NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a website that explains mostly the stuff I mean. I didn't feel like typing it all over in my own words, because I am an incredibly lazy person with no free time.

http://www.contenderministries.org/humanism/humanismreligion.php

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Even the wrong ones :wink:

Well I doubt you can call it secular humanism.

Public schools are goverment insitutions and as such fall under the Relgious neutrality clause of the Consititution.

But let us look at the comments:

"Godless political forces in the United States fight tirelessly to rid the public school system"

The school system was cleanned up of actions such as the 10 Commandments on walls, prayer time during class, etc.

It could be said the Christian forces are tireless trying to force Christian dogma into the school system.

"Darwinian evolution is now taught to the exclusion of even the scientific support for creationism."

Only Christans accept Creationism. The statement is misleading.

"School administrators and teachers commonly violate the constitutional rights of Christian students (such as a private prayer, Bible reading, or organizing Bible clubs) either because they are afraid to be sued by the litigious unredeemed, or because they personally want to squelch Christian expression in schools."

Private time is not the problem. Using school resources is the problem.

"Christianity is kept out of the schools due to a faulty understanding of the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” The separationists claim that any religion taught or tolerated within the school (except for historic instruction) constitutes an intolerable government endorsement of religion."

Again public schools are funded by the state so allowing christianity to be taught is an endorsement. Christians complain about it but when offered a deal of a relgions class that talks about other religions as well! They don't like that.

"They keep teachers from teaching anything about creationism – or even pointing out the problems with evolution – for the same misguided reason: no government endorsement of religion or religious doctrine."

Whoah we jumped tracks. Now we are talking about the science classroom?

"As creationism is a belief held by Christians, Jews, and other religions, it must not be allowed to be taught or tolerated within public schools."

Misleading. The other Religions are bitching about this. Only the Christians and it is the Christian view that they are fighting to have taught.

"But there is a double standard now. By doing what they have done, they have created a public school system that actually teaches the doctrines of one religion, to the exclusion of all others. This indeed is a violation of the First Amendment. One single religion is preached in public schools, and no other religion may compete with it within those walls. I refer to the religion of humanism.

Some of you are saying, “Now wait a minute. Humanism isn’t a religion!”

Wait a minute. Humanism isn't the agenda of the school system.

[SNIP the long paragraph about the implied secret agenda by the founder of humanism to take over the public school system]

[SNIP the long paragraph about suggesting that humansim is a religion since like buddism does not belive in an all powerful god]

"Yet in our public schools, the doctrines and beliefs of humanism are taught to the exclusion of any other belief."

As one who attended several public schools(my family moved around a great deal) I don't recall any classes on secular humanism. mmmmmm I love conspiracy theories!

"Now that we have established, both in the minds of humanists and in our federal courts, that humanism IS a religion, we find that the public schools are violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment by favoring the doctrines of humanism over other religious doctrines. A prime example is in the presentation of the doctrine of evolution while excluding curriculum that presents even merely the scientific evidence for divine creation.
"

Sorry but Creationism is not taught as it lacks the evidence to suggest it happens. The process of evolution is argued all the time but it is the better explanation for why things are.....

"Why then, are public schools able to get away with this obvious violation of the constitution? I can think of at least two major reasons. The first reason has to do with activist federal judges that believe in reinterpreting the constitution to suit their own humanist ideologies."

Oh here we go. Activist Judges? Hmmmm I wonder if he would say that about the clown of Alabama with the 10 commandments statue?

"Our nation needs federal judges that will rightly apply the constitution, as intended by its framers, when humanists and atheists illegally force policy in the public education system. Our president nominates federal judges, and our senate confirms them. We must elect to office those candidates we feel will put judges on the bench who understand the correct application of the constitution."

Translation: We want Christianity taught in the school system so we need to put Christians in the court system so we may force the change.

"The second reason is that humanists have worked their way into the positions of power of our education system. The NEA and the Department of Education are populated with humanists. Humanists also dominate state and local boards of education. This is not simply because of the motivation of humanists; it also indicates that Christians are not running for positions on school boards and other education policy bodies. If every Bible-believing church body had one or two qualified persons run for local and state education boards, we could soon stem the tide of humanist domination. During many elections, the school board races are often given little attention. Yet we as Christians must be aware of who we are electing to set policy in the education of our children. The stakes are too high. If you are still skeptical, let me repeat Charles Francis Potter’s astute observation, “Education is the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

Why is it when I read this I hear "I hold in my hand the names of 57 card-carrying Communists or I mean humanists"

These clowns probably want to startup HUAC again.

lol well it is a website made by christians. and yes, we can be most biased and annoying at times. i can't stand most of us. ok. the point i was trying to make was that if they were going to teach us theories (evolution, big bang), they should also include the creationist theory. Evolution and big bang are Secular Humanist theories. Secular Humanism was declared a religion by the Supreme Court. So evolution and other theories should not be taught as fact in schools. They aren't in all schools, but in a lot they are. If they are going to present these theories, they should be presented as theories, not as fact, and they should include other theories as well.

Granted, the creationist theory is not a science based theory. But it should still be recognized.

yeah isnt it a crying shame that evangelical ministers cant use the public schools to spread their ministries

Granted, the creationist theory is not a science based theory. But it should still be recognized.

not in science class, social studies unit on comparative religion maybe.

Thank you Black Forest. That post was amazing. I commend you for the intelligent comments that express my feelings well. You should really read some of the other stuff that they have on that website.

And one question. Why do some people put creationism on the same level as evolution, when evolution is science and there is no scientific evidence for creationism, or ID, the name they use to try to railroad bills through congress.

Darwinian evolution is now taught to the exclusion of even the scientific support for creationism.

I stopped reading after this sentence. I think I speak for many when I ask:

WHAT scientific support for creationism?

people like this minister think that if only they could religion into the public schools everythign would be just great

they imagine that THEIR version of religion is what is going to be taught. they never think about things like

history class teaching the pre-columbian american history believed by the mormons

the creationism of the hindus

teaching us to revere the japanese emperors as the shintos do

european history from the wiccan perspective

meteorology as the romans or ancient norse believed

children being led in prayers to allah straight out of the koran

how long would it take this guys head to explode if he were forced to be exposed to the variety of religious beliefs in a typical new york city class room?

he would SCREAM if his kids were in a classroom where all religions were taught as equal.

how long would it take this guys head to explode if he were forced to be exposed to the variety of religious beliefs in a typical new york city class room?

I think you are right and I would love to see that.

Darwinian evolution is now taught to the exclusion of even the scientific support for creationism.

I stopped reading after this sentence. I think I speak for many when I ask:

WHAT scientific support for creationism?

You do. If there is scientific support (dont give the crap about lacking transition fossils, etc). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact remains that this nation once had such lovely christian beliefs as slavery, anti-semitism, eugenics, and other "Christian" ethics. Christians have no moral authority or anything of that nature to say their religion should be taught in schools.

Im certainly glad the Scopes trial finally ended their nonsense and people saw reason. :roll:

We are not a tyranny of the majority. The majority of Americans can be Christian, but they have no right to dictate to everyone else what is taught. Secularism is the only fair shake, as it is not based on "faith".

lol well it is a website made by christians. and yes, we can be most biased and annoying at times. i can't stand most of us. ok. the point i was trying to make was that if they were going to teach us theories (evolution, big bang), they should also include the creationist theory. Evolution and big bang are Secular Humanist theories. Secular Humanism was declared a religion by the Supreme Court. So evolution and other theories should not be taught as fact in schools. They aren't in all schools, but in a lot they are. If they are going to present these theories, they should be presented as theories, not as fact, and they should include other theories as well.

Granted, the creationist theory is not a science based theory. But it should still be recognized.

You have done a good job here of pointing out one major problem with the arguement you are trying to make, even if you don't realize it. The big bang is not a secular theory. It is a Christian theory, originally proposed by a Catholic Priest. Yet it is still taught in public schools. Why? Because there is enough evidence supporting it to validate doing so. There is simply not enough evidence to support Creationism as a viable alternative to evoution.

The fact remains that this nation once had such lovely christian beliefs as slavery, anti-semitism, eugenics, and other "Christian" ethics.

Whow, let's be fair, shall we? It was from science, particularly Darwinism, that eugenics was born. Francis Galton (Charles Darwin's cousin) was one of the most outspoken proponents of the practice, and Darwin himself often praised the ideology. The fact is, we give Darwin far too much credit. His theory of natural selection does not extend nearly as far as he thought it did, and he really misunderstood how it works. Without the later rediscovery of Mendel's work and the subsequent wealth of research into genetics, Darwin's theory would have little validity.

lol well it is a website made by christians. and yes, we can be most biased and annoying at times. i can't stand most of us. ok. the point i was trying to make was that if they were going to teach us theories (evolution, big bang), they should also include the creationist theory. Evolution and big bang are Secular Humanist theories. Secular Humanism was declared a religion by the Supreme Court. So evolution and other theories should not be taught as fact in schools. They aren't in all schools, but in a lot they are. If they are going to present these theories, they should be presented as theories, not as fact, and they should include other theories as well.

Its not a theory. If its not scientific it cant be classed as such.

And darwins Theory was irrelivant. I can see how one those times would think it works and to a point it can, but generally its more a question or nurture rather than nature.

Its not about Darwin Vs. God. Its about Science Vs. Religion. Evolutionary theory is just that. A theory. It is always being refined as is all science. When the science is done. Science is over and we all get really bored.

Evolution and big bang are Secular Humanist theories.Evolution and big bang are now scientific theories, recognized by scientists of all religious faiths and those with no religious faith. BTW, both were proposed by Christians. Most if not all the scientists who support creationism are part of various biblical literalist sects of Christianity and those involved in the various creationist "research" organizations have signed agreements that essentially require them to ignore evidence that does not support biblical creation. To an honest scientist, such an agreement is a statement that you are willing to lie and provide faulty even, fraudulent research.

If they are going to present these theories, they should be presented as theories, not as fact,[\quote]
You are using the common definition of theory, not the scientific definition, in scientific terms, you're thinking of a hypothesis. A hypothesis is often little more than a guess (though often a very educated guess) which is then tested, the result of the test will often be data to reinforce or refute a theory.

A scientific theory is an explanation of observations and evidence, the data (which are facts.) For a theory to be accepted it must be supported by all the available data. If there is data which doesn't support the theory, scientists investigate to determine why, usually the theory is improved, occasionally it is scrapped altogether.

[quote]and they should include other theories as well.
So, you don't mind if the Hindu creation theory is taught, the Buddhist one, the aboriginal American ones, African, Australian aboriginal, Roman, Shinto, Celtic, Norse, Greek and the many other ones?

Granted, the creationist theory is not a science based theory. But it should still be recognized.
It can be recognized as a religious myth, perfectly suitable in a comparative religions class with all the other myths. It has no place in a science class without a rigorous backing which as yet it doesn't have.

Once again, evolution is a scientific theory, not a secular humanist not atheist (they're not the same thing) theory. It is accepted as a valid theory by Christians, Humanists, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and many or other faiths and those of no faith.

I think that all of the different theories available should be taught. It's not fair to just lock in on one, even if yes, some may have more evidence than others. How are we supposed to make educated decisions unless we know as many of the different possibilities there are? Now, for me, I personally never saw a conflict between the theories of evolution and creation, and the Christian account. For me, one is the mechanism used to do it--the Christian account explains WHY it was done and what its purpose is.

What I DO think a teacher should understand is, they may well have students who disagree with a particular explanation, and it would NOT be their place to approach that student and tell them that their beliefs are worthless, neither in public NOR in private. To do so would be to take over a role that belongs to that child's parent (most particularly at younger ages) and to the child him/herself (most particularly at older ages).

Sometimes it does seem to me that there has been a backlash on Christianity, that they are indeed treated much more harshly than other religions. I suppose I can understand where it's coming from. I mean, we have all screwed up. Some have screwed up pretty flagrantly. I am a Christian myself--but I will not hide from those mistakes. They are there and must be dealt with. As human beings, we are indeed accountable. There's no excuse for bigotry or for lashing out senselessly, and when we find it in ourselves, we've got to deal with it; there's no way around that.

Still, as often happens with society, it seems like it's going a bit too far in the other direction now. Some have indeed targeted Christians above any other religion, as a sort of backlash for prior injustices...which, if you ask me, is no way to solve the original problems. Reverse discrimination is not the solution. You cited the example of Christian student organizations not being allowed in some schools. I have heard of cases where there definitely is a double-standard, where Christians are not allowed to display their symbols or to meet on school property--yet other religions and/or philosophies DO receive that privilege. To those schools I would say, either you allow everyone (Christians included) or you exclude EVERYBODY from discussing/displaying beliefs, Christians, atheists, and everybody else included. It's an all-or-nothing question as far as I'm concerned. Any possible in-betweens are double-standards of one sort or another.

Of course, there's another option for children in these systems, although it's not one every child's parents CAN realistically pursue: private or home schooling. You might think it would be easy to say that perhaps all Christians (or atheists or whatever) should take this option. But not all CAN. Perhaps both parents have to work, or a child lives in a single-parent home where home schooling would be an impossible commitment. Or perhaps they can't afford private school. On these grounds, therefore, I say public school must indeed afford equal treatment to everyone, Christians included.

Darwinian evolution is now taught to the exclusion of even the scientific support for creationism.

I stopped reading after this sentence. I think I speak for many when I ask:

WHAT scientific support for creationism?

You do. If there is scientific support (dont give the crap about lacking transition fossils, etc). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact remains that this nation once had such lovely christian beliefs as slavery, anti-semitism, eugenics, and other "Christian" ethics. Christians have no moral authority or anything of that nature to say their religion should be taught in schools.

Slavery is not a Christian value. The Bible does have rules on how to behave if you are a slave and how to behave if you own a slave, but in no way encourages or condones the practice of slavery. Anti-semitism is not a Christian value. Don't tell me that Hitler was a Christian or any garbage like that, it's just plain and simple, there's nothing to back up saying that anti-semitism is taught in the Bible. JESUS WAS A JEW. And where in the Bible does it say to breed selectively to improve the human race?

Scientific support for creationism from a site WHOSE GOAL IS TO CREATE A FAIR, NON-RELIGIOUS MODEL OF BOTH CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM'S SCIENTIFIC BACKUP SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO BE TAUGHT TOGETHER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm

Finally, there was a fair point made about creationism not being the only alternative to evolutionism, and that other religions would have to be explored. I agree on that point that it is unfair to put a monopoly on religious study like that. However, a book I am reading took an interesting approach to this problem. The author suggested that schools should, and in fact must if so desired by the community, set aside time each week for religious studies which could be attained by each individual student at local religious establishments and could therefore have time to devote to enhance their spiritual knowledge in the religion of their choice. This could of course, be monitered with attendence records just like any other class, and those who choose not to participate in any religious studies could be given a study hall or alternative class during that period.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I like that quote. It can be used on either side of this argument. :D

Just on a side note, somebody mentioned that the problem was using school resources for religious purposes. In fact, there is nothing wrong with that and it is, in fact, illegal to refuse a student-led organization the same rights and benefits of any other club or group based on a religious theme. So long as the students follow the same criteria of obtaining resources as all the other groups, and any employee of the school is made to teach, you can't stop groups from forming just because they pray and read the Bible (or other religious text).

You dont need to teach it in schools, since its not a theory. Its on the first page of the bible. Thats not hard to find.

Public schools are goverment insitutions and as such fall under the Relgious neutrality clause of the Consititution.

This is so true.

It's bad enough parents "force" their kids into religion before they even have a concept of who/what God is in their lives and in the world; we need to keep schools from doing the same, only until children are old enough to understand the concept of accepting/believing in something means.

First of all, I wanna say how COOL it would be to teach all religious creationism myths.

"Hey little Johnny, today we learn how you're made up of Godly Saliva!"

(bonus points to whoever guess the origin of that one)


Secondly, prayer is allowed in school. You're allowed to pray before eating lunch, though some students might mock you. You're allowed to have a "GO CHRISTIANS!" or "GO HINDUS!" club at your school. What ISN'T allowed is for teachers to lead class in prayer.

And honestly, why do people get all pissy about evolution being taught in school? If the kid believes it, either A) he's thinking for himself OMGWTF!!1!11!one!! or B) you're doing a really crappy job of teaching him/her religion.

Oh, and if "humanist" is a religion, where're all the places of worship? I'd love to go into one and learn how a lack of dieties used evolution to create the world. And it must be very interesting, since that's apparently the only the the ENTIRE "RELIGION" is based around.

"Hey little Johnny, today we learn how you're made up of Godly Saliva!"

(bonus points to whoever guess the origin of that one)

Hopi, if I remember correctly.

I have no clue what Hopi Indian beliefs are ^_^;;;

EDIT: Ouch, I made a mistake. Godly SWEAT is what I meant. Sorry!

I have no clue what Hopi Indian beliefs are ^_^;;;

One googling later:

"Taiowa the Creator made the world four times, destroying the first by fire, the second by ice, and the third by water. Life was created by the Spider Woman, using dirt, saliva, and the powers given her by Taiowa."

Edit: here is a better description:

http://www.mythome.org/creatamd.html

"Spider Woman is also known to other pueblo people as the creator. She was given control over the newly-created Earth. The Spider Woman took some of the earth and mixed it with saliva and created two beings. "

I have no clue what Hopi Indian beliefs are ^_^;;;

EDIT: Ouch, I made a mistake. Godly SWEAT is what I meant. Sorry!

Ahhh. Sweat does not immediately ring any bells with me. Ejaculated semen following masturbation is the original cause in Ancient Eqyptian beliefs, but that's not what you're refering to here unless you are being very circumspect.

I'm really hoping I'm right here. Google agrees, but...it can be fickle.

I THINK that it was Norse mythology in which man was made from sweat. though it may have been even more giants (those crazy norsemen and their giants :p)

Slavery is not a Christian value. The Bible does have rules on how to behave if you are a slave and how to behave if you own a slave, but in no way encourages or condones the practice of slavery. Anti-semitism is not a Christian value. Don't tell me that Hitler was a Christian or any garbage like that, it's just plain and simple, there's nothing to back up saying that anti-semitism is taught in the Bible. JESUS WAS A JEW. And where in the Bible does it say to breed selectively to improve the human race?


Actually, I've heard two stories about what Hitler was, and I never get a straight answer. One is that Hitler himself was part Jewish, and another is that he was a wayward Catholic. Another still is that Hitler himself viewed the Catholics as anti-semitic, and thus tried to enlist their help.
Another story yet again is that Joseph Mengele's escape was aided by the Knights of Malta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Malta
http://www.geocities.com/newworldorder_themovie/holocaust.html
http://www.geocities.com/newworldorder_themovie/intro_knightsofmalta.html
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/knights-of-malta/
Is it necessarily "crap"? Who can say?
This could just be the idle rantings of a conspiracy theorist, or all-too-
real.

As for Jesus, yes - assuming he existed - he was a Jew.


Scientific support for creationism from a site WHOSE GOAL IS TO CREATE A FAIR, NON-RELIGIOUS MODEL OF BOTH CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM'S SCIENTIFIC BACKUP SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO BE TAUGHT TOGETHER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm


You say "Fair, non-religious and creationism" in the same sentence.
Surely Religion and Creationism go - to some extent - hand-in-hand?
If not, what created the world?
But Evolution, on the other hand, has no religious connotations.
There are some who can say that Evolution is the method of Creation,
and that, too, is a viable option.
But to put Creationism in the same league as Evolution doesn't
hold any weight with me.



Finally, there was a fair point made about creationism not being the only alternative to evolutionism, and that other religions would have to be explored. I agree on that point that it is unfair to put a monopoly on religious study like that. However, a book I am reading took an interesting approach to this problem. The author suggested that schools should, and in fact must if so desired by the community, set aside time each week for religious studies which could be attained by each individual student at local religious establishments and could therefore have time to devote to enhance their spiritual knowledge in the religion of their choice. This could of course, be monitered with attendence records just like any other class, and those who choose not to participate in any religious studies could be given a study hall or alternative class during that period.


That's fine for children of religious upbringing, but what if you wish your child to be raised atheist? Or to decide for themselves at a later date what religion to be, if indeed they wish to be religious at all?


Just on a side note, somebody mentioned that the problem was using school resources for religious purposes. In fact, there is nothing wrong with that and it is, in fact, illegal to refuse a student-led organization the same rights and benefits of any other club or group based on a religious theme. So long as the students follow the same criteria of obtaining resources as all the other groups, and any employee of the school is made to teach, you can't stop groups from forming just because they pray and read the Bible (or other religious text).

As long as it doesn't contravene any laws - state or national, and as
long as it poses no harm to the world in general, or gets in the way of
the education of others.
Religion can be harmful too.
If you find "Aum Shinryu" (that sarin gas cult in Japan) student meetings
running around the place, wouldn't you agree that that's a tad
hazardous? It may seem far-fetched, but is it so impossible?

As for Jesus, yes - assuming he existed - he was a Jew.

Born of Jewish descent on his mother's side, yes, but accepted as a member of the Jewish community by the Jewish community around him, no.

The jury is still out on that one.

Q: Ah, ye olde religion vs. science debates. When will they all end?
A: When humanity has been removed from the Universe, or when religion is thrown away.

Firstly, why is everyone going on about Darwin, when the fight started much earlier? Galileo Galilei was placed under house arrest for more than ten years simply for saying that Jupiter had moons. He could back it up if asked for proof, but he never was.

Second, regarding the creationism vs. evolution: creationism is not a scientific theory, and as such should not be taught in a science class, if the school is to have any halfway-decent reputation in regard to science. If parents want their children to learn about religion in school, they should as a part of the social sciences, alongside all other major religions.

Third, after reading all the other posts, it seems to me that christianity gets a fair share in a social setting, but that's not good enough. Just like the Palestinians, who want to remove Israel to make way for an Islamic state; they'll reject any fair offer because it's a compromise.

Personally, I am an atheist; but one's personal religion is not of any interest to me, provided others don't intrude upon my decision. In the complete absence of evidence either way, everything comes down to everyone's personal choices; at least until there is evidence swinging in one particular direction.

Scientific support for creationism from a site WHOSE GOAL IS TO CREATE A FAIR, NON-RELIGIOUS MODEL OF BOTH CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM'S SCIENTIFIC BACKUP SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO BE TAUGHT TOGETHER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm

First of all, I'm amused by how the site proudly calls itself "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry," and quotes the Bible at the top of the page, even though you claim (in all caps, no less) that its goal is to create a "non-religious" model. In any case, I'm no scientist, but even I can see that the information on site is riddled with inaccuracies and shoddy reasoning. It's the same old creationist spin. If you don't have 100% solid evidence of evolution, then this is proof of creationism. Where there is very strong evidence of evolution, and weak or nonexistent evidence of creation, they embrace the creation evidence and dismiss the evolution evidence. (I especially liked the "proof," based on "alternate dating methods," that the age of the earth and life is only 20,000 years.) Thus, I'm left again with the question:

WHAT scientific evidence?

Scientific support for creationism from a site WHOSE GOAL IS TO CREATE A FAIR, NON-RELIGIOUS MODEL OF BOTH CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONISM'S SCIENTIFIC BACKUP SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO BE TAUGHT TOGETHER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm

First of all, I'm amused by how the site proudly calls itself "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry," and quotes the Bible at the top of the page, even though you claim (in all caps, no less) that its goal is to create a "non-religious" model. In any case, I'm no scientist, but even I can see that the information on site is riddled with inaccuracies and shoddy reasoning. It's the same old creationist spin. If you don't have 100% solid evidence of evolution, then this is proof of creationism. Where there is very strong evidence of evolution, and weak or nonexistent evidence of creation, they embrace the creation evidence and dismiss the evolution evidence. (I especially liked the "proof," based on "alternate dating methods," that the age of the earth and life is only 20,000 years.) Thus, I'm left again with the question:

WHAT scientific evidence?

I possess a masters in evolutionary biology and paleontology as well as particpated in several "digs" over the years. When I read off this site that Dinosaurs just "suddenly appeared" or some such nonesense, i wasn't surprized.

Creationists always blow things off (explain away) by saying that such and such life forms just suddenly appeared! Then they go on to say how dinosaurs were loaded about Noah's arc! Don't they realize that, 1) It requires more then two of each species for a viable gene pool, and 2) How the hell are you going to quarter and feed!, animals that often wieghed at least as much as a rhino? Some of the larger species (mainly Sauropods) weighed as much as a small heard of elephants!

I must say I got quite a good laugh out of it. Most of these creationist sites no little or nothing about sciences - especially various biological sciences! It's so much quack science.

Wait, So the supreme court ruled secular humanism is a religion? What the supreme court going and doing thngs like that for?

Thank you Black Forest. That post was amazing. I commend you for the intelligent comments that express my feelings well. You should really read some of the other stuff that they have on that website.

And one question. Why do some people put creationism on the same level as evolution, when evolution is science and there is no scientific evidence for creationism, or ID, the name they use to try to railroad bills through congress.

Thank you. I do attempt to sound smart from time to time ;)

As to why? Well I think Christians feel threatened that Evolution is an attempt to suggest that God does not exist. Evolution never attempted such a statement. It only trys to explain the process of how things happen.....Why we got to where we are.....

There are a few athiests that fight for evolution so that is probably what adds to their "fears."

Evolution is not bullet proof. It is still only a theory. Even the processes involved are heavily argued(ie: macro vs micro).

They can't disprove it so they try to censor it. Luckily there are too many people that accept it.

As I said, it is still the best attempt to explain why we are the way we are.

So speaks a student of primatology. ;)

I think that all of the different theories available should be taught. It's not fair to just lock in on one, even if yes, some may have more evidence than others. How are we supposed to make educated decisions unless we know as many of the different possibilities there are? Now, for me, I personally never saw a conflict between the theories of evolution and creation, and the Christian account. For me, one is the mechanism used to do it--the Christian account explains WHY it was done and what its purpose is.


That's fine. However, it belongs in a Religion class and not the science classroom.


What I DO think a teacher should understand is, they may well have students who disagree with a particular explanation, and it would NOT be their place to approach that student and tell them that their beliefs are worthless, neither in public NOR in private. To do so would be to take over a role that belongs to that child's parent (most particularly at younger ages) and to the child him/herself (most particularly at older ages).

Well that one is tough. It is the teachers class. Public humilation? Your right that should not happen. However, to allow a student to spout off religous dogma? I have seen a few "Christians" go off in a class and were rude when the teacher tried to explain why their statements were wrong. They were exceptionally rude when he booted them from the class.....


Sometimes it does seem to me that there has been a backlash on Christianity, that they are indeed treated much more harshly than other religions. I suppose I can understand where it's coming from. I mean, we have all screwed up. Some have screwed up pretty flagrantly. I am a Christian myself--but I will not hide from those mistakes.

It's due to the Fundis. With all their efforts to censor books, force Creationsim, replace people that don't follow their beliefs, force prayers in school, kill abortion doctor's, etc., etc. It's easy to understand why it happens.


Still, as often happens with society, it seems like it's going a bit too far in the other direction now. Some have indeed targeted Christians above any other religion, as a sort of backlash for prior injustices...


If you are refearing to the Crusades and or Inquistion, that is not the case at all. My previous comments are more the reasons.


which, if you ask me, is no way to solve the original problems. Reverse discrimination is not the solution. You cited the example of Christian student organizations not being allowed in some schools. I have heard of cases where there definitely is a double-standard, where Christians are not allowed to display their symbols or to meet on school property--yet other religions and/or philosophies DO receive that privilege. To those schools I would say, either you allow everyone (Christians included) or you exclude EVERYBODY from discussing/displaying beliefs, Christians, atheists, and everybody else included. It's an all-or-nothing question as far as I'm concerned. Any possible in-betweens are double-standards of one sort or another.

That is a valid comment. If they make a ruling, you can't where crosses(doesn't happen around here), then the other Religions should not be able to as well.

People do many sill things. As I said when thinking of the Fundi's I fully understand why the "reverse discrimination" goes on....


Of course, there's another option for children in these systems, although it's not one every child's parents CAN realistically pursue: private or home schooling. You might think it would be easy to say that perhaps all Christians (or atheists or whatever) should take this option. But not all CAN. Perhaps both parents have to work, or a child lives in a single-parent home where home schooling would be an impossible commitment. Or perhaps they can't afford private school. On these grounds, therefore, I say public school must indeed afford equal treatment to everyone, Christians included.

There is no reason why they have to have Relgious rights in a school system. There are not there to practice their Religion. They are there to learn basic things to eventually make them a functioning person in society. Churches and what not is where they should go to learn their spiritual enlightenment.

Just on a side note, somebody mentioned that the problem was using school resources for religious purposes. In fact, there is nothing wrong with that and it is, in fact, illegal to refuse a student-led organization the same rights and benefits of any other club or group based on a religious theme. So long as the students follow the same criteria of obtaining resources as all the other groups, and any employee of the school is made to teach, you can't stop groups from forming just because they pray and read the Bible (or other religious text).

That was me and no it is not illegal. If a school decides to deny all Relgions, it is ok. There are schools that do that. However, there are schools that allow Relgious clubs. Any Religion. A school I attended had 12 Relgious based clubs and they were good as they kept to themselves.

However, I have read issues where Christians wanted their stuff but got upset when a few Muslims tried to set up their clubs.....

Finally, there is no reason for them to have their little Bible club. However, in a few instances, there have been problems when they go about evangalising and trying to convert other students.

Public schools are goverment insitutions and as such fall under the Relgious neutrality clause of the Consititution.

This is so true.

It's bad enough parents "force" their kids into religion before they even have a concept of who/what God is in their lives and in the world; we need to keep schools from doing the same, only until children are old enough to understand the concept of accepting/believing in something means.

Funny you mention that; my wife and I decided not to do that to our daughter. When she is old enough to understand things, she can make her own choice to which we will fully support her.

Hum this is all rather interesting

I am pleased to see no one arguing in any details about creationism as an actually credible opponent to evolutions. If anyone does have any genus arguments feel free to mention them and then I’ll correct em!

I know that evolution is not a prefect theory in that it cannot explain a few things or more actually that explanations have not yet been suggested that all agree with. The macro V micro debate being a good example (the question is that evolution can be observed in the lab on the micro level with bacteria and other fast generation organisms but does this translate to the longer timescales of say humans).

I am not at all willing to accept creationism at all as anything other than a nice story. (ironically it fascinates me in that something are correct the order at least)

This brings us on the second issue here, which is the conduct of religions in schools.

Now i should point out here that i'm from the UK so clearly thing are done slightly differently. In science classes religion does not appear at all, the only place it did was in Religious education as it should and that was all religions. Interestingly the properties by the way where 4 science slots in the timetable and one for RE.

Now despite all this their is still an annoying (to me) prevalence of religion in schools Christianity mainly the various flavours of it. by this i mean that the things like the school play at Christmas was (or always involved) an nativity scene not any other religions or indeed non at all, even a Christmas carol got rewritten to include one (much to my annoyance i had to introduce the reason for the damm thing). Or for example assemblies including prayers (lords only), i actually discovered you could ignore these if you wanted so stopped turning up. but boy did that get me shouted at (being me mind I just shouted back)

Now the point of all that is that their is a difference of legal rules and actual practice, but i suspect this will gradual fade. Less than half this country is relgious (in any formal sense). This is think is a good thing my single major objection to Christianity and all other religions is they encourage a lack of THINKING and QUESTIONING, i.e. you must do this because its written here. this is no basis to live thing must only be done because you have a good reason not cause someone else tells you to.

Thinking about it i can remember only one case of a school in England trying to teach no evolution (like in some US places). but the school was forced from above to change.

This leads me to a second question why is the US so religious (by that i mean a fair chunk of it is), one answer is of course that we ahem encouraged all our religious nutcases to go settle a different country which can't of helped.


Hum to conclude creationism has no place in schools and neither do i think does any religion, it can continue to exist outside schools if you like but not within them. Schools exist to teach people about the world and most importantly how to think for themselves (or at least the SHOULD but that’s a separate argument). Few if any religions encourage individual thinking and so should be kept out of schools and to be honest out of life.

P.s. if some people are offended well ………………………………………

Creationists always blow things off (explain away) by saying that such and such life forms just suddenly appeared! Then they go on to say how dinosaurs were loaded about Noah's arc! Don't they realize that, 1) It requires more then two of each species for a viable gene pool, and 2) How the hell are you going to quarter and feed!, animals that often wieghed at least as much as a rhino? Some of the larger species (mainly Sauropods) weighed as much as a small heard of elephants!


They claim that they were babies and were small or still in eggs (I found that on a creationist website, although I forget which one).

Some thing I was surprised to find out was that even Jack Chick believes there were dinosaurs.

http://www.chick.com/tractimages52322/5002/5002_10.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages52322/5002/5002_14.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages52322/0272/0272_10.gif

and my favorite.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/images/107b.jpg

Why do some people put creationism on the same level as evolution, when evolution is science and there is no scientific evidence for creationism, or ID, the name they use to try to railroad bills through congress.
WHAT scientific evidence?
I am pleased to see no one arguing in any details about creationism as an actually credible opponent to evolutions.
Sorry, but I feel I must post evedence for creation :)

from http://www.creationevidence.org/

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION

1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock ? point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.12

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21

1Woodmorappe, John, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18, no.1 (Terre Haute, Indiana, June 1981),pp. 46-71

2 Nilsson, N. Heribert, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20 (Ontario, Canada: Doorway Publications), p. 51

3Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought, ed. A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

4Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

5Blick, Edward, A Scientific Analysis of Genesis (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1991) p. 103

6Clark, M.E. and Voss, H.D., "Fluid Mechanic Examination of the Tial Mechanism for Producing Mega-Sedimantary Layering" (Third International Conference on Creation, Pittsburg, July 1994)

7Ager, Derek, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley and Sons) p. 43 and p. 86

8West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (New York: Julian Press, 1987) pp. 13-14

9 See Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books)

10Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Assoc.,1988)

11 Baugh, Carl, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1999)

12Cook, Melvin, "Where is The Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" Nature, Vol. 179, p. 213

13Cowan, R., "Further Evidence of a Youthful Universe," Science News, Vol. 148, p. 166

14Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22

15Humphries, Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994)

16Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) p. 263

17 Mastropaolo, Joseph, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible," Impact # 317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research,1999) p. 4

18Restak, Richard, The Brain: The Last Frontier, 1979, p. 390

19The Brain, Our Universe Within, PBS Video

20Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series

21Weiss, Joseph, "Unconscious Mental Functioning," Scientific American, March 1990, p. 103

Why not simply teach ALL major religions?

Why do some people put creationism on the same level as evolution, when evolution is science and there is no scientific evidence for creationism, or ID, the name they use to try to railroad bills through congress.
WHAT scientific evidence?
I am pleased to see no one arguing in any details about creationism as an actually credible opponent to evolutions.
Sorry, but I feel I must post evedence for creation :)

from http://www.creationevidence.org/

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION

1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock ? point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.12

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21

1Woodmorappe, John, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18, no.1 (Terre Haute, Indiana, June 1981),pp. 46-71

2 Nilsson, N. Heribert, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20 (Ontario, Canada: Doorway Publications), p. 51

3Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought, ed. A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

4Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

5Blick, Edward, A Scientific Analysis of Genesis (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1991) p. 103

6Clark, M.E. and Voss, H.D., "Fluid Mechanic Examination of the Tial Mechanism for Producing Mega-Sedimantary Layering" (Third International Conference on Creation, Pittsburg, July 1994)

7Ager, Derek, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley and Sons) p. 43 and p. 86

8West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (New York: Julian Press, 1987) pp. 13-14

9 See Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books)

10Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Assoc.,1988)

11 Baugh, Carl, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1999)

12Cook, Melvin, "Where is The Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" Nature, Vol. 179, p. 213

13Cowan, R., "Further Evidence of a Youthful Universe," Science News, Vol. 148, p. 166

14Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22

15Humphries, Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994)

16Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) p. 263

17 Mastropaolo, Joseph, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible," Impact # 317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research,1999) p. 4

18Restak, Richard, The Brain: The Last Frontier, 1979, p. 390

19The Brain, Our Universe Within, PBS Video

20Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series

21Weiss, Joseph, "Unconscious Mental Functioning," Scientific American, March 1990, p. 103

nice 'proof' :

1) denial of evidence + disprooving evolution does not at all proove evolution.

2) so because in 80 years time the function that describes the earth's magnetic field can be approximated by exp(-at) that means it is always that way?? let's not forget that scientists actually studying the magnetic field won't argree with it and that there is proof of the magnetic field inversing (something your generalisation does not allow).


3) the sedimentary laying found on each continent is something geologists describe very well using plate-tektonics. a global flood of 40 days does not at all just because of the sheer amount of mass that these layers form and because different sedimentary layers are on top of each other.

4) and again we use the function exp(at) to describe a proces. the use of the most simple approximation we have to describe a population:
dP(t)/dt = a*P(t)
dP(t)/dt is the speed at which a population grows, P(t) is the population
this leads to:
P(t) = exp(at)
a lineair solution, sometimes useable in short time intervals.
now let's take another model:
dP(t)/dt = a*P(t) - s*(P(t))**2
aha, gone linearity, and most of all, gone exp(at).

the constant s in this model is a way to describe how in a large population the shortage of resources will lead to a decrease in the speed at which the population grows.
the function P(t) opbtained stays finite.

5) i don't know much about polonuim-214 and even less about crystalline granite, but what i do know is that polonium-214 can be a product of another atom decaying.

6) oh yes, and over the past 10000 years 100's of meters of earth layers have been formed. and let's not forget: in the past 2000-3000 years only a few meters have been formed.

7) i know nothing about it, but as they are portraying things to be simple, i doubt this 'fact'

8) don't even try and leave it up to real astrophysics.

9) you say it is 'designed', i say it merely evolved into something complex over millions of years because:
small random changes in inheritable material provided with a non-random selection method (some changes are more viable) will eventually lead to something that might look 'designed'.

10) it's arogant to say that the human brain is the most complex/see above.

Lord Kelvin once troubled evolution by stating that the earth was only 20 millions of years old because of thermodynamic reasons. even if this statement had lasted, creation would still be way out of league as a viable answer. by the way: Lord Kelvin could not know that radioactive decay in the earth would provide the extra energy required to do 'the job'.

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION

1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock ? point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.12

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21

1Woodmorappe, John, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18, no.1 (Terre Haute, Indiana, June 1981),pp. 46-71

2 Nilsson, N. Heribert, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20 (Ontario, Canada: Doorway Publications), p. 51

3Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought, ed. A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

4Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

5Blick, Edward, A Scientific Analysis of Genesis (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1991) p. 103

6Clark, M.E. and Voss, H.D., "Fluid Mechanic Examination of the Tial Mechanism for Producing Mega-Sedimantary Layering" (Third International Conference on Creation, Pittsburg, July 1994)

7Ager, Derek, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley and Sons) p. 43 and p. 86

8West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (New York: Julian Press, 1987) pp. 13-14

9 See Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books)

10Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Assoc.,1988)

11 Baugh, Carl, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1999)

12Cook, Melvin, "Where is The Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" Nature, Vol. 179, p. 213

13Cowan, R., "Further Evidence of a Youthful Universe," Science News, Vol. 148, p. 166

14Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22

15Humphries, Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994)

16Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) p. 263

17 Mastropaolo, Joseph, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible," Impact # 317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research,1999) p. 4

18Restak, Richard, The Brain: The Last Frontier, 1979, p. 390

19The Brain, Our Universe Within, PBS Video

20Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series

21Weiss, Joseph, "Unconscious Mental Functioning," Scientific American, March 1990, p. 103

Right. My turn to drive road trains through the holes in these arguments.

1. The fossil record has had to be pieced together from many places. This is because not all rocks are sedimentary. Some are metamorphic, and as such, have had to be buried deep within the Earth to form. This also removes many fossils from the record. Others are igneous in origin, and so had come from at least partially melted rock. Fossils can also have eroded away.

2. There is ample proof that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed in polarity in the past, and there is proof that it happens in the Sun every 11 years. The weakening is due to the field preparing for the next flip, and could occur anywhere up to about 20,000 years from now; and occurs at an ever-changing rate that doesn't fit any mathematical model exactly. Thus, it could simply have been stronger than what it is now, but not anywhere near that of a star 20,000 years ago.

3. Many floods have occurred in various places around the world. One very major event took place at the end of the last ice age, when the Black Sea was swamped by seawater. The Nile has flooded almost every year, and this flooding was a major part of the Egyptian life and religion. Neither event can be a part of the flood in the bible. This is because a) the Black Sea flooding took place too long ago (roughly 10,000 years ago); and b) the Nile flooding has happened repeatedly, while the flooding in the bible only happened once.

4. Again, real life events can't always be determined with the simple mathematics that was used in the 'evidence' for creationism. There are many factors that haven't been taken into account, such as limited availability of resources.

5. while polonium isn't the most common element found in rocks, I think it is found as a stepping stone in the decay of uranium-238, which is a relatively common form of radioactivity in rocks.

6. Most, if not all, of the objects found alongside fossils have been found to be frauds. Great 'evidence' if it's fake.

7. Ah, now for something closer to my main area of study. Now, something has been forgotten here. It's called the "solar wind" for a good reason. The atoms and nuclei are constantly moving away from the Sun, and are only within the Earth's atmosphere for a short period of time before moving on. This occurs in a more pronounced way around Mercury, where the only atmosphere it has is simply temporarily captured gas from the solar wind.

8. the distances to various galaxies are calculated through the use of 'standard candles' such as the brightest stars and type I supernovae. Unfortunately, these are not always standard. We already know this.
Why should the bible have any bearing as arbitrary evidence? That doesn't really work for most scientists.
There is evidence that the Universe has expanded at a changing rate, sometimes slowing down, sometimes accelerating like it is now. How does creationism explain this?

9. I know very little about molecular biology, but it has been proven that amino acids, basic proteins and the like were able to form on their own with only the conditions that were likely to be found while the Earth was settling down from almost constant impacts while forming.

10. I won't even touch this, as I have absolutely no knowledge of psychology or biomedical science.

Perhaps it would be helpful to offer a comparison of "scientific theory" versus "conventional theory."

Science does not use the term "theory" the same way you or I might in conversation. When we use the word, we usually in fact mean a hypothesis... a logical best guess, based on available evidence.

Scientific theories are held to much more stringent standards. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been repeated shown by all available scientific data to be a plausible explanation for a situation or phenomenon.

"theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific%20theory

Note the words accepted, substantiated, and organized. And all scientific theories must be falsifiable (but not falsified... if it has been falsified, it is not longer a valid theory). What this means is, there must be a hypothetical situation that would prove the theory false.
For example, the Theory of Evolution could be proven false if we were to observe the spontaneous creation of complex life, or fossils that firmly established that every species existed as is since life began. That hasn't happened.

What separates scientific fact from scientific theory is really just degree of certitude. Gravity is a Law (though it is scientifically and officially still a theory) because from both theoretical and empirical levels, it has been shown to operate with total constancy through the universe, to the best of our knowledge. Not that something catastrophic could prove it wrong, but every available resource practically screams its verity.

Evolution will never be a Law, because evolution is not predictable in specific cases. We can not gaurentee that a specific species will evolve with any certainty. There are too many factors over which is it difficult over impossible to gain scientific control. Same applies to Game Theory, or Relativity, or Germ Theory, or that boogie-man of Creationism, the Big-Bang Theory.

Anyway, short story long, if it hasn't been rigorously tested scientificially, and accepted as the vastly most probable possibility by more-or-less the entirety of the scientific community, it isn't a Theory. Evolution is a Theory.

That's not humanism, that's science... which is just a fancy word for logical sense. It isn't a religious movement, it is just a body of firmly established data.

As creationism states all begin with one couple. Then all their children onward would be retards.

Why not simply teach ALL major religions?

Perhaps it would be helpful to offer a comparison
of "scientific theory" versus "conventional theory."

Thank you! I'd also like to add though what I see as the main difference
between the scientific method and Creationism. In the scientific method, we make a hypothesis and then come up with experiments that will either support or disprove it. However, we keep an open mind about the validity of the hypothesis. Otherwise, we may miss crucial evidence. Once the evidence is collected, we come to some sort of conclusion and move on to the next step.

In Creationism, they start at the conclusion. Conclusion = the Bible is
completely right. Then, they start looking for evidence. The problem with
this is that I could find evidence for anything if I really tried.

Let's take an example: Suppose I thought my puppy gave birth to chicks.

As a scientist, I might hypothesize that my puppy could give birth to chicks and I would design an experiment meant to cause this to happen. Then, I would monitor the puppy 24 hours a day until he gave birth to chicks or didn't. Or perhaps I would do tests to see if the chicks had ever been in my puppy.
If I were following the steps that Creationism follows, I would conclude that my puppy gave birth to chicks. Then, I would say "Look, the chicks are following my puppy. This means that my puppy gave birth to them. Those other scientists can't prove that it didn't happen!"

EDIT: Fixed a grammar error.

Perhaps it would be helpful to offer a comparison
of "scientific theory" versus "conventional theory."

Thank you! I'd also like to add though what I see as the main difference
between the scientific method and Creationism. In the scientific method, we make a hypothesis and then come up with experiments that will either support or disprove it. However, we keep an open mind about the validity of the hypothesis. Otherwise, we may miss crucial evidence. Once the evidence is collected, we come to some sort of conclusion and move on to the next step.

In Creationism, they start at the conclusion. Conclusion = the Bible is
completely right. Then, they start looking for evidence. The problem with
this is that I could find evidence for anything if I really tried.

Let's take an example: Suppose I thought my puppy could gave birth to chicks.

As a scientist, I might hypothesize that my puppy could give birth to chicks and I would design an experiment meant to cause this to happen. Then, I would monitor the puppy 24 hours a day until he gave birth to chicks or didn't. Or perhaps I would do tests to see if the chicks had ever been in my puppy.
If I were following the steps that Creationism follows, I would conclude that my puppy gave birth to chicks. Then, I would say "Look, the chicks are following my puppy. This means that my puppy gave birth to them. Those other scientists can't prove that it didn't happen!"come on man, you act as if you don't even know the foundation of all religions... faith. We don't test the validity because we have faith. The scientific method was created as an alternative to faith, for those who doubt.

Just because you have more books on your theories doesn't make you right.

come on man, you act as if you don't even know the foundation of all religions... faith. We don't test the validity because we have faith. The scientific method was created as an alternative to faith, for those who doubt.

Of course I know about faith, and I have it. Faith is the reason that I believe God made this universe and the laws that run it. The scientific method, however, was not created as an alternative to faith - it was created as a method of logical reasoning. There are things we must simply take on faith, but there is no harm in finding out as much about the world around us as we can.

This method doesn't intrude upon faith, at least not upon true faith. It simply adds to the knowledge that we can gain through reason (which was also given to us by God according to those of us who believe). Only those who are very weak in their own faith feel threatened by reason and science.

Just because you have more books on your theories doesn't make you right.

No, but it does make me more scientific. If you want to say that Creationism is true, that's fine. Just don't parade it around like it is science and try to teach it in the science classroom alongside true science. That is all I was pointing out.

Besides, if you don't need to test the validity if you have faith, why are these so-called "scientists" seeking out scientific evidence?

wow... open-mindedness and religion together... Why does it just sound stupid to me when you say "I believe in God, but I don't believe anything he says"?

Maybe because you believe that your faith is the only correct one, and that if anyone says "God" the only one you can put it to is yours.

I don't even know what religion you are, but it's not the only one you know ;)

Maybe because you believe that your faith is the only correct one, and that if anyone says "God" the only one you can put it to is yours.

I don't even know what religion you are, but it's not the only one you know ;)i'm sorry, but I totally missed your point... what was it again?

wow... open-mindedness and religion together... Why does it just sound stupid to me when you say "I believe in God, but I don't believe anything he says"?

Funny how I never said that, isn't it?

How does he "not believe in anything he says?"

How does he "not believe in anything he says?"

Arg...sorry...just have to point this out ---> I'm a she! hehe

Ack, sorry :p

How does he "not believe in anything he says?"This sure sounds like an argument against creationism: Perhaps it would be helpful to offer a comparison
of "scientific theory" versus "conventional theory."

Thank you! I'd also like to add though what I see as the main difference
between the scientific method and Creationism. In the scientific method, we make a hypothesis and then come up with experiments that will either support or disprove it. However, we keep an open mind about the validity of the hypothesis. Otherwise, we may miss crucial evidence. Once the evidence is collected, we come to some sort of conclusion and move on to the next step.

In Creationism, they start at the conclusion. Conclusion = the Bible is
completely right. Then, they start looking for evidence. The problem with
this is that I could find evidence for anything if I really tried.

Let's take an example: Suppose I thought my puppy gave birth to chicks.

As a scientist, I might hypothesize that my puppy could give birth to chicks and I would design an experiment meant to cause this to happen. Then, I would monitor the puppy 24 hours a day until he gave birth to chicks or didn't. Or perhaps I would do tests to see if the chicks had ever been in my puppy.
If I were following the steps that Creationism follows, I would conclude that my puppy gave birth to chicks. Then, I would say "Look, the chicks are following my puppy. This means that my puppy gave birth to them. Those other scientists can't prove that it didn't happen!"

EDIT: Fixed a grammar error.

Creationism isn't Christianity exclusive :p

As a Diest, I believe a diety created the world. I dunno HOW or WHEN he did it, I just believe he did it.

One can believe in creationism and evolution, you know

Creationism isn't Christianity exclusive :p

As a Diest, I believe a diety created the world. I dunno HOW or WHEN he did it, I just believe he did it.

One can believe in creationism and evolution, you know

Do you believe in the Biblical Creation or just that some divine force created everything? Granted Creationism is not exclusively christian but generally when the word is used it is used in the Christian sense of the word.

Well, I obviously don't believe in the world being made in 6 days, nor do I believe in the Bible.

So I obviously don't believe in the Christian sense of the word :p

I believe that "just some divine force created everything," I guess you would say

To return to the original topic of this thread...
the implicit argument in saying that secular humanism is being taught in schools is that anyone who does not believe in God, or gods, or religion in general, is, ipso facto, a secular humanist. That isn't necessarily so. Secular humanists are only one sort of non-believer, with a specific set of ideas about the world, the universe, and how it does (and should) operate.
Nihilists, for example, may very well be atheistic, but it certainly doesn't follow that they are secular humanists. And some people are just atheist, without any kind of extended systems attached to it. Atheism itself is merely a negation, not a unified body or movement (though atheists will often band together in defending there beliefs from aggressive theists.)

Point being, the schools are not being asked to follow any of these specific schools of thought, any more than they are being asked to promote Christianity or any other religion. Nor are teachers told (or even allowed) to state that God does not exist, or that any religious belief held by a student is wrong. They ARE, however, called upon to share established facts that have been proven. Like evolution, for example. Evolution is not the tenet of a religion, it is a fact established by the work of scientists, whose job it is to systematically doubt everything, leaving behind only the what is truly possible.

3. Many floods have occurred in various places around the world. One very major event took place at the end of the last ice age, when the Black Sea was swamped by seawater. The Nile has flooded almost every year, and this flooding was a major part of the Egyptian life and religion. Neither event can be a part of the flood in the bible. This is because a) the Black Sea flooding took place too long ago (roughly 10,000 years ago); and b) the Nile flooding has happened repeatedly, while the flooding in the bible only happened once.

Actually, the Black Sea flood is believed to be the root of the biblical flood tale. In its originally form it was a Sumerian myth, part of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which even included an ark. From what archeologists and historians have found, it is theorized that the original sumerians lived around the Black Sea and were pushed out when it flooded, eventually settling in Mesopotamia. When the Jews were taken to Babylon as captives, they picked up on it and eventually it found its way into the Old Testament

How does he "not believe in anything he says?"This sure sounds like an argument against creationism:

Actually, if you actually read it, it is not an argument against holding a *belief* about creation. It is an argument about claiming that so-called "creationist scientists" can call themselves scientists. That is all.

Besides, even if it was an argument against believing the creation story is literal, that still doesn't mean that I "don't believe in anything God says." It would simply mean that I don't believe God said everything you think God said.

*Shrug* Logic is hard, man.

Actually, the Black Sea flood is believed to be the root of the biblical flood tale. In its originally form it was a Sumerian myth, part of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which even included an ark. From what archeologists and historians have found, it is theorized that the original sumerians lived around the Black Sea and were pushed out when it flooded, eventually settling in Mesopotamia. When the Jews were taken to Babylon as captives, they picked up on it and eventually it found its way into the Old Testament

So what you're saying is, effectively, that the Jews plagiarised the tale of the flood from the Sumerians.

So what you're saying is, effectively, that the Jews plagiarised the tale of the flood from the Sumerians.

The majority of stories in both the Old and New Testaments were borrowed from earlier sources, many of them pagan. Even the virgin birth and later ressurection after death were not new concepts.

Amazing that in this day and age, what was done to produce the bible would land people in jail.

Granted, the creationist theory is not a science based theory. But it should still be recognized.

Why? And what can I do to get my 'completely-lacking-in-evidence-theory-of-the-world' put into schools?

If I say that all humans are simply the playthings of a great baboon made of apple cores who lives on Venus, and here, I've written a book that says the same thing, should my theory be bandied around in schools? No. If they produce evidence for their invisible friend making people and stuff, then by all means, teach it in biology class. Until then, I think I'll file it in Religious Education. Or file under 'crackpot loons'

Why not simply teach ALL major religions?

sure, why not? my high school had a world religion class.
it also had science classes where religion was not taught.

Why not simply teach ALL major religions?

sure, why not? my high school had a world religion class.
it also had science classes where religion was not taught.

it makes sense, we don't teach math in an english class, or give political lecutres in spanish classes... why would we teach religion in science class?

Why not simply teach ALL major religions?

sure, why not? my high school had a world religion class.
it also had science classes where religion was not taught.

it makes sense, we don't teach math in an english class, or give political lecutres in spanish classes... why would we teach religion in science class?

Why not? because religeon belongs in the home, not in state sponsered programs. I do not want my governement to have to decide how to divide up the religeon funding.

If people want to learn about all the worlds religeons they can do it on their own dime, not the american taxpayers'. You can call science a religeon all you want but there is still a fundamental difference which is that religeon is based on belief and faith, and science is based on scepticism and disbelief. That is the fundamental difference and it is why science has brought us lasers, space ships, cancer treatment, fMRI machinces, and microwavable popcorn, while religeon has mostly brought us suicide bombers, with they occasional bit of good will towards white men. (This is gross generalization, I know, I dont want to hear about it)

Science is a worthwhile method of inquiry that all people religous or not should be aquatinted with, this is why we teach it in public schools. Religeon is a method of non-inquiry, religeon does not harbour a thirst for knowledge, in fact it historally represses intellectualism in favor of blind faith. (In recent times, I know somebody is going to mention the enlightenment or something, but I remind you that the church was persecuting scientists like Kepler, Copurnicus and Gallileo at this time)

I am acutally quite disgusted with the breakdown of the division between church and state in recent years, I honestly thought religeon was on its way out, but now I see its back with a vengence.

Science is a worthwhile method of inquiry that all people religous or not should be aquatinted with, this is why we teach it in public schools. Religeon is a method of non-inquiry, religeon does not harbour a thirst for knowledge, in fact it historally represses intellectualism in favor of blind faith. (In recent times, I know somebody is going to mention the enlightenment or something, but I remind you that the church was persecuting scientists like Kepler, Copurnicus and Gallileo at this time)


I think you are confusing a specific church with all of religion. There are religions that encourage questioning and the pursuit of knowledge. Even some of us Christians do. However, historically, the bulk of Christianity has been known to supress such practices because they feel it might devalue the church. But do remember that Christianity, especially the loudly vocal part, is not necessarily representative of all religion.