NationStates Jolt Archive

Creation Science
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.


Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Tucker Island

Description: This is a proposal to establish the teaching of creation alongside evolution.

Throughout time evolution has been the only theory taught in school about how we got here. Well the religious community is tired of this.

The WA needs to understand that creation is also one way that the world began, and that the religious community will be very happy with creation taught alongside evolution. I'm not trying to get rid of evolution, I'm trying to allow creation to be taught in the classroom as well.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 110 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue May 27 2008

This is not a appropriate subject of international law. Individual nations are best equipped to judge what should be taught in their classrooms.

Then They can vote against it. I just think it would make more people happy.

No.

First of all this really isn't a proper format for a resolution. We in the WA don't need to understand a single thing thank you very much and I'd rather not have such homilies in our WA resolutions.

Now had you simply stated that all WA nations will teach Creation Science as a letigimate science I would probably object as well but at least it might be a half way decent resolution.

As it is I strongly object to the notion that my religious communities (and I have a number of them) or the religious communities of all the nations in the WA are "tired." You don't speak for them, and I don't want to hear them.

So you don't care for your religious community? Is that what you're saying?

And also I don't really know the proper format for a resolution.

Seeing that nearly every democratic nation incorporates the idea of the separation of Church and State into its constitution, and that while the theory of evolution possesses a plethora of scientific evidence in its favor, the myriad hypotheses of Intelligent Design, Creationism, etc. possesses no evidence supporting the hypothesis. Therefore, it is the Otagian Regency's opinion that this proposal impinges upon the basic rights of a democratic society by teaching fallacy as truth and presenting lies as equal alternatives to fact. Thus we call upon the nations of the World Assembly to turn their backs on the untruths and slander of Tucker Island and its fundamentalist world view.

There is he about the same amount of evidence for evolution as there is for Creationism.

Everyone, before replying please read my proposal clearly. I am not trying to eliminate evolution and replace it. I am simply trying to add a topic to school cirriculums.

And we want to let it happen as it happens.

Huh?

the government of the empire of urgench is horrified to see such a proposal being made at all. we respect the delegate from tucker islands personal beliefs and those of his nation.
however we do not wish to see the world assembly involve itself in promoting the beliefs of any one nation.
before our people realised the truth about the origins of life, that millions of years of evolution have produced the myriad forms of life we see around us, we believed that the world was born of a fish egg stuck in the throat of a giant called bialchi, would the respected delegate from tucker island wish for us to foist this antiquated and obviously absurd view of creation into his schools?
the government of the empire of urgench (and his divine majesty the emperor) have instructed their delegate to oppose this proposition as strongly as possible at all costs.


Nogai khan of tabagatai minister for foreign affairs of urgench

Remember what I said.

Everyone, before replying please read my proposal clearly. I am not trying to eliminate evolution and replace it. I am simply trying to add a topic to school cirriculums.

as we pointed out before we have read and understood your proposal,
and our government asks you again, would you like the w.a. to make your schools teach our stupid ancient myths along side your own?
and do you really think this is the business of the w.a.?

Sure ancient myths can go into our history classes.

This is as much an international issue as Right to Learn about Evolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873880&postcount=102) was back in the UN. And what I mean by that is, it wasn't an international issue back then, and it certainly isn't one now.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

One question...Huh????

One question...Huh????

In other words, why do you care what's being taught in schools outside your nation?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

So which of the hundreds of stories of creation does your population want to see in every classroom across the globe? Naturally, your own nation's views, but what else did you have in mind?

Nahrg, GU Delegate to the World Assembly

Any form of Intelligent Design

the government of the empire of urgench wishes to strongly point out the lack of reasoning in the view of the delegate of tucker island,
would your government discriminate against the teaching in schools of member states that the universe was stupidly designed by an idiot?
we would like to know what else you would have us teach in our schools alongside sensible subjects, perhaps you wish the w.a. to insist that we teach our children that they can breath under water at the same time as teaching them how to swim safely?


nogai, khan of tabagatai, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

Well, if the universe was created by an idiot. He made you in his image!

indeed if that is the case then so are you sir :p

respectfully yours e.t.c.

Oh so you agree that there is such a thing as intelligent design.

Why can't you people allow an alternative to evolution. I'm trying to give students options.

what the government of the empire of urgench believes is not in debate. nor should the religious beliefs of your country in this context. it is entirely wrong for the w.a. to be even thinking of instructing it's members what they should teach their children.

respectfully yours e.t.c.

The GOVERNMENTS shouldn't choose. The KIDS should!

perhaps that sort of false logic is common in your nation, and perhaps if there were a world childrens assembly that might make sense.
as it is neither is desirable or worth the effort so we respectfully suggest you put your clearly boundless energies at the disposal of some more urgent issue.


yours e.t.c.

FALSE LOGIC....try common sense!

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would not only vote against such a resolution as this, but would strongly encourage the Regional Delegate of Wysteria to vote against a resolution as this.

As of now, there is no scientifically viable alternative to evolution. Intelligent Design or Creationism is, by no means, scientific and, as such, has no place being taught in a science class - which is implied by the use of 'alongside'.

The appropriate classes for Intelligent Design and/or Creationism would be those such as Comparative Religions, Mythology studies, Ancient literature, or other subjects. But Intelligent Design c.q. Creation Science is simply not science.

Furthermore, (as was said earlier), the question arises just which creation myths should be taught along with evolution. Most - if not all - religions have a creation myth. Evolution is the creation myth for science, and as such, is the only appropriate one to be taught in a science class. Science has avenues and methods for correcting errors in that creation myth. Injecting religion into science when there is no need does a sever disservice to students.

Why can't you people allow an alternative to evolution. I'm trying to give students options.

in regard to this, the goverment of the empire of urgench does not care what you teach the children of your own nation, however silly it may be.
again IT IS NOT RIGHT TO ASK THE W.A. TO DIRECT IT'S MEMBERS TO TEACH OTHER MEMBER NATIONS RELIGIOUS VIEWS IN THEIR SCHOOLS

yours e.t.c.

There is he about the same amount of evidence for evolution as there is for Creationism.

Creation has only one meaning: The universe was created by a superior being. God, Allah, Zeus, ect.

Does anybody want to support my side of the arguement.

our government is tired of this fruitless debate, if you wish to debate evolution vs creation perhaps you would do better in another forum. this forum is to debate matters of importance to the entire membership of the w.a. not just a minority of god obsessed nations with whom it is impossible to have reasoned dicussion.


yours e.t.c.

I didn't ask for you to reply on this post, you did that yourself. But if you think you've lost this arguement, you can leave when you wish. I really want this to be passed, but I didn't know I'd have to talk to lunatics.

Does anybody want to support my side of the arguement.

A quick straw poll among the Tribes of Maniway revealed some interesting opinions. 23% of respondents each believe that they themselves created the universe, as none of them differentiates between the fact of the universe and the creation of the universe, neatly translated as "I am that I am." Presumably, each of these considers her or himself reasonably intelligent, and takes full responsibility for such obvious design flaws as nipples on males, the platypus, etc. They also send the homily to Tucker Island, "Thou Art God."

Another 18% were taken aback at the question, as "everyone knows" that Max Barry created the universe. While there was some debate as to the relative intelligence involved in the design, it was generally agreed that the addition of the gnomes to the project neatly resolved all outstanding issues. As for teaching this in some "science" class, the idea had this group laughing, nodding agreement, and spilling considerable quantities of beer upon one another.

None of the other opinions offered had more than 5% support, and thus our conclusion is that creationism by intelligent design is a popular theory, worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, Maniway would still have to vote against the adoption of your resolution, as, having no science classes, there would be no way to comply.

Keep up the good work!

Mbotu Maniwaliki
Designated Speaker for
The Nomadic Peoples of Maniway

Thank you maniway.

but I didn't know I'd have to talk to lunatics.

You must be new here. :D


Seriously, I agree with several others here that this topic should be a national issue, not an international one, and I will have to vote against it if it comes to the floor.

Well thank you for your opinion.

Everyone, before replying please read my proposal clearly. I am not trying to eliminate evolution and replace it. I am simply trying to add a topic to school cirriculums.

The proposal doesn't say at what level or if the material is optional.

For example, at Miervatia University students may major in theology, and naturally when they do so, they study about how Silvara shaped the land with her magic and protected people from the Orcs, Goblins, and Vampires that predated mankind. Oh, and they also learn about other people's religions too. ;)

What do you mean:confused:

What do you mean:confused:

No problem. I'll try to be a bit more direct. :)

Is the goal of your proposal to require nations offer courses on creation for various religions at the college level or grade school level?

Do these classes have to be in public schools or can private schools teach creation?

And which creation theory will be taught? There are many different religions.

Well, If it were passed it would be in every school. Yes it would be at college level. And actually it would be the teaching of intelligent design.

Well, If it were passed it would be in every school. Yes it would be at college level. And actually it would be the teaching of intelligent design.

The proposal doesn't make it clear that it creation would be: (1) taught in every school, and (2) that any one particular creation belief is to be taught.

I think you should modify your proposal to make it clear what level (or just every school) of private and public education that this should be addressed. I also am going to recommend that you consider that with the 10,000s of nations in NationStates that there will be many different creation beliefs. In many nations there can be many different beliefs within the same nation. So if you have a particular belief, perhaps Draconism, in mind, that you should single out that belief.

A better approach might be to simply prohibit public schools from discriminating against religious ideas.

Thank you very much for your opinion I am going to take what you've said into major consideration.

Thank you very much for your opinion I am going to take what you've said into major consideration.

You're welcome. :)

I'm interested in seeing what you come up with. Though as you can see from other comments, religion is one of the most difficult topics to attempt to deal with here. I tried for years to deal with alcohol, and was not really getting traction.

Your idea will be harder to generate interest. With that in mind, don't focus on how popular the proposal is, but on if your proposal can generate interesting discussions. If it does, then it worked. At least that is what I tell myself every time I bring the old beer proposal out again. ;)

I just made a new proposal entitled "Religious Discrimination"

School subjects vary by nation, so it should not be a law to teach any one subject. Thumbs down.

Signed,
President John Smith

Since I seem to have had the entire Consecrates on the phone in the last hour, I thought a run-down on the state of Gobbannaen religious opinion on this proposal.

The Gobbannaen Catholic Church sat firmly on the fence. They wanted to know whether more about what "creationism" was intended to mean, whether it was to be taught as part of the science curriculum or as part of religious education, and generally wouldn't give an opinion without a whole lot more information than the proposal had.

The Church of Gobbannium representative, by contrast, gave it a resounding "Hell, no!" if not exactly in those words. That might have something to do with the Reverend Professor Iaian of the Horn being a particle physicist as well as a theologian.

The Archdruid's spokesman was outraged at -- and I quote -- "Christian pseudo-scientific clap-trap" being given a privileged place in WA law, and basically wanted druidical pseudo-scientific clap-trap there instead. He wasn't much mollified by the news that the author meant design by some kind of supreme being, since Strict Druidism doesn't have one.

The Neo-druidical representative was too stoned to make any sense.

Given that a lot of the population is atheist or agnostic, I don't think you can count on much support from this direction.