1:45:36 PM)
"God is dead: but considering the state the species of man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown." Freddy Nietzsche

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 1:47:44 PM)
quote: What you've missed in all three examples is that they go on to analyze the question, not merely embrace it. I didn't miss anything. I never made the claim that the concept should be embraced. You said luck wasn't discussed in philosophy, and smugly asked for examples. I provided them, so now you're trying to back pedal and pretend you were right all along. You weren't. What you missed in my OP and in the entire discussion is the main argument. Creationism, religion, and philosophy are valid topics for debate in educational settings. I never said those concepts should be embraced, accepted, or adhered to. If you had read my OP, I specifically said that I accepted evolution and found it to be valid. However I am not opposed to hearing other's ideas, and I certainly don't think any topic should be denied or restricted in education. I guess censorship is something you find no fault in, but I do.

Musicmystery -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 1:52:40 PM)
Nope. If you'd READ any of those links, you'd have seen luck isn't simply embraced as a philosophical concept. And again, you are stretching for shades of meaning, then attributing them.

kittinSol -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 1:56:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Creationism, religion, and philosophy are valid topics for debate in educational settings. Hi slaveboy - do you think, then, that creationism is an area of human knowledge and exploration that deserves a category all of its own, because it doesn't fit into philosophy or science? From what I've seen, American students are plentily educated when it comes to matters of faith... but sorely lacking in things like geography and languages. Why not make space in the school curriculum for things that are useful in the modern world, and leave the faith-based stuff to the parents?

persephonee -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 2:09:31 PM)
Zactly...when our public schools produce the same calibre mathematicians and scientists that every other 1st world country does on a consistent basis...then we can focus on fairy tales and conservative bullshit rationalizations. Separation of church and state. i have no issue with creationism as a theory...but inevitably it leads to statements attempting to dispute evolution. If it is truly only an innocuous theory, and not a sad attempt at disproving (without any empirical evidence) a scientifically proven course of events, then why do the two constantly butt heads? Pushing creationism is a transparent attempt to create precedence of religious thoughts being allowed in a public state/fed funded system (public schools). Its simply another attempt to poke holes in a protection that was set up to protect citizens from radical extremism and religious fundamentalism's fervor.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 2:13:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Another fact is that scientists actually believe in creationism themselves. (...edit...) Really. Scientists believe in creationsim? Name some, please, seeks. (...edit...) Well if the BigBang isnt creationist I dont know what is. Not creationist in any formally religious sense but creationist nonetheless. This is precisely the kind of thing that could taught in school.. ie how science and religion handle these problems.

Raechard -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 2:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: persephonee Its simply another attempt to poke holes in a protection that was set up to protect citizens from radical extremism and religious fundamentalism's fervor. Worse still they are probably the same types that constantly bleat on about terrorist links to madrassahs.

kittinSol -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 2:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: persephonee Pushing creationism is a transparent attempt to create precedence of religious thoughts being allowed in a public state/fed funded system (public schools). Its simply another attempt to poke holes in a protection that was set up to protect citizens from radical extremism and religious fundamentalism's fervor. Bingo. Creationism is a political invention. Many Christians don't believe in this crackpot idea. In fact, it's not necessary to reject evolution to be a Christian. Creationism was invented in the United States of America following the literal interpretation of the Bible movement that stemmed in protestant churches in the XIXth century. This literalism mostly took root in the South in evangelical sects (see: the Baptists). It's even come to help define the cultural identity of the region. It spread like forest fire.

Raechard -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 2:27:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Well if the BigBang isnt creationist I dont know what is. Not creationist in any formally religious sense but creationist nonetheless. This is precisely the kind of thing that could taught in school.. ie how science and religion handle these problems. What would be the religious equivalence to this kind of work going on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer but you can still say God created the big bang if ya like.[:D]

Musicmystery -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 2:29:50 PM)
quote: Creationism was invented in the United States of America following the literal interpretation movement that stemmed in protestant churches in the XIVth century. Lest people assume I'm as dogmatically blind as others, this statement isn't possible: 1) Protestant churches didn't exist in the 14th century 2) the United States of America didn't exist until the 18th century 3) the evangelical movement I'm guessing you mean evolved in the 19th century Getting the facts wrong doesn't help the case!

celticlord2112 -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:14:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Nope. If you'd READ any of those links, you'd have seen luck isn't simply embraced as a philosophical concept. And again, you are stretching for shades of meaning, then attributing them. No, he's not. His point is quite clear, his articulation unmistakable. The stretching for shades of meaning is coming from the other direction.

DomKen -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:22:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave In the early 21st century its lack of scientific credibility is too well known. It is? This wouldn't be more of the drivel I previously dismantled would it? Natural selection is a simple and obvious concept. Organisms pass on their characteristics to their offspring. Some organisms reproduce successfully more often than other organisms in the same population. The characteristics found in the more reproductively successful organism will therefore become more common. So what part of that is not scientifically credible?

Musicmystery -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:22:58 PM)
Does that include the mischaracterization? Or the free rewording of statements as if quoted? Just checking.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:24:19 PM)
quote: Hi slaveboy - do you think, then, that creationism is an area of human knowledge and exploration that deserves a category all of its own, because it doesn't fit into philosophy or science? From what I've seen, American students are plentily educated when it comes to matters of faith... but sorely lacking in things like geography and languages. Why not make space in the school curriculum for things that are useful in the modern world, and leave the faith-based stuff to the parents? Creation stories are a part of humanity, they exist in all cultures. I do think creationism has a place in philosophical discussions. It goes to the whole "why are we here?" question. Now I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian story of creation or any religious stories of creation. But I don't ridicule others for having that view, and it irks me when other people do. I find a lot of beliefs odd, and that includes the "cool" religions that many here profess to practice (neo-paganism, Wicca, etc.) But I don't ridicule people for those beliefs, and I enjoy discussing theology. I can do that without being arrogant and condescending. We wouldn't have a controversy about creationism and evolution in this country if it was openly discussed. I agree with you that American education is lacking in many areas. I couldn't tell you why American students do poorly in geography. I took the same courses they did, and I excelled at geography. I love geography, it was one of my favorite subjects. Of course my father had a big affinity for maps, and I picked up on that. We had several atlases among other books in our home library. I learned orienteering with topographical maps as a child. So it just stuck with me as I attended school. I suppose a lot of other people didn't grow up with those experiences. American students do need to do better with languages. It's the fault of the education system for taking the approach of not teaching foreign language until high school when it's harder to learn. I took two years of Spanish in college, and I still can't speak it very well. It should be taught in primary schools, and that's changing. All that being said, I still think there is room to allow discussions on a variety of topics in classrooms. Allowing open discussion is much more productive than trying to sweep a controversial topic under the rug.

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:26:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Many posters who are against the idea are confusing the issue IMO. A particular religion or religious view would not be taught. What would be taught is comparative religion and the underlying ideas that are involved. eg morals, social codes explanation as to origin etc. The mere fact that many posters claim that NS is scientifically true shows the power of brain washing/lazy thinking as does the belief that my religion represents the only truth . Opening up young minds to the different perceptions that exist in the world can only do good . Origin or first cause are almost certainly outside the scope of scientific enquiry. That in and of itself should help to deflate the arrogance underpinning the belief that the scientific method is the only valid world view when life and its meaning are considered. Simplicity never "evolves" into complexity. Adding: DomKen enters the fray big boots flailing. or Did he trip over his undone laces and fall on his arse. hehehe Not sure I understand every point you're trying to make, but I do agree that comparative religion should be taught. What we have going on today, both in domestic issues and foreign policy issues has religious belief at its core. To say we should pretend that religion is strictly a family matter is short-sighted. What you are doing though is trying to claim established scientific theory is a belief system on par with religious dogma.

Musicmystery -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:32:12 PM)
Where are all the people advocating Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Primitivism...? That's much of the world---shouldn't "comparative religion" include those? And will they be presented as indistinguishable from science or philosophy? Or, for slaveboy, superstitition?

DomKen -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:35:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou All that being said, I still think there is room to allow discussions on a variety of topics in classrooms. Allowing open discussion is much more productive than trying to sweep a controversial topic under the rug. The basic problem with this is as far as science is concerned there is no controversy. No claim made in support of creationism is correct.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:37:27 PM)
quote: Or, for slaveboy, superstitition? I'm not superstitious, and free discussion is obviously a foreign concept to you. I'm sorry I bruised your precious ego.

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 3:39:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddysredhead quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen evolution is a fact. In your estimation... others will disagree. Based on the estimation of a large body of scientific evidence. Care to share what you base your disagreement on?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875