NationStates Jolt Archive

can someone have us a charter to vote on this? if there already was one, then can the repeal it?
evolution, or creation? while this is conflicting church and state, teaching evolution only satisfys the beliefs of a Godless minority.

UN Resolution #101 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873880&postcount=102), the Right To Learn About Evolution, takes a strong line in calling for UN member nations to teach about evolution. It is not however officially obligated. We question how you know that the minority of people are 'godless', although accept that this is the case in Gruenberg. You can thus refuse to teach evolution, but can expect some international pressure to do otherwise. We thus doubt you would see a need for further legislation, but if you object to the tone of #101, that's what you'll have to hit.

can someone have us a charter to vote on this? Vote on what exactly... Teaching the origin of humans in public schools? What kind of origin? This sounds like forcing the teaching of one's religious beliefs in public schools. If that is the case, then I am against any such resolution.
if there already was one, then can the repeal it? Again, one what? There is already a resolution in place, the "Right to Learn about Evolution" Resolution #101, which prevents nations from punishing those who teach or learn evolution. I suggest you read it.
evolution, or creation? That's not even a sentence, I don't know what to say.
while this is conflicting church and state, teaching evolution only satisfys the beliefs of a Godless minority. Now I see the point you are trying to get across. I suggest you head over to the General section and look into a few topics there if you are looking for a debate. Otherwise, what you have written here makes no sense. Again, look into Resolution #101 before you say it is forcing anyone to believe in anything.

can someone have us a charter to vote on this? if there already was one, then can the repeal it?
evolution, or creation? while this is conflicting church and state, teaching evolution only satisfys the beliefs of a Godless minority.

OOC: In most developed countries where education standards are high, Darwinism of one sort or another seems to easily be the dominant view. It appears to me that of these countries, only in America is Darwinism anything approaching a minority view (I think polls put it at something like 45% - but then polls show Americans statistically to have relatively less knowledge of science in general). So your point about it satisfying only a minority is bunk if you're assuming that NS is similar to reality on this - but in fact I'd bet that Darwinism is probably more widely accepted in NSUN nations than in reality - as Gruenberg pointed out, we've managed to pass a resolution endorsing it.

IC: We dispute that Darwinism must necessarily be an athiestic viewpoint. I personally am not athiest, but agnostic, and am thoroughly convinced by the case for it - as are a very large number of people whether theist, atheist, deist, agnostic or whatever.

Children have a right to be taught the scientific theories which are thought to best explain the phenomena around us. The simple fact is, regardless of whether or not ideas like Creationism or Intelligent Design are correct or not, they cannot qualify as scientific theories because they are not falsifiable. Thus welcome debates on any creation stories in religious education lessons, but such ideas do not belong in the science classroom.

Having said that, we would support a repeal of the current resolution because we do not feel it is the place of politicians to wade in on science OR religion and try to make pronouncements on which theories are and are not true - they are usually not specialists in the relevant fields and so are unqualified to do so, and it represents a dangerous precedent. We would probably support a replacement resolution expressing support simply for teaching children what constitutes science and teaching them the currently accepted scientific theories in science lessons.

Finally, it's interesting that you see it as such a binary choice - the one creditable scientific theory, versus religious Creationism (presumably you're referring to the Judeo-Christian Genesis version). What exactly makes the Biblical explanation any more valid and worthy of consideration than the creation stories of any other culture? Or indeed, than the theory that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose by the Great Green Arkleseizure and will be destroyed by The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief? If we are to give serious consideration to Genesis, every other possible story deserves a fair hearing too, as there is no more evidence for the former than any other.

IC: Surely the UN can not now have reign over what is taught in schools? This decison should be left to the each nations Education System Authority to decide suitable teaching practices.

I would agree on an appeal to Resolution 101.

The UN should have no resolutions on factors of education in different nations

Republic of Goobertopia Ambassador

OOC:
1) Agnostic
2) Highly religious friend of mine who supports Evolution theory insofar as it is happening, though feels that intelligent design may have happened as an origin point left this question out in the open for people to think about a few years ago:
"Which is greater: a being that created something that can think, or a being that created something that can think AND evolve?"
3) I was reading an article the other day that critiqued Intelligent Design. It made several points about it that are important:
A) The major point of reference for most people arguing intelligent design isn't about intelligent design in itself, but rather the failings of Evolution. This has a failing insofar as it uses the assumption "if its not Evolution, it MUST be Intelligent Design". Evolution and the scientific method both come under the principle of "This is our best guess, but it is not the only one. If some other guess comes along, we may prove it to be an even better one than this". As such, Intelligent Design pretty much acts as....well.....completely counter to the scientific method
B) Intelligent design has proven no method to actually be proven. This would, of course, be next to impossible to prove. However, just because some book written by man (whether originally from the mouth of God or not) says that we were created doesn't mean that this is the right answer. It too is a guess. But its evidence isn't in something we can find, it's in a book.
C) The promoters of Intelligent Design are just plain being stupid. When you try and teach people stuff that can be Scientifically disproven (such as "Dinosaurs and Man once roamed the Earth together in harmony" and "All dinosaurs were plant eaters"), you're just asking for your theory to be disregarded entirely. Darwinism has evolved to find answers and incorporate them for the evidence that has countered it. Intelligent design can't even get it right at dealing with evidence that already exists. If the Earth is 30,000 years old, that means God burried them, and they never did live here.

As Waterana noted, Intelligent Design as a mainstream in an Industrialized soceity is only existent in the US. It's really rather odd how that works.

responses
forgottenland:
re:A)we cant teach this other because as you said, we dont have an other. thats 2 minutes of clase time to our kids to teach to them something that isnt there. and by something i mean the theory.
re:B)you said everything.
re:C)ok, but if the BIBLE s true, then your science can be RELIGIOUSLY disproven.
Gruenberg:
i hired a Cathlic as my chief religious advisor guy, my people have a God.and ill change the lesson plan to my pleaseing unless the people want otherwise.
Myopia:
i AM American, and "darwinism" will not be accepted in The HOLY Republic Of Longhorn Country, no matter what other UN people say. the teaching of Creation does "belong in the science classroom" if people and goverment alike believe.
longhorn country is America based. Jews and Christians make up a HUGE majority in the church going population.(again, Cathlic is head religious guy, colts illigal, and so is talking about someones religious beliefs in a public manner. even if it does violate freedom of speech, you have a right to believe what you want without ridicule)
and have you ever heard of "Kleenex"?
fishguy:
shut up smart ***

IC: Surely the UN can not now have reign over what is taught in schools? This decison should be left to the each nations Education System Authority to decide suitable teaching practices.

I would agree on an appeal to Resolution 101.

The UN should have no resolutions on factors of education in different nations

Republic of Goobertopia Ambassador
Unfortunatly the UN can and has done so twice, first with Right to Learn about Evolution (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=100) and then with The Sex Education Act. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=117)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

responses
forgottenland:
re:A)we cant teach this other because as you said, we dont have an other. thats 2 minutes of clase time to our kids to teach to them something that isnt there. and by something i mean the theory.

We do teach them that. This is the entire basis of the scientific theory. We teach our children "this is what we think." We teach them about the scientific method and why everything these days is a "theory", not a law. We call them theories because they are theories.

re:B)you said everything.
re:C)ok, but if the BIBLE s true, then your science can be RELIGIOUSLY disproven.

:headbang:
If (Bible == TRUE)
Then Science = FALSE

Logic error: Science is not complete opposite of bible
Run-time error: Bible can't be proven as true through any known method
Logic error: Most people who don't believe in the bible will need a proof through the scientific method to prove that the bible is right.....

Seriously, you entirely missed my point in #2. Evolution is not the exact oppositive of Science. There is a popular belief held by many followers of many faiths (including all the major ones in industrialized societies) that God created a scientifically perfect world, one that we could analyze to great depths and never quite have the answer - even though it truly was there. For most scientists, it actually improves their belief in God's greatness as this means that if he did exist, he made a truly scientific world.

Regardless, I want you to tell me a few things:
1) WHERE in the bible does it state that humans roamed the planet with the dinosaurs.
2) WHERE in the bible does it state that all dinosaurs are plant eaters
3) WHERE in the bible does it state anything that would contradict all sorts of theories and laws (before the rules stating that no theories could be called laws) - for example, law of gravity, theory of relativity, law of thermodynamics, atomic chemistry, paleontology, just about every scientific theory and theory that exists today (and most that have ever existed) that have been scientifically proven to work in all cases that we can examine thoroughly (pretty much Big Bang, Evolution-to-human (not Evolution itself), and prety much anything about how the Universe, Galaxy and Solar System is formed would be contradicted by Creationism and I can't think of anything else that would be contradicted beyond that).

It is absurd to claim that the bible disproves science when it never takes a look at science and never contradicts most of the core beliefs in science.

Gruenberg:
i hired a Cathlic as my chief religious advisor guy, my people have a God.and ill change the lesson plan to my pleaseing unless the people want otherwise.

Congrats, deal with it in your own country. The majority of the UN seems to work on a secular government.

Myopia:
i AM American, and "darwinism" will not be accepted in The HOLY Republic Of Longhorn Country, no matter what other UN people say. the teaching of Creation does "belong in the science classroom" if people and goverment alike believe.

You are teaching a non-scientically based argument in a science classroom that counters what most SCIENTISTS believe. Let's teach them how to be couch potatoes in Phys Ed while we're at it, or that chips, pop and candy are good in Health class.

longhorn country is America based. Jews and Christians make up a HUGE majority in the church going population.(again, Cathlic is head religious guy, colts illigal, and so is talking about someones religious beliefs in a public manner. even if it does violate freedom of speech, you have a right to believe what you want without ridicule)
and have you ever heard of "Kleenex"?

You missed the point of the analogy. The biggest flaw with Creationism as a school lesson is it is YOUR form of creationism - which is an even bigger problem for my Point A above: how can you claim that Creationism is the answer for Evolution when you don't even have a clue which FORM of creationism is correct?

fishguy:
shut up smart ***

If you speak eloquently, in full sentences and with full arguments and reasoning; if you show that you have actually put time and thought into our arguments rather than auto-refuting them; if you prove that you have read through the passed resolutions and understand specifically resolution 101 which pertains directly to your discussion and decide if, how and why it contradicts your beliefs; if you actually respond to all arguments made instead of just leaving them there (an argument left unrefutted is still there - and if you ignore it in further posts and end up contradicting the very argument without refuting it, you end up even farther behind in the argument), you will be respected and smartass comments like Fishguy's will be less likely to appear. Take it to heart in your next round of discussion. I respect a debater who shows respect to his opponents. Typing fragments with no capitalization or anything doesn't earn you respect.

Also, his points are accurate, I remember reading through your first post and not fully understanding you until the last line, so don't disregard his comments just because he's poking fun at you.

forgottenlands, that shows me that you are truly the MASTER DEBATER in these forums. heck, you quoted on me things that werent even addressed to you. but i think i sent the wrong message about my beliefs. science is there, and theres no escaping it. I've always been taught the definition is "to gain better understanding about the world around you" or something like it.


but on top of everything i think there is a HUGE missending of a message. when i dont have a clue???????. forgottenlands i dont think christianity is right, i know it is. anything otherwise is not faith.
the movie "Rudy" said it best when that guy said
"i am sure of 2 things in this world. one, there is a God. two, I am not Him." dang movie almost made me cry. :(

i AM American, and "darwinism" will not be accepted in The HOLY Republic Of Longhorn Country, no matter what other UN people say. the teaching of Creation does "belong in the science classroom" if people and goverment alike believe.

Unfortunately for you, the UN thinks otherwise, and because resolutions are absolute and completely binding, you are unable to penalise those who attempt to teach Darwinism in schools.

And, quite simply, your statement is as false as a claim that a discussion of french reflexive verbs belongs in a physical geography course. Creationism isn't science, not because of any judgement I've made about its truth (it could be correct, but I don't view that as likely), but simply because the nature of the idea means that it is not one which science is qualified to consider. Scientific theories are those which, among other things, are falsifiable - that is, it is possible to propose an experiment or observation, which, if it produced a certain result, would disprove the theory. Since creationism and intelligent design are not falsifiable and thus science is not equipped to consider them, they are matters for discussion in theology or philosophy.

Essentially, science is a really great way to consider certain types of ideas. But it is a limited system in that there are types of ideas which cannot really be dealt with satisfactorily by science - and it would therefore be deceitful to imply by teaching them in science classes that ideas such as Creationism have the backing of scientific consideration, when in fact science isn't even able to legitimately consider them.

teaching evolution only satisfys the beliefs of a Godless minority.

Longhorn country, many people who belong to a religion or believe in god have absolutly no problem with evolution, i don't see where you can find a contradiction between god and evolution.

Many people think for example that the book of "genesis" is a metaphor of evolution as according to this book god didn't create everything in the same time. In the genesis there are steps of creation, and these steps are pretty logical and are pretty similar to the important stages of evolution so far.

Furthermore many people think that evolution can be god's plan for humanity.



-------
On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth. And God saw how good it was.
On the second day, God created light. And God saw how good light was.
On the third day, God created moon, stars and night. And God saw how good night was.
On the fourth day, God created sound. And God saw how good sound was.
On the fifth day, God created music. And God saw how good music was.
On the sixth day, God created house-music. And God saw how good house-music was.
The seventh day, God went clubbing.

forgottenlands, that shows me that you are truly the MASTER DEBATER in these forums. heck, you quoted on me things that werent even addressed to you.

Thank you

but i think i sent the wrong message about my beliefs. science is there, and theres no escaping it. I've always been taught the definition is "to gain better understanding about the world around you" or something like it.

That is an incomplete definition, but it is fundamentally correct. The major aspect that is missing is "through observation and logical analysis". We take things we observe, and we analyze them from a logical point of view. Using our analysis, we come up with theories, and test them - again using observation. Then, by analyzing those observations, and considering assumptions and possible external effects upon our data, we analyze our data to see if our theory is proven by this experiment. However, we never leave the realm of claiming it to be a guess. We don't KNOW the final answer. Perhaps 100 years from now, someone will prove all of Newton's theories wrong. We keep guessing and progressing.

This is the scientific theory that we are stating is not in creationism, and why we object to the idea that it is any more valid than Darwinism. Creationism is an assumption without analysis. All observations and analysis are in the same book - both irrefutable and unsupportable due to the very nature of history.

but on top of everything i think there is a HUGE missending of a message. when i dont have a clue???????. forgottenlands i dont think christianity is right, i know it is. anything otherwise is not faith.
the movie "Rudy" said it best when that guy said
"i am sure of 2 things in this world. one, there is a God. two, I am not Him." dang movie almost made me cry. :(

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Belief is an important word. Belief doesn't equate to knowledge. Knowledge is cold hard facts. When people tell you they know something they have faith in is true, they are merely stating that they know they believe it to be true. This is an important distinction. You don't know that christianity is true. You believe it to be true, but you don't know it.

However, my argument wasn't about that. I know you believe in the christian version (well....Jewish), but how can you claim that THIS idea is any more valid than a creationist belief held by Hinduism (is there a Hinduism creationist theory?) As I said before, the biggest flaw in the entire ID thing is that they seem to claim "oh, evolution is wrong (even though we have failed to scientifically prove the flaws as a way to collapse the leading theory) so ID MUST be right". Yet if we must so claim that the traditional filler for holes in scientific theory should be used as the source of theory in the failing of Evolution, which of these religions do we believe? Some don't even believe in ID, while others believe in it, but not the "7 days" pattern made by Christianity. And those that don't dispute the 7 days may not even agree with the exact order that everything was made (did Earth come before the Universe, or did the Universe beat the Earth?)

Yeah

On the first day, God created the heavens and the earth. And God saw how good it was.
On the second day, God created light. And God saw how good light was.
On the third day, God created moon, stars and night. And God saw how good night was.
On the fourth day, God created sound. And God saw how good sound was.
On the fifth day, God created music. And God saw how good music was.
On the sixth day, God created house-music. And God saw how good house-music was.
The seventh day, God went clubbing.

That is priceless :p

In the hopes of returning this discussion to where I think it should be, I feel that what is taught in my nation's "public schools" is answerable only to "the public"--which, of course, does not include citizens from nations other than my own, as they are not representative of my public school system and do not have any stake in it. I think there might be place for UN legislation to encourage accountability of public school curricula to the public, but I am wholeheartedly opposed to micromanagement of the UN of an individual nation's curriculum.

OoC: Of course, there is also the problem that in the civilised world (i.e. the UK), a public school is a private school