NationStates Jolt Archive

The Lucky Winner is.......... KANSAS!! x_____X

Schoolboard elections tuesday, hope they don't put in creationism, next they'll be saying god created telvisions.

If only I could convince my parents to move somewhere with evolved people, Kansas sucks for liberals, but you have to admit, nice schools and environment ;)

Is there an article on this somewhere that you can post?

welcome to the world of politics. I doubt that it really had anything to do with religion and such, its just people trying to be proudful and be like, "hey, look what I did" or they are people that mock the 'devils of the world'. Either way its anti-biblical attitudes fueling this 'biblical' quest.

Umm, I can post the election results when they come out :)

My words: Religion is not science ;)

[Stix Hicks]Darn all thart thar farncy book larnin'![/stix hicks]

[Stix Hicks]Darn all thart thar farncy book larnin'![/stix hicks]


wtf o.0

My words: Religion is not science ;)
and science isn't religion

I think they should teach creatianism in theological based classes as one of the views of the world, and they should teach evolution in science as one of the ways they show the world's progress in our current understanding of the world.

both are very closely tied together, but are very very different subject matters completely. Its like saying that, what makes a mountain last, and one person saying, its G-d and his might, and another saying its the rocks compestion and formations. Both are 'answers' but they are not the same subjects.

and science isn't religion

I think they should teach creatianism in theological based classes as one of the views of the world, and they should teach evolution in science as one of the ways they show the world's progress in our current understanding of the world.

both are very closely tied together, but are very very different subject matters completely. Its like saying that, what makes a mountain last, and one person saying, its G-d and his might, and another saying its the rocks compestion and formations. Both are 'answers' but they are not the same subjects.


Works for me, creationism= theology, evolution= science, if they were in their respective classes that would be alright by me, but alas the world is not like that x__X

Ah Kansas, why am I not surprised?

I have Dana's party to go to at 10am tomorrow, MUST SLEEP e.e G'night all and I'll be back later :D

I'm not SUPRISED, just annoyed xP It was going to hit here eventually...

I'm actually going now. xD

Works for me, creationism= theology, evolution= science, if they were in their respective classes that would be alright by me, but alas the world is not like that x__X

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.

I can understand that standpoint, but science itself can be classified as a religion, and where one could argue that people could bring up Islam in a jewish church, that doesn't mean that its kosher. The same with mixing religion and science. People tend to get over worked about it. I think it was Jesus that taught us to pretty much let the world be the world, but know the way and truth in our hearts. I don't think he would want us argueing and seeing who's lawyer is better paid.

I really, really dislike those who attempt to force strict Creationism down the throats of the world. That's coming from a Christian Conservative... It's unbelievably... ignorant, intolerant, and infuriating.

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.

Okay, maybe I won't go to bed xDDD

Then math is a religion too xDD

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.
Looks like we've got a fundie with a PRATT. This should be mildly amusing.

Here's a tip. Look up religion in the dictionary. Here's a hint. The only definitions that make evolution a religion also make preferring the color green a religion.

I don't mind other beliefs so long as they're not forced on everyone. I'm Jewish, but I still prayed for the pope all day today and wish nothing but the best for him, even though I disagree with some of his doctrine :)

like omg I want to join the green religion :o

That would be interesting though, if math were a religion, half the class would say that math directly offends their religious beliefs and sue xD

I'm really off to bed now *waves*

That would be interesting though, if math were a religion, half the class would say that math directly offends their religious beliefs and sue xD


hmm, maybe you are onto something here. Do you know any good lawyers, and lets dig up some expert witnesses. And use statements from numorology that PROOVES that numbers mean something, and that its an ancient cult that had gone into hiding and is now resurfaceing, and that Algebra is just one of the islamic forms of this cult.

Let's exploit the fear of Islam, BWAHAHAHA xD I do know a good lawyer actually.

I make terrible resolutions *drags self to bed*

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.


Ummm, no evolution is a scientific theory. Not a religion. Further, it is more valid scientifically because it can be tested experimentally. Religion cannot be. Why you ask? Because if you blieve in an omnipotent God, then s/he could be his/her very nature skew the results and therefore cannot be tested for.

This really isn't difficult.

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.

This is the most idiotic thing I have heard on this board, and I've heard some doozies.

Perhaps you should look up the word religion - you seem to be completely unaware of its definition.

I can understand that standpoint, but science itself can be classified as a religion, and where one could argue that people could bring up Islam in a jewish church, that doesn't mean that its kosher. The same with mixing religion and science. People tend to get over worked about it. I think it was Jesus that taught us to pretty much let the world be the world, but know the way and truth in our hearts. I don't think he would want us argueing and seeing who's lawyer is better paid.

Person #2 who needs to look up the word religion.

Person #2 who needs to look up the word religion.

I have a more abstract understanding of words, and I see you take things very litteral.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

that would fit science in many ways. Many scientists are filled with a zeal that drives them onward to find new and better things in their chosen field.

just because I see things with less ridgid standpoints doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

I have a more abstract understanding of words, and I see you take things very litteral.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

that would fit science in many ways. Many scientists are filled with a zeal that drives them onward to find new and better things in their chosen field.

just because I see things with less ridgid standpoints doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.


It does however mean that you are going to be involved in large amounts of confusion with people who use more standard definitions (which is the point of language. . to share thoughts in a way that can be understood by others).

By the standard definitions, science is not religion and religion is not science.

I have a more abstract understanding of words, and I see you take things very litteral.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

that would fit science in many ways. Many scientists are filled with a zeal that drives them onward to find new and better things in their chosen field.

just because I see things with less ridgid standpoints doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

When you begin to use a word that broadly, it becomes useless. I like the color purple with a zeal - Oh noes! The color purple is my religion!

When you begin to use a word that broadly, it becomes useless. I like the color purple with a zeal - Oh noes! The color purple is my religion!

its only broad in your understanding and viewpoints. a great zeal is something more then just saying, omg I like the color purple.

Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance.

I think that matches a scientist, not all of them, but a good amount of them.

maybe you should understand words more then just limiting to one set of undestandings.

It does however mean that you are going to be involved in large amounts of confusion with people who use more standard definitions (which is the point of language. . to share thoughts in a way that can be understood by others).

By the standard definitions, science is not religion and religion is not science.

that is a very standard way of looking at a definition, Look the world zeal up

Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance

that is a very standard way of looking at a definition, Look the world zeal up

Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance


You however are the one who provided the definition of religion. I am not talking about the word zeal.

<EDIT>

I see. You are using the last definition of the word religion. The one that is used by a very small number of people, generally in a specific circimstance. You are free to do this of course--but understand that by doing so, you are just going to cause unneeded confusion and disagreement and you are going to make it harder to communicate with others that you might otherwise win to your viewpoint.

Again, I say that science is not religion. Perhaps RESEARCH is a religion to some scientists (by your use of the fourth defintion), however, science is not.

its only broad in your understanding and viewpoints. a great zeal is something more then just saying, omg I like the color purple.

Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance.

I think that matches a scientist, not all of them, but a good amount of them.

maybe you should understand words more then just limiting to one set of undestandings.

You still have made the word too broad. And someone can have enthusiastic devotion to a color.

Consider this, by your definition, education is a religion to a long-term student. Bicycling is a religion to a marathon cyclist. Meanwhile, most people in the world have lots of religions. The word is taken so far out of its general use that it ceases to have its own meaning.

You still have made the word too broad. And someone can have enthusiastic devotion to a color.

Consider this, by your definition, education is a religion to a long-term student. Bicycling is a religion to a marathon cyclist. Meanwhile, most people in the world have lots of religions. The word is taken so far out of its general use that it ceases to have its own meaning.

you are taking it out of context by not understanding the word zeal. education could be a religion to someone. If they are seeking the higher enlightenment that it brings them, and they are tireless to their education, and devote their lives to it. then it is nothing more then another way to live your live by a set of values taught to you by yourself and your seeking of knowledge. Religion doesn't have to mean spiritual or supernatural. Science can be a religion, but that doesn't mean it has to be. The teachings of Christ can be a religion, but don't have to be.

you are taking it out of context by not understanding the word zeal. education could be a religion to someone. If they are seeking the higher enlightenment that it brings them, and they are tireless to their education, and devote their lives to it. then it is nothing more then another way to live your live by a set of values taught to you by yourself and your seeking of knowledge. Religion doesn't have to mean spiritual or supernatural. Science can be a religion, but that doesn't mean it has to be. The teachings of Christ can be a religion, but don't have to be.


Dude, let it go. We're all getting extremely side-tracked here. And by the way, I think we all understand the word zeal. It was a fifth grade vocabulary word here.

Ummm, no evolution is a scientific theory. Not a religion. Further, it is more valid scientifically because it can be tested experimentally. Religion cannot be. Why you ask? Because if you blieve in an omnipotent God, then s/he could be his/her very nature skew the results and therefore cannot be tested for.


Ummm... please explain to me how humans with a lifespan ~75 years can test a process which requires hundreds of millions of years? Shall we imagine a fruitfly capable of "testing" the growth of a giant sequoia tree as well? The timespans are about the same. This is what makes both evolutionism and creationism religious viewpoints: neither can be observed and measured using the scientific process. In one case humans just don't live long enough, and in the other, we just weren't there at the time

Additionally, why should the two be mutually exclusive? I firmly believe that God created the evolutionary process.

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.
No, it is not religion.

Please open a book and stop listening to what people who claim to have PhD's in disciplines completely unrelated to biology are saying and open your eyes.

I've really had it with ignorant statements like this.

Ummm... please explain to me how humans with a lifespan ~75 years can test a process which requires hundreds of millions of years? Shall we imagine a fruitfly capable of "testing" the growth of a giant sequoia tree as well? The timespans are about the same. This is what makes both evolutionism and creationism religious viewpoints: neither can be observed and measured using the scientific process. In one case humans just don't live long enough, and in the other, we just weren't there at the time

Additionally, why should the two be mutually exclusive? I firmly believe that God created the evolutionary process.

Because it doesn't. You can observe evolution in bacteria in a matter of weeks. I've done it myself in the lab in undergrad. You can compare the genetic content of differnet organisms for similitary. You can study the fossil records to see changes over time.

And while I am a secular humanist, I completely respect people of the opinion that evolution can go hand in hand with creationism. However, that portio of evolution cannot be experimented on or observed in the fossil record or genetics and therefore is not part of the scientific theory of evolution and should not be taught in science classes.

Because it doesn't. You can observe evolution in bacteria in a matter of weeks. I've done it myself in the lab in undergrad. You can compare the genetic content of differnet organisms for similitary. You can study the fossil records to see changes over time.

And while I am a secular humanist, I completely respect people of the opinion that evolution can go hand in hand with creationism. However, that portio of evolution cannot be experimented on or observed in the fossil record or genetics and therefore is not part of the scientific theory of evolution and should not be taught in science classes.


No human has ever witnessed the origin of a new species. The evolution you have observed is latent adaptation manifesting, or microevolution. The fossil record can prove nothing, because evolution is by definition a process. A series of apparently progressing steps, separated by millenia at best, do not a process make. This Macroevolution may take place, but it certainly is not observable or measureable by any universally accepted standard.

I can understand that standpoint, but science itself can be classified as a religion, and where one could argue that people could bring up Islam in a jewish church, that doesn't mean that its kosher. The same with mixing religion and science. People tend to get over worked about it. I think it was Jesus that taught us to pretty much let the world be the world, but know the way and truth in our hearts. I don't think he would want us argueing and seeing who's lawyer is better paid.
No, science is not religion either.

sci·ence (sns)
n.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Note that science deals with the natural, while religion is the supernatural.

And no, being devoted to a cause does not make it a religion. I clean my house religiously... that doesn't mean that housecleaning is my religion. Please, let's just not be stupid about things, ok? We're adults here, correct?

No human has ever witnessed the origin of a new species. The evolution you have observed is latent adaptation manifesting, or microevolution. The fossil record can prove nothing, because evolution is by definition a process. A series of apparently progressing steps, separated by millenia at best, do not a process make. This Macroevolution may take place, but it certainly is not observable or measureable by any universally accepted standard.
I'm no biologist...

but what about those bugs that evolved to eat nylon? Nylon is a fairly recent invention which didn't exist beforehand, yet these critters have carved themselves a nice little niche eating the stuff and are now a separate species...

Yep, no one has ever observed the birth of a new species, you keep telling yourself that. ;)

Great another state that is having trouble recognizing that creationism is not a scientific theory

I'm no biologist...

but what about those bugs that evolved to eat nylon? Nylon is a fairly recent invention which didn't exist beforehand, yet these critters have carved themselves a nice little niche eating the stuff and are now a separate species...

Yep, no one has ever observed the birth of a new species, you keep telling yourself that. ;)

Dude, that's latent adaptation. Microevolution. That was a sub-species. That's like breeding a new breed of dog. Rock on.

Ummm... please explain to me how humans with a lifespan ~75 years can test a process which requires hundreds of millions of years?

That is why it is still a theory. However, there are examples that suggest the validity of it such as Darwin's finches.


This is what makes both evolutionism and creationism religious viewpoints: neither can be observed and measured using the scientific process.


No the scientific method can't be used in Religion. You would be a heratic for declaring that God didn't exist.

A scientific hypothesis begins with attempts to disprove it. What in Religion works that way.


In one case humans just don't live long enough, and in the other, we just weren't there at the time

Additionally, why should the two be mutually exclusive? I firmly believe that God created the evolutionary process.

Because faith is not part of the scientific method. Evolution does not attempt to explain the soul, evolution does not attempt to inspire a code of ethics.

Dude, that's latent adaptation. Microevolution. That was a sub-species. That's like breeding a new breed of dog. Rock on.
Not mearly an adaptation when they can no longer breed with the originating species it is concidered a seperate species in of its own and not limited to adaptation

Dude, that's latent adaptation. Microevolution. That was a sub-species. That's like breeding a new breed of dog. Rock on.
Even when the new "sub-species" cannot mate with the rest of its species to produce fertile offspring?

You are aware of what defines a species, correct?

Even when the new "sub-species" cannot mate with the rest of its species to produce fertile offspring?

You are aware of what defines a species, correct?
Lol :) we sound a lot a like :fluffle: Ive missed you

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.

God isn't backed up by a small library's worth of empirical observations and records.

Kansas is in favor of Creationism? So? What's the big deal? I mean, just because a sinful philosophy is being phased out in favor of the correct theory... wait...
This is great! Another state has been liberated from the Darwinist spectre! The Christian Majority will emerge victorious!

Kansas is in favor of Creationism? So? What's the big deal? I mean, just because a sinful philosophy is being phased out in favor of the correct theory... wait...
This is great! Another state has been liberated from the Darwinist spectre! The Christian Majority will emerge victorious!
Science is not a philosophy it is a method ... nor is evolution

nor is creationism a scientific theory

nor is current evolutionary theory Darwinist

Wow ... so much wrong in one post

Kansas is in favor of Creationism? So? What's the big deal? I mean, just because a sinful philosophy is being phased out in favor of the correct theory... wait...
This is great! Another state has been liberated from the Darwinist spectre! The Christian Majority will emerge victorious!Jesus. Chirst. On. A. Cracker.

Yeah, damn evolution. Where's Trofim Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) when you need him?

That is why it is still a theory. However, there are examples that suggest the validity of it such as Darwin's finches.

No the scientific method can't be used in Religion. You would be a heratic for declaring that God didn't exist.

Because faith is not part of the scientific method. Evolution does not attempt to explain the soul, evolution does not attempt to inspire a code of ethics.

1) It's 'still a theory' because science produces nothing but theories. The 'laws of physics' date from a time when scientific results where thought to be absolute. Philosophy has changed and certain 'laws' have been disproven, allthough they are still very useful (think of newton here). Calling something a 'law' does not make it more correct than calling it a theory, it's just the historical name for it.

2) Science can never even assume creationism or any other religious explanation. Explaining something by calling in a supernatural force that interacts with the world (any other one would be irrelevant for the world) would violate a few basic 'laws', which are fundamental hypotheses required to do scientific research. Any 'divine intervention' would violate the following:
-conservation of mass (with mass and energy being the same thing)
-conservation of linear momentum
-conservation of angular momentum

When performing any experiment, one has to assume these to be fullfilled, or else the experiment has no meaning as:
-the conservation of mass is required for the experiment to be time-independent. Without it, the same experiment would be different on another time.
-the conservation of linear momentum is required for the experiment to be place-independent. Without it, the same experiment would be different on another place.
-the conservation of angular momentum is required for the experiment to be orientation-independent. Without it, the same experiment would be different when rotated a bit.

You can see that without this, it would be impossible to even attempt to 'do science'.

Originally posted by Evinsia
The Christian Majority will emerge victorious!

The 'majority' are not really Christians, I do not think. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think there is much difference between them and anyone else. The very difinition of a Christian that they would likely profess, is something that many seem to turn a blind eye toward.

As far as the topic is concerned, if the creation theory has still hung on just fine without being taught in public schools, then the evolution theory will still hold strong, even if it isn't taught at all.

Personally, I would like to see an honest overview of both and letting the students make the choice. This will never happen, though, because the teachers will never be able to look past their own prejudices and even if they could, the parent of students would prevent their making a decision on their own.

Can someone prove to me that evolution is being phased out?

Since the person didn't provide a link I want to know!

Well, evolution is a religion, too. Sure, it is the one most popular among guys in white coats w/ god complexes, but that doesn't make it any more valid than any other one.

i would not say religion...

Can someone prove to me that evolution is being phased out?

Since the person didn't provide a link I want to know!

well all i can say is that evoluyion is bigger in erurope than each individual religeon..but not religeon as a whole..now in emrica we all know that religeon is bigger..i think eventually it will probably just be america and the mid east as religeouse areas...hmm...interesting

well all i can say is that evoluyion is bigger in erurope than each individual religeon..but not religeon as a whole..now in emrica we all know that religeon is bigger..i think eventually it will probably just be america and the mid east as religeouse areas...hmm...interesting

How does this answer my question? Is evolution being phased out?

How does this answer my question? Is evolution being phased out?

no...urm..well not this side of the "pond"

I think the thread starter was either relaying personal experience of his school days in kansas or talking about new legislation or just people being idiots.

They provided no link.

I have a more abstract understanding of words, and I see you take things very litteral.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

that would fit science in many ways. Many scientists are filled with a zeal that drives them onward to find new and better things in their chosen field.

just because I see things with less ridgid standpoints doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.


Losing Battle, I'd drop it....


I'm Back on :)

I think the thread starter was either relaying personal experience of his school days in kansas or talking about new legislation or just people being idiots.

They provided no link.


No I'm in school now and it's happening now o.-

I'm not sure if this is the same story, but it is somewhat dated (1999) and covers almost exactlt what you are talking about:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/12/kansas.evolution.flap/

No I'm in school now and it's happening now o.-

Is evolution being phased out?

Is evolution being phased out?

We're having schoolboard elections to decide curriculm, meaning that we could be forced to swallow creationism as science, which I will protest to the best of my ability if it passes...

No human has ever witnessed the origin of a new species.

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Have fun.

And if you're even considering claming that all of those are microevolution within a species rather than the evolution of new species then you better be able to provide an actual definition of species that fits your claim since you obviously aren't using one from any biology class you may have taken. Good luck defining a species broadly enough that it can encompass all of those examples but doesn't end up calling chimps and humans the same species in the process.

The 'majority' are not really Christians, I do not think. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think there is much difference between them and anyone else. The very difinition of a Christian that they would likely profess, is something that many seem to turn a blind eye toward.

As far as the topic is concerned, if the creation theory has still hung on just fine without being taught in public schools, then the evolution theory will still hold strong, even if it isn't taught at all.

Personally, I would like to see an honest overview of both and letting the students make the choice. This will never happen, though, because the teachers will never be able to look past their own prejudices and even if they could, the parent of students would prevent their making a decision on their own.
But CREATIONISM is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY

I am all for teaching theology classes dont get me wrong but it is as simple as teaching SCIENCE in a SCIENCE CLASS

We devide topics for a reason ... ease of study ... congruency of thought and grading and understanding
I personaly think a theology class SHOULD be required but not in theological topics in a science class

I personaly think a theology class SHOULD be required but not in theological topics in a science classA much more relevant and logical topic/question is this: Why should a theology class be mandatory?

Dude, that's latent adaptation. Microevolution. That was a sub-species. That's like breeding a new breed of dog. Rock on.

Guess how you get subspecies? Mutation!!

By the way, mutation and adaptation are not the same thing.

And guess how you get a new species? When they mutate so much that they can no longer interbreed and produce completely viable offspring!

The end.

Personally, I would like to see an honest overview of both and letting the students make the choice. This will never happen, though, because the teachers will never be able to look past their own prejudices and even if they could, the parent of students would prevent their making a decision on their own.

I don't care if kids are taught Creationism in a comparative religion or theology class, so long as more than one creation story is taught. It *CANNOT* however, be taught in a science class as anything but poor science.

We're having schoolboard elections to decide curriculm, meaning that we could be forced to swallow creationism as science, which I will protest to the best of my ability if it passes...

Just point to the very first chapter of your textbook which outlines the scientific method and show how Creationism does not follow it.