Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Should creationism be taught in schools? Options · View
DamonX
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:25:34 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Quote:
I'd rather have ALL the different alternatives taught by a professional teacher, with no bias toward any one system - THEN let me explain how I believe and why I believe it.


This type of thinking is part of the problem. It puts mythology on the same level as science. Its like including Noah's ark in history class or including unicorns when teaching classes in animal behaviour.

Quote:
What we can't prove is that humans evolved from apes.


Once again...humans did not evolve FROM apes. Humans and apes are both primates that evolved from a common primate ancestor.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 11:47:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
I'd rather have ALL the different alternatives taught by a professional teacher, with no bias toward any one system - THEN let me explain how I believe and why I believe it.


This type of thinking is part of the problem. It puts mythology on the same level as science. Its like including Noah's ark in history class or including unicorns when teaching classes in animal behaviour.



You don't think classes can be structured to explain what modern scientific theory is, vs. what modern religious theory is, and what the differences are? You can show PHOTOGRAPHS of horses. You can explain about MYTHICAL animals like unicorns. You're not saying mythology is the same as zoology - you're just being complete in your instruction.




DamonX wrote:
Quote:
What we can't prove is that humans evolved from apes.


Once again...humans did not evolve FROM apes. Humans and apes are both primates that evolved from a common primate ancestor.


Modern science believes. Modern science has been wrong before. At one time, modern science believed the best way to cure an illness was by letting leeches suck out all the "bad blood"...



LadyX
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:13:34 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Evolution seems to have lots of scientific backing- with the Creationist folks pointing and saying "well, you could be wrong about this!" On the other hand, the Creationists seem to defend their position by pointing out everything 'scientific' that we don't absolutely know, as reason to go ahead and teach their theories. Because of this, I have a VERY hard time putting them on equal footing in a science class.

I see people like Nudie propose that all theories should be taught- but I'm assuming/hoping you mean in general, not in science class, where most things depend on scientific method and collection of actual evidence. I hear about these 'scientists' that back Creationism, but have yet to see good evidence that humans walked around with dinosaurs, or that fossils aren't really as old as carbon evidence says they are, etc. In that way, it seems perfect for religion or mythology classes, but not science.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:50:48 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
when I was in HS, over 30 years ago, the science instructors would generally label it as: The theory of evolution at least a few times, before just shortening it to: Evolution (this or that), etc...

In high school, is it still being pointed out that evolution is merely a theory. And are instructors today discussing the differences in micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution ?

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
DamonX
Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 10:13:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Quote:
You don't think classes can be structured to explain what modern scientific theory is, vs. what modern religious theory is, and what the differences are? You can show PHOTOGRAPHS of horses. You can explain about MYTHICAL animals like unicorns. You're not saying mythology is the same as zoology - you're just being complete in your instruction.


I think a comparative course in religous and evolutionary theories would be a bit beyond the scope of high school science class. Maybe in university though. I don't think anyone has problem with classes teaching religious mythology, but again, I don't think it has any place in a science class.

Quote:
Modern science believes. Modern science has been wrong before. At one time, modern science believed the best way to cure an illness was by letting leeches suck out all the "bad blood"...


I know huh? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to still believe in bleeding as a cure all for all ailments? Seems silly to believe something that was written thousands of years ago when human beings knew less than they do now. Wait a minute...that sounds familiar.....

You are right though. Science is always changing. My comment was merely in response to the incorrect assumptions that many have regarding "humans evolving from apes." I was simply clarifying the 'theory."

Quote:
In high school, is it still being pointed out that evolution is merely a theory.


A theory, yes. Kind of like the "theory of gravity?" or "Strain theory." We know that evolution takes place. We can see it in short lived species like the drosophila fruit fly. What we don't know are all the specifics involved in natural history, and we probably never will. What most creationists and anti-evolutionists never seem to understand is that is an ongoing process of learning. Its not like all the scientists have just brushed their hands together, lit up a cigar, and put their feet up, saying "well, that's that!" They are still trying to learn and will be until the end of time...because that is what science is.

The evolution taught in highschool is simply the most basic principles. The detail involved probably depends on the knowledge and viewpoint of the teacher.(BTW, HS teachers are far from the vessels of knowledge that some people assume). Its not like they're teaching radical or "out there" ideas. HS mainly touches on how the original ideas were conceived, particularly the methods of Linnaeus and Darwin.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:08:56 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
It is pretty hard to debate an issue as complex as this one. A forum of sex stories is a very odd place for this particular debate. That said a couple of thoughts:

Seperation of Church and State - One of the most incorrectly used phrases in the Bill of Rights.

I am always amazed when people say "which form of Creationsim will they teach?". As if there is only one form of Evolutionary theory? That is just not solid critical thinking to not see both sides.

For a country founded on Judeo-Christian values to remove it from its schools is a stunning departure and one that will not end well should it occur as intended by the NEA. (Union of teachers in the USA)

I really liked the point someone made here about standardized bubble tests. Evolution is now taught a certain way and it is drilled into heads a certain way. No ability to free think really exists in schools today. Those with differing views are shut down quickly. My own son is among them.

The facts are that the evolution theory will evolve, pardon the pun, over time. And that is telling.

Not a complete list but a few thoughts as I read the 3 pages.



MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:53:20 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
You don't think classes can be structured to explain what modern scientific theory is, vs. what modern religious theory is, and what the differences are? You can show PHOTOGRAPHS of horses. You can explain about MYTHICAL animals like unicorns. You're not saying mythology is the same as zoology - you're just being complete in your instruction.

I think a comparative course in religous and evolutionary theories would be a bit beyond the scope of high school science class. Maybe in university though. I don't think anyone has problem with classes teaching religious mythology, but again, I don't think it has any place in a science class.


I never said it should be taught in science class. But I do think it should be taught. If a high school age kid can learn all the different rules and spells and mythology of WOW or D&D, then he has the ability to understand the concepts behind standard religion. The only problem would be finding teachers competent enough to be able hit the high points of various religions, without teaching biases and bigotry as well.


DamonX wrote:
Quote:
Modern science believes. Modern science has been wrong before. At one time, modern science believed the best way to cure an illness was by letting leeches suck out all the "bad blood"...


I know huh? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to still believe in bleeding as a cure all for all ailments? Seems silly to believe something that was written thousands of years ago when human beings knew less than they do now. Wait a minute...that sounds familiar.....

You are right though. Science is always changing. My comment was merely in response to the incorrect assumptions that many have regarding "humans evolving from apes." I was simply clarifying the 'theory."


That was basically my point. Anything that's scientifically correct one year may very well be bunk the next. At least the course of study in a comparative religion course would be fairly stable.




MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:54:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
corsicadoll wrote:
It is pretty hard to debate an issue as complex as this one. A forum of sex stories is a very odd place for this particular debate. That said a couple of thoughts:

Seperation of Church and State - One of the most incorrectly used phrases in the Bill of Rights.

I am always amazed when people say "which form of Creationsim will they teach?". As if there is only one form of Evolutionary theory? That is just not solid critical thinking to not see both sides.

For a country founded on Judeo-Christian values to remove it from its schools is a stunning departure and one that will not end well should it occur as intended by the NEA. (Union of teachers in the USA)

I really liked the point someone made here about standardized bubble tests. Evolution is now taught a certain way and it is drilled into heads a certain way. No ability to free think really exists in schools today. Those with differing views are shut down quickly. My own son is among them.

The facts are that the evolution theory will evolve, pardon the pun, over time. And that is telling.

Not a complete list but a few thoughts as I read the 3 pages.





All I really have to add here, Doll, is "Welcome to the Dark Side of Lush!" hello1

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:10:35 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Corsicadoll covered virtually every point I would speak on, but I would like to take some of her statements a bit further.

For instance there are too many denominational branches of the Judo-Christian religion, much less other religions, to cover properly much less the implications behind every flavor of creationism. On the evolutionist side, there are numerous "facts" evolutionist put forth that fly in the face of real scientific hard evidence to suggest that evolution as proposed by Darwin or modern scientists is anything but a farce. Evolutionist have turned their brand of science into religion. The traditional idea behind what a theory is would down grade evolution to nothing more than a hypothesis.

Honestly, when scientist start looking at pseudo science to support their positions they are no longer scientists, but weavers of fiction and or religion. One of the best examples is from Ben Stein's "No intelligence allowed" movie in which a "scientist" that is interviewed claims life started on the backs of crystals. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but that is sounding very mystical.
DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:58:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Quote:
I never said it should be taught in science class. But I do think it should be taught. If a high school age kid can learn all the different rules and spells and mythology of WOW or D&D, then he has the ability to understand the concepts behind standard religion. The only problem would be finding teachers competent enough to be able hit the high points of various religions, without teaching biases and bigotry as well.


My comment was not referring to the capabilities of the students, but to the limitations of the faculty and the contraints of time with respect to the high school curriculum. You could theoretically take any first year university course and teach it in high school, but HSs simply don't have the funds or teachers of adaquate knowledge to do that kind of thing. I'm sure some bigger high schools do have religious studies courses though, which focus on the main characteristics of the world's main religions.

Quote:
That was basically my point. Anything that's scientifically correct one year may very well be bunk the next.


That is correct in a very broad sense. But please don't compare modern medicine's difference with medieval practice as equal to the minute changes that will occur year from year in a subject such as evolution.


Quote:
Seperation of Church and State - One of the most incorrectly used phrases in the Bill of Rights.


Contrary to popular belief, we don't all dwell within the borders of the US of A. Let's keep the constitutional arguments to a minimum.

Quote:
Evolutionist have turned their brand of science into religion.


How so? On on the edge of my seat for this one. Seems a pretty popular idea among creationists these days.

Quote:
One of the best examples is from Ben Stein's "No intelligence allowed" movie in which a "scientist" that is interviewed claims life started on the backs of crystals. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but that is sounding very mystical


Scientists are like any other group of people. There are good ones, bad ones, rogues and oddballs. Pointing out a bad one and using him as an indicator for the rest of the scientific community is as assinine as insinuating that all religious people are like the 9/11 hijackers.

Quote:
The traditional idea behind what a theory is would down grade evolution to nothing more than a hypothesis.


Ummm....check your definitions. Or go back and finish grade 10 science. Either one will suffice. Kudos on a well written post though. I look forward to further discussion.

icon_smile
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:17:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
I never said it should be taught in science class. But I do think it should be taught. If a high school age kid can learn all the different rules and spells and mythology of WOW or D&D, then he has the ability to understand the concepts behind standard religion. The only problem would be finding teachers competent enough to be able hit the high points of various religions, without teaching biases and bigotry as well.


My comment was not referring to the capabilities of the students, but to the limitations of the faculty and the contraints of time with respect to the high school curriculum. You could theoretically take any first year university course and teach it in high school, but HSs simply don't have the funds or teachers of adaquate knowledge to do that kind of thing. I'm sure some bigger high schools do have religious studies courses though, which focus on the main characteristics of the world's main religions.

Quote:
That was basically my point. Anything that's scientifically correct one year may very well be bunk the next.


That is correct in a very broad sense. But please don't compare modern medicine's difference with medieval practice as equal to the minute changes that will occur year from year in a subject such as evolution.


My experience with high schools is different than yours. In my opinion, the only stumbling blocks toward teaching a half-semester course in the basics of comparative religion (about all it would take to hit the high points) would be hidebound school boards and outraged Parent Teacher's Associations.

I'll stop comparing modern medicine to medieval practice when science stops 'evolving'. You can argue the point for what changes from this year to the next. But what about what we discover over the next hundred-fifty years or so? Care to predict what we'll know then?

WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:53:01 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
What was the original question again? geek

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:57:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
What was the original question again? geek


Quote:
Should creationism be taught in schools?


icon_biggrin

DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:13:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Quote:
I'll stop comparing modern medicine to medieval practice when science stops 'evolving'. You can argue the point for what changes from this year to the next. But what about what we discover over the next hundred-fifty years or so? Care to predict what we'll know then?


Yikes. This type of statement is common among religious people who have a tentative grasp on the concept of "science." "We don't know everything, so the things we do know are invalid!" They tend to put a "religious" spin on science so that they can understand it.

Science will never stop progressing. That is what science is. It is the constant quest for new information. Many medieval practices were not based on the principles of science, but on superstition and (dare I say it) religion. Therefor, comparing modern medicine to the unfounded, superstitial beliefs of an age dominated by the church is a pretty poor argument against the concept of science in modern day.

And no, I can not predict what we will know in a 150 years. Maybe we'll find a "god" fossil? confused1
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:35:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:


Yikes. This type of statement is common among religious people who have a tentative grasp on the concept of "science." "We don't know everything, so the things we do know are invalid!" They tend to put a "religious" spin on science so that they can understand it.

Science will never stop progressing. That is what science is. It is the constant quest for new information. Many medieval practices were not based on the principles of science, but on superstition and (dare I say it) religion. Therefor, comparing modern medicine to the unfounded, superstitial beliefs of an age dominated by the church is a pretty poor argument against the concept of science in modern day.


I never said that, Damon. Nor did I compare science to superstition. And I'm certainly not arguing against science! laughing3


What I AM saying is that knowledge is power, and by thinking "This we shall teach and this we shall not" you're limiting the students unnecessarily. You're censoring thought, and putting students at a disadvantage compared to other places where they may get a more complete education. In a global economy, you have to understand the other guy in order to beat him in his own back yard. Or trade with him at your advantage and not his. How better to do this than understand his religion? And when is the "right time" to teach about religion? College?

Question: Why is college the "right time" and high school is not?

Answer: It's not. In truth, any time is the right time to pass on knowledge, as long as it's suitably framed for the student to understand..

DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:54:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:


Yikes. This type of statement is common among religious people who have a tentative grasp on the concept of "science." "We don't know everything, so the things we do know are invalid!" They tend to put a "religious" spin on science so that they can understand it.

Science will never stop progressing. That is what science is. It is the constant quest for new information. Many medieval practices were not based on the principles of science, but on superstition and (dare I say it) religion. Therefor, comparing modern medicine to the unfounded, superstitial beliefs of an age dominated by the church is a pretty poor argument against the concept of science in modern day.


I never said that, Damon. Nor did I compare science to superstition. And I'm certainly not arguing against science! laughing3


What I AM saying is that knowledge is power, and by thinking "This we shall teach and this we shall not" you're limiting the students unnecessarily. You're censoring thought, and putting students at a disadvantage compared to other places where they may get a more complete education. In a global economy, you have to understand the other guy in order to beat him in his own back yard. Or trade with him at your advantage and not his. How better to do this than understand his religion? And when is the "right time" to teach about religion? College?

Question: Why is college the "right time" and high school is not?

Answer: It's not. In truth, any time is the right time to pass on knowledge, as long as it's suitably framed for the student to understand..


I guess I should respond before this thread gets locked as well.

"I" am not censoring thought. There are many subjects that "could" be taught in high school. If the school has the resources to teach religious studies, then I think it should. Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts. In an ideal world, everything would be taught in highschool. I would have loved it if geography was offered in my HS. In fact, I would have loved it if religious studies were offered a well. But my school didn't have the resources to do so. So...I took those courses in college. But I don't think that religious studies should be given any preference over other courses as an ellective, nor should it be a required course.

Again, please read my posts before responding. It seems to be a trend of yours that you tend to not do so. (Ex, the bear thread)

MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6:45:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:


I guess I should respond before this thread gets locked as well.

"I" am not censoring thought. There are many subjects that "could" be taught in high school. If the school has the resources to teach religious studies, then I think it should. Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts. In an ideal world, everything would be taught in highschool. I would have loved it if geography was offered in my HS. In fact, I would have loved it if religious studies were offered a well. But my school didn't have the resources to do so. So...I took those courses in college. But I don't think that religious studies should be given any preference over other courses as an ellective, nor should it be a required course.

Again, please read my posts before responding. It seems to be a trend of yours that you tend to not do so. (Ex, the bear thread)



Then we agree. Because I DO read your posts, and claiming I don't is just adding another false argument into the mix. The fact that YOUR school didn't have the resources doesn't mean that OTHER schools don't. Let the local school boards decide what they have the resources to teach or not to teach.

mercianknight
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:16:06 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,029
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
What a great debate (again), and everyone is still friends.

For me, as with others, Creationism can/should be taught in RI classes. coffee

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:28:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:


I guess I should respond before this thread gets locked as well.

"I" am not censoring thought. There are many subjects that "could" be taught in high school. If the school has the resources to teach religious studies, then I think it should. Sometimes I wonder if you even read my posts. In an ideal world, everything would be taught in highschool. I would have loved it if geography was offered in my HS. In fact, I would have loved it if religious studies were offered a well. But my school didn't have the resources to do so. So...I took those courses in college. But I don't think that religious studies should be given any preference over other courses as an ellective, nor should it be a required course.

Again, please read my posts before responding. It seems to be a trend of yours that you tend to not do so. (Ex, the bear thread)



Then we agree. Because I DO read your posts, and claiming I don't is just adding another false argument into the mix. The fact that YOUR school didn't have the resources doesn't mean that OTHER schools don't. Let the local school boards decide what they have the resources to teach or not to teach.


Well, maybe you're just not understanding them then? It really waters down the discussion when I have to go back and explain things in a simpler manner. Or...you're just grasping at straws in order to disagree with me on every possible point, regardless of whether we agree or not? In any case, when responding to my next post, feel free to contact me via PM and I'll explain things to you before you write your rebuttal so we can stay on the same page.

Thanks though, for capitalizing "your" and "other". I never would have understood if not for those emphatics. icon_smile
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:43:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:


Then we agree. Because I DO read your posts, and claiming I don't is just adding another false argument into the mix. The fact that YOUR school didn't have the resources doesn't mean that OTHER schools don't. Let the local school boards decide what they have the resources to teach or not to teach.


Well, maybe you're just not understanding them then? It really waters down the discussion when I have to go back and explain things in a simpler manner. Or...you're just grasping at straws in order to disagree with me on every possible point, regardless of whether we agree or not? In any case, when responding to my next post, feel free to contact me via PM and I'll explain things to you before you write your rebuttal so we can stay on the same page.

Thanks though, for capitalizing "your" and "other". I never would have understood if not for those emphatics. icon_smile


And going completely off topic to argue with my way of arguing doesn't "water down the discussion"? It's probably better for all if you stay on topic instead of trying to insult me. If you want to debate the topic, great. Insults carry no weight here, and get you nowhere.

Having posted that, let me add this: I wrote that we agree because basically, we do. You've said you think schools should teach creationism as long as they have the resources to do so. I agree. What's the problem?

LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:48:18 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Quote:
feel free to contact me via PM


This is good advice for everyone, when/if things get heated. Let's all try to keep it civil, even though these are heavier topics.
Rembacher
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:01:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
I remember learning the Greek and Roman mythology about how the world was created, (is it considered mythology in Greece and Rome?) but I never learned the christian version, or evolution for that matter, in school. I tend to side with the people who say teach the kids how to think rather than what to think, so I would say teach it all, and let them decide what makes sense to them.

As I said before, I believe in Creationism with micro-evolution, while I have trouble understanding how life just all of a sudden started via macro-evolution. I can't really define my beliefs beyond that, because I've never taken the time to develop, and define them further. It doesn't really matter to me how the world started, it doesn't change how I live my life. So I spend my time trying to answer questions that have an affect on my future.

The debate of creationism vs evolution is always going to be heated because like it or not, we are debating two issues at once. How life began, and whether there is a supernatural power, whatever you choose to call it. Believing in evolution does not necessarily mean you do not believe in a supernatural power, but believing in creationism definitely means you believe in one. Since you can't have creation without a creator.

Just as a side question for the scientists out there; I know that science now believes natural selection is not the only factor in evolution, so I'm curious: How much did the commonly accepted theory of common descent change when genome mapping was developed? Did some species' place in phylogenetic trees have to be adjusted?
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:31:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:


Then we agree. Because I DO read your posts, and claiming I don't is just adding another false argument into the mix. The fact that YOUR school didn't have the resources doesn't mean that OTHER schools don't. Let the local school boards decide what they have the resources to teach or not to teach.


Well, maybe you're just not understanding them then? It really waters down the discussion when I have to go back and explain things in a simpler manner. Or...you're just grasping at straws in order to disagree with me on every possible point, regardless of whether we agree or not? In any case, when responding to my next post, feel free to contact me via PM and I'll explain things to you before you write your rebuttal so we can stay on the same page.

Thanks though, for capitalizing "your" and "other". I never would have understood if not for those emphatics. icon_smile


And going completely off topic to argue with my way of arguing doesn't "water down the discussion"? It's probably better for all if you stay on topic instead of trying to insult me. If you want to debate the topic, great. Insults carry no weight here, and get you nowhere.

Having posted that, let me add this: I wrote that we agree because basically, we do. You've said you think schools should teach creationism as long as they have the resources to do so. I agree. What's the problem?


I actually never said that they should teach creationism. I think that a course in religious studies would be a fine adjuctive addition to high school curriculum, along with geology, psychology, geography or any other subject. But to give the idea of creationism (which is a product of the human imagination) equal standing with science, or even taught as an alternative to evolution is astoundingly ignorant. I'm actually not sure what your take on it is, since you've become increasingly vague and somewhat neutral with regard to these threads since your induction into the valued "mediator" role.

I was not arguing your way of arguing, but merely pointing out the consistently inaccurate responses that you've been presenting in the last few days. In hindsight, I should have not stated them publicly and will address future concerns to you privately to keep these threads running smoothly. It was in no way meant as an insult, but simply as a notification of your recent slip-ups. As one of the few level-headed members able to engage in intelligent debate, you disapoint me when you present arguments that don't fit with the previous arguments.

Again, I apologize for the previous "insults." Onward!
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:31:59 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
As I comprehended the original question: Should Creationism be taught in schools - the question itself, didn't address anything to me other than the legality of the issue.

It is a clear breach of the separation of church and state, which 33 of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence (in America) sought to provide America's fledgling government. Those 33 signers were also Free Masons and deists.

And before anyone wishes to argue with my assertion, you might wish to check out this incredibly lucid website: The History of the Separation of Church & State in America

If however, the OP was wanting to know about how this should be handled in the rest of the countries of the world, please...enlighten me. I just know, that pushing any religious beliefs in any public school (which are financed with public tax monies) in America, is a lawsuit waiting to be filed.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Jacknife
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:35:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
Jebru wrote:


As I said before, I believe in Creationism with micro-evolution, while I have trouble understanding how life just all of a sudden started via macro-evolution. I can't really define my beliefs beyond that, because I've never taken the time to develop, and define them further. It doesn't really matter to me how the world started, it doesn't change how I live my life. So I spend my time trying to answer questions that have an affect on my future.



Ok Jebru. let me first just say you can believe what you like. Doesn't affect me at all and i couldn't care less what you believe, but you are confusing two different things. Evolution has nothing to say on how life began. For evolution to occur it assumes that there is life already there reproducing.

What you are talking about is abiogenisis. That is the study on how life started and we haven't discovered how that occurred yet.

Now, your beliefs are fairly common. "I believe in evolution, but you need God to start it all off" is a very wide spread belief, many of my theist friends express it. The problem with it is it is a "God of the Gaps" argument.

Because we don't know how abiogenisis occurred, therefore God did it. However the argument only flies if when we discover how it is done God then becomes irrelevant.

Also the only difference between what you would call Micro and Macro Evolution is simply time scale.

Hope this helps
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6:53:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
WellMadeMale wrote:
As I comprehended the original question: Should Creationism be taught in schools - the question itself, didn't address anything to me other than the legality of the issue.

It is a clear breach of the separation of church and state, which 33 of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence (in America) sought to provide America's fledgling government. Those 33 signers were also Free Masons and deists.

And before anyone wishes to argue with my assertion, you might wish to check out this incredibly lucid website: The History of the Separation of Church & State in America

If however, the OP was wanting to know about how this should be handled in the rest of the countries of the world, please...enlighten me. I just know, that pushing any religious beliefs in any public school (which are financed with public tax monies) in America, is a lawsuit waiting to be filed.


Were they? Or did they simply conform to the ideals of the majority in the same way that politicians do today? Religion has always been used by those in power to manipulate the masses. Whether it be ancient Rome, or Napoleon, intelligent leaders have always used the ignorance of the common man to advance their own interests.


"If there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." - Thomas Jefferson

"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people." - James Madison

" The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." - John Adams

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

Might be a bit off topic though....

Not quite the direction I thought this thread would go, but interesting nonetheless. Why do these threads always end back at the damn constitution???

dontknow
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6:58:11 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
DamonX wrote:



There are some in the US that advocate the inclusion of creationism in high school science classes, in the same way that evolution is taught.

What do ya think?




This was part of original question legally based on The United States Constitution it is not possible to teach it in PUBLIC schools they are paid by the tax payer not privately funded. Ya know? And I wouldn't go throwing lines out like calling it The Damned Constitution it is very important to our country nuff said
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:07:10 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
DamonX wrote:
[quote=WellMadeMaleThose 33 signers were also Free Masons and deists.


Were they? Or did they simply conform to the ideals of the majority in the same way that politicians do today? Religion has always been used by those in power to manipulate the masses. Whether it be ancient Rome, or Napoleon, intelligent leaders have always used the ignorance of the common man to advance their own interests. dontknow [/quote]

Yes they were. I wouldn't shit you, Damon. You're my favorite turd. geek

My grandmother used to say that to me, affectionately, incidentally.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:28:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
bikebum1975 wrote:
DamonX wrote:



There are some in the US that advocate the inclusion of creationism in high school science classes, in the same way that evolution is taught.

What do ya think?




This was part of original question legally based on The United States Constitution it is not possible to teach it in PUBLIC schools they are paid by the tax payer not privately funded. Ya know? And I wouldn't go throwing lines out like calling it The Damned Constitution it is very important to our country nuff said


Really? Never would have guessed. confused5

nuff said. happy8
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:40:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
You are right though. I did make the mistake of using the letters U and S in my original post. I was using it as an example, since as far as I know they are the only the developed nation that is still trying to include creationism in school curriculum. The question was intended for all, but I used the US as an example.

I guess you got me on a technicality though...Feel free to discuss the constitution all you want.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.