NationStates Jolt Archive

(a) Nothing in science is ever proven. It is a logical impossibility. The scientific method can support a given hypothesis. It can provide so much support that a given layperson might call it "proven", but it can never actually prove anything.

(b) Why would I try to prove Creationism? Science already has a theory derived from all of the evidence - it is called evolution.

1) Something is observed
2) This observation is studied
3) A theory is created based on what they know to be the input parameters
4) Mathematical proofs are calculated from first principles. (You can prove absolutely everything from the basic fundamental laws of Physics)
5) Experimentalists conduct a controlled experiment over a number of input variable values (say time/temperature/current)
6) Experiment is repeated again and again, varying atmospheric conditions, light intensity, etc, etc, etc.
7) Graphs are created to grapha and analyse output data.

Somehow, I think there's very little room for error, or else the scientist/research group loses all respect from their peers. And they get sacked. And the next time they're seen, it's behind a counter asking "Would you like fries with that?"

1) Something is observed
2) This observation is studied
3) A theory is created based on what they know to be the input parameters
4) Mathematical proofs are calculated from first principles. (You can prove absolutely everything from the basic fundamental laws of Physics)
5) Experimentalists conduct a controlled experiment over a number of input variable values (say time/temperature/current)
6) Experiment is repeated again and again, varying atmospheric conditions, light intensity, etc, etc, etc.
7) Graphs are created to grapha and analyse output data.

Somehow, I think there's very little room for error, or else the scientist/research group loses all respect from their peers. And they get sacked. And the next time they're seen, it's behind a counter asking "Would you like fries with that?"

(a) Of course there's little room for error. That is as it should be.

One problem, in your #4, you refer to "basic fundamental laws of physics," ignoring the fact that the theories of physics are just as much up for review as any part of science. The current physics theories, like all scientific theories, are the best we have. And there are already occurrences which they do not mathematically explain, demonstrating that they are not perfect.

Thus, as I said, we cannot prove anything with science. We can disprove it, but we can never say that, the next time we try it, it won't happen differently. As such, in science, we have theories which are so well-supported that we can treat them as if they were proven, with the caveat that we are always open to the idea that they just might be wrong.

Just an idea that probably bean said a hundred timese but if you allow creation, you must allow any religionbelief being taugh as science. Because that is the diffence between creationist and beliving that the world was created like the semimodern asa belief that we alll lived in a big trees, but in armagedon a small piece flow into space with two people that later became the first humans and the part of the tree became the earth. Because either you separeta science and religion, get fundemalistic and accept one religion beliefs as equal with science but not other religionbeliefs or you go really hippie and allow any religios belief to be considering equal to science.

the theories of physics are just as much up for review as any part of science. The current physics theories, like all scientific theories, are the best we have. And there are already occurrences which they do not mathematically explain, demonstrating that they are not perfect.

This is very true. Most of Einstein's theory of relativity cannot yet be tested, and is based predominantly on 'thought experiments' or scientific scenarios which seem to make sense to a lot of people.

1) Something is observed
2) This observation is studied
3) A theory is created based on what they know to be the input parameters
4) Mathematical proofs are calculated from first principles. (You can prove absolutely everything from the basic fundamental laws of Physics)
5) Experimentalists conduct a controlled experiment over a number of input variable values (say time/temperature/current)
6) Experiment is repeated again and again, varying atmospheric conditions, light intensity, etc, etc, etc.
7) Graphs are created to grapha and analyse output data.

Somehow, I think there's very little room for error, or else the scientist/research group loses all respect from their peers. And they get sacked. And the next time they're seen, it's behind a counter asking "Would you like fries with that?"

Point 4 is invalid; there are many things we cannot even compute exactly (try computing the exact movements of the planets in our solarsystem for instance) - we must use approximations.
Also, tough what you describe is how many people work, it is not exactly the scientific method:

1) Something is observed
2) This observation is studied
3) A hypothesis is created based on what they know to be the input parameters
4) One attempts to show the hypothesesis is wrong by experiments, mathematical proofs etc.
5a) If one succeeds in proving the hypothesis wrong, one has a new observation and returns to 1
5b) If one fails to proof the hypothesis wrong it gets promoted to Theory.
5c) If one proofs the hypothesis to be absolutely right it gets promoted to Law.

Scientific theories can be wrong. Proving one wrong is in fact a goal of Science. Proving evolution to be wrong would therefor be a victory for science. As would proving it right. As would being unable to proof it wrong despite it being testable.

Creationism should not be taught. In schools you should teach proven science not fiction.

Ill get my brother who is 8 years old if needed... He can tell the difference between knowledge and belif.

Does any of you Americans ever think about WHY some Europeans, Canadians or Japaneese people think some of you are F...... stupid?! :rolleyes: Some of you are F...... retarded :headbang:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

(Sorry boys & Girls but reason nor logic seems to work here, no matter how hard you try) PLZ dont BAN me. I will never do this again. I promiss. I will never again read about creationism again.... EVER. I did read it all... every single word :(

Point 4 is invalid; there are many things we cannot even compute exactly (try computing the exact movements of the planets in our solarsystem for instance) - we must use approximations.
Also, tough what you describe is how many people work, it is not exactly the scientific method:

1) Something is observed
2) This observation is studied
3) A hypothesis is created based on what they know to be the input parameters
4) One attempts to show the hypothesesis is wrong by experiments, mathematical proofs etc.
5a) If one succeeds in proving the hypothesis wrong, one has a new observation and returns to 1
5b) If one fails to proof the hypothesis wrong it gets promoted to Theory.
5c) If one proofs the hypothesis to be absolutely right it gets promoted to Law.

Scientific theories can be wrong. Proving one wrong is in fact a goal of Science. Proving evolution to be wrong would therefor be a victory for science. As would proving it right. As would being unable to proof it wrong despite it being testable.

You are still incorrect. 5c is a logical impossibility using the scientific method. One cannot prove something "absolutely right". You can get so close that it seems as if it will never be proven wrong, but it is still open to being disproven. Take, for instance, Newton's laws. People were so sure of them, that they attained the name "law". Then, of course, we found out that they are wrong. They work as an approximation in certain situations (most everyday situations), so we can use them for that. They are not, however, the best theory.

It is impossible to prove evolution right. We can support the theory, and do, but that is all science can achieve - supporting the theory.

Point 4 is invalid; there are many things we cannot even compute exactly (try computing the exact movements of the planets in our solarsystem for instance) - we must use approximations.
Also, tough what you describe is how many people work, it is not exactly the scientific method:

1) Something is observed
2) This observation is studied
3) A hypothesis is created based on what they know to be the input parameters
4) One attempts to show the hypothesesis is wrong by experiments, mathematical proofs etc.
5a) If one succeeds in proving the hypothesis wrong, one has a new observation and returns to 1
5b) If one fails to proof the hypothesis wrong it gets promoted to Theory.
5c) If one proofs the hypothesis to be absolutely right it gets promoted to Law.

Laws are NOT one step up in certainty from theories. In science theories are the pinnacle acheivement. The holy grail of the scientific method if you will. Laws are relatively easy, all you have to do is accurately describe a manner in which a given physical process will always occur given certain conditions. If you want to come up with a theory on the other hand you need to be able to say why that is.

To put it as simply as possible:

Laws DESCRIBE.
Theories EXPLAIN.

No matter HOW certain we are of the correctness of the explanation it doesn't stop being an explanation and so it doesn't stop being a theory. There is no level higher than theory to which a theory can be "promoted". Ever.

And as for the rest of your statement... proof is for math, evidence is for science.

Which removed ALL the fossils from some areas, but left other areas densely populated with fossils?

Curiously delicate and artistic flood...

It would explain some of the anomolies and variation in the Geologic column, particularly if you consider the possibility of "the waters above" being devided from the "waters beneath" to suggest that much of earth's water was contained under ground rather than in large seas. This would also account for the "fountains of the deep" breaking up in the biblical account of the flood.

Also, if there was a flood of this nature, it would make sense that "lower" life forms would be on the bottom of the Geologic column due to the larger, stronger animals fighting their way to the top before drowning and being burried by sediment. The pressure of such a flood could also explain the massive oil deposits on this planet, which could have been created as the result of pressure and organic material being buried. Along with a host of the other geological characteristic of this planet...

I know, we've talked about this before and you're probably not willing to concede that scientist's atheistic biases have limited the amount of research on subjects that would support theories other than evolution, but just because the research has never been done, doesn't eliminate other options.

I wouldn't have a problem with evolution being taught if it was treated as a "theory" and presented with other competing theories, however bizarre. However, I see that as impractical from a teaching perspective, at least in elementary ed. and would prefer to see other subjects dealt with for my tax dollar.

LOL, since when are angiosperm trees and bees stronger than trilobites?

Btw, do you know what a scientific "theory" actually means??!

It would explain some of the anomolies and variation in the Geologic column, particularly if you consider the possibility of "the waters above" being devided from the "waters beneath" to suggest that much of earth's water was contained under ground rather than in large seas. This would also account for the "fountains of the deep" breaking up in the biblical account of the flood.

Also, if there was a flood of this nature, it would make sense that "lower" life forms would be on the bottom of the Geologic column due to the larger, stronger animals fighting their way to the top before drowning and being burried by sediment. The pressure of such a flood could also explain the massive oil deposits on this planet, which could have been created as the result of pressure and organic material being buried. Along with a host of the other geological characteristic of this planet...

I know, we've talked about this before and you're probably not willing to concede that scientist's atheistic biases have limited the amount of research on subjects that would support theories other than evolution, but just because the research has never been done, doesn't eliminate other options.

I wouldn't have a problem with evolution being taught if it was treated as a "theory" and presented with other competing theories, however bizarre. However, I see that as impractical from a teaching perspective, at least in elementary ed. and would prefer to see other subjects dealt with for my tax dollar.

This debate about floods was settled long ago by the work of Lyell. Before Darwin.

Actually, we know almost everything about energy that we need to know short of the engineering solutions to some problems. In fact, it's been proven that this universe you see every day isn't the only one - it can be demonstrated using a tabletop experiment.

The theories are nearly complete, and it's likely that we'll see the end of new physics in the next 100 years.

I'd say you don't recognize that there is an infinite smallness to deal with when it comes to measurement. I suspect we'll be studing new information about what makes up whatever we currently consider to be the smallest most reduced element of energy we can currently perceive, in the next 100 years and so on ad infinitum

Also, if there was a flood of this nature, it would make sense that "lower" life forms would be on the bottom of the Geologic column due to the larger, stronger animals fighting their way to the top before drowning and being burried by sediment. The pressure of such a flood could also explain the massive oil deposits on this planet, which could have been created as the result of pressure and organic material being buried. Along with a host of the other geological characteristic of this planet...

Snipped some stuff because I really want to address the above quoted paragraph.

Ok, so you're saying that a velociraptor or a T-Rex couldn't outrun or outfight a giant sloth to get to a higher and safer location? That's just dumb. Just like all of creationism.

It would explain some of the anomolies and variation in the Geologic column, particularly if you consider the possibility of "the waters above" being devided from the "waters beneath" to suggest that much of earth's water was contained under ground rather than in large seas. This would also account for the "fountains of the deep" breaking up in the biblical account of the flood.

What anomalies? And what waters below? There is no thing such as a subterranean ocean, if you think that...


Also, if there was a flood of this nature, it would make sense that "lower" life forms would be on the bottom of the Geologic column due to the larger, stronger animals fighting their way to the top before drowning and being burried by sediment. The pressure of such a flood could also explain the massive oil deposits on this planet, which could have been created as the result of pressure and organic material being buried. Along with a host of the other geological characteristic of this planet...

I know, we've talked about this before and you're probably not willing to concede that scientist's atheistic biases have limited the amount of research on subjects that would support theories other than evolution, but just because the research has never been done, doesn't eliminate other options.


Atheistic bias? I don't think so. This is just mere logic and pure observation. Seriously.

Well anyways, for you... just for you... i'm gonna post this again. Read it closely, and reconsider how folly your literal biblical deluge is:

- There is not enough water on Earth for a global flood. If there was, where did it come from, and where did it go to afterwards?

- There is no geological evidence for a global flood. If you think fossils and sediments are evidence for a global flood, then you evidently have no understanding of even the most simple basics of geology.

- Dendrochronology date back to circa 10,000 years and ice core samples date back to over 700,000 years, and neither say anything about a global flood.

- Who says it's possible to build such a gigantic wooden boat and maintain it with just such a small number of people, and who says it would survive such an event?

- It would have been impossible for the ark to to hold all animal species of the world. All the millions of insect species would never have found room in it. And if you add all the *known* extinct species, the figure gets even higher.

- It would have been impossible to feed all these species during the flood and afterwards, and it would have been impossible of preventing them from feeding on each other.

- How do you explain that there are more extinct species than living ones if you assume that they were all saved from the flood on board of Noah's Ark. Just for your information, Dinosaurs are not the only extinct group of animals.

- How do you explain the present-day (and fossil) distribution and restriction of certain types of animals? For example why are there Marsupials in Australia, and why have fossils of horses never been found in Antarctica and Australia?

- Some species of animals do not have two genders, they are hermaphrodites and some even reproduce via parthenogenesis. Talking about pairs...

- The Deluge would have been an extreme population bottleneck. There is no evidence for such a bottleneck in the gene pool of the living species, and it's unlikely that they would have recovered from it.

- Most aquatic ecosystems would have died because of the change of salinity.

- Most plants would not have survived the year of flood.

:D

I'd say you don't recognize that there is an infinite smallness to deal with when it comes to measurement. I suspect we'll be studing new information about what makes up whatever we currently consider to be the smallest most reduced element of energy we can currently perceive, in the next 100 years and so on ad infinitum

The whole particle/wave thing, for instance, was settled long ago.

This debate about floods was settled long ago by the work of Lyell. Before Darwin.

Did he recreate every possible model? Did he examine every possibility? He couldn't possibly. He didn't have the technology. Even now our capacity to create models based on geographic, geothermal, atmospheric elements, gravitational effects from other celestial bodies etc, is incomplete. Sure we know a lot, but not anywhere close to enough to say that there is no way a flood can explain the current geologic column. Believing in statements that say there is no way (insert anything you desire) happened on the basis of science is a statement of faith, not of fact.

The whole particle/wave thing, for instance, was settled long ago.

Last I knew, the answer was, both, neither, we don't know but we're sure that it displays characteristics of both.

Did he recreate every possible model? Did he examine every possibility? He couldn't possibly. He didn't have the technology. Even now our capacity to create models based on geographic, geothermal, atmospheric elements, gravitational effects from other celestial bodies etc, is incomplete. Sure we know a lot, but not anywhere close to enough to say that there is no way a flood can explain the current geologic column. Believing in statements that say there is no way (insert anything you desire) happened on the basis of science is a statement of faith, not of fact.

No, it's not faith. It's evidence to the best of our knowledge (which is continously expanding).

Did he recreate every possible model? Did he examine every possibility? He couldn't possibly. He didn't have the technology. Even now our capacity to create models based on geographic, geothermal, atmospheric elements, gravitational effects from other celestial bodies etc, is incomplete. Sure we know a lot, but not anywhere close to enough to say that there is no way a flood can explain the current geologic column. Believing in statements that say there is no way (insert anything you desire) happened on the basis of science is a statement of faith, not of fact.

If you want to follow the scientific method, please get a copy of Lyell's book (it will be the first one you will have to refute - and many, many people have tried and failed over the years) and try to refute it with your hypothetical deluge. You'll need evidence as painstakingly gathered as his - so it will take you a long time.

People spent their whole lives trying to disprove his findings. To prove a Flood. And they failed.

His evidence and proofs stand until disproven. That's not faith. You're the one who is required to prove your hypothesis - we can't say his theory (a proven hypothesis) is false because you say he didn't consider every possibility. Go ahead, read the book, and start gathering evidence.

What anomalies? And what waters below? There is no thing such as a subterranean ocean, if you think that...



Atheistic bias? I don't think so. This is just mere logic and pure observation. Seriously.

Well anyways, for you... just for you... i'm gonna post this again. Read it closely, and reconsider how folly your literal biblical deluge is:

- There is not enough water on Earth for a global flood. If there was, where did it come from, and where did it go to afterwards?

- There is no geological evidence for a global flood. If you think fossils and sediments are evidence for a global flood, then you evidently have no understanding of even the most simple basics of geology.

- Dendrochronology date back to circa 10,000 years and ice core samples date back to over 700,000 years, and neither say anything about a global flood.

- Who says it's possible to build such a gigantic wooden boat and maintain it with just such a small number of people, and who says it would survive such an event?

- It would have been impossible for the ark to to hold all animal species of the world. All the millions of insect species would never have found room in it. And if you add all the *known* extinct species, the figure gets even higher.

- It would have been impossible to feed all these species during the flood and afterwards, and it would have been impossible of preventing them from feeding on each other.

- How do you explain that there are more extinct species than living ones if you assume that they were all saved from the flood on board of Noah's Ark. Just for your information, Dinosaurs are not the only extinct group of animals.

- How do you explain the present-day (and fossil) distribution and restriction of certain types of animals? For example why are there Marsupials in Australia, and why have fossils of horses never been found in Antarctica and Australia?

- Some species of animals do not have two genders, they are hermaphrodites and some even reproduce via parthenogenesis. Talking about pairs...

- The Deluge would have been an extreme population bottleneck. There is no evidence for such a bottleneck in the gene pool of the living species, and it's unlikely that they would have recovered from it.

- Most aquatic ecosystems would have died because of the change of salinity.

- Most plants would not have survived the year of flood.

:D

Again, have you examined every possible model? I doubt it... You chose to believe what current science "preaches" as religously as the Catholic church preached that the world was round not so long ago. In 100 or 1000 years, there will be completely new theories I'm sure...

Again, have you examined every possible model? I doubt it... You chose to believe what current science "preaches" as religously as the Catholic church preached that the world was round not so long ago. In 100 or 1000 years, there will be completely new theories I'm sure...

It's very likely that there is a huge bunch of stuff we don't know today. But did you even consider checking anything of my arguments above? Your biblical deluge is just simply *** not possible ***

:headbang:

(btw, do you also believe the Earth was flat?)

Edit: Unlike science, the book of Genesis is static. The only thing you can do is discard all evidence that contradicts it. And that's standard procedure of Creationists...

Again, have you examined every possible model? I doubt it... You chose to believe what current science "preaches" as religously as the Catholic church preached that the world was round not so long ago. In 100 or 1000 years, there will be completely new theories I'm sure...
Dude, can you see that your whole argument rests on "It doesn't matter what every observation, every measurement and the best science we have says, it may change in the future." That's a pretty lame argument. You haven't actually refuted any of the flood criticisms presented at all.

If you want to follow the scientific method, please get a copy of Lyell's book (it will be the first one you will have to refute - and many, many people have tried and failed over the years) and try to refute it with your hypothetical deluge. You'll need evidence as painstakingly gathered as his - so it will take you a long time.

People spent their whole lives trying to disprove his findings. To prove a Flood. And they failed.

His evidence and proofs stand until disproven. That's not faith. You're the one who is required to prove your hypothesis - we can't say his theory (a proven hypothesis) is false because you say he didn't consider every possibility. Go ahead, read the book, and start gathering evidence.

Sorry, but quite frankly, I have more important things to do. The reality is, from a scientific perspective, even if I disproved his theory, I'd still never prove that mine was correct. That is the problem with science, it never actually proves anything. It just provides a suggestion we haven't conceived a possible alternate answer for yet...

And irrespective of whether or not I can prove or disprove the theory of evolution, in a free society I should be able to teach my children as I see fit and not be required to pay taxes to support the propigation of a theory that removes man's responsibility to God and his fellow man by reducing us to survival of the fittest.

It's very likely that there is a huge bunch of stuff we don't know today. But did you even consider checking anything of my arguments above? Your biblical deluge is just simply *** not possible ***

:headbang:

(btw, do you also believe the Earth was flat?)

Edit: Unlike science, the book of Genesis is static. The only thing you can do is discard all evidence that contradicts it. And that's standard procedure of Creationists...

Give me the budget and man hours invested in evolution related research in the last 100 years, and I'll give you a flood theory that will hold more water than you have the capacity to fully understand.

Sorry, but quite frankly, I have more important things to do. The reality is, from a scientific perspective, even if I disproved his theory, I'd still never prove that mine was correct. That is the problem with science, it never actually proves anything. It just provides a suggestion we haven't conceived a possible alternate answer for yet...

And irrespective of whether or not I can prove or disprove the theory of evolution, in a free society I should be able to teach my children as I see fit and not be required to pay taxes to support the propigation of a theory that removes man's responsibility to God and his fellow man by reducing us to survival of the fittest.

It doesn't remove man's responsibility to God and his fellow man. It doesn't say that anywhere. And "survival of the fittest" is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood phrase in the whole theory.

While we're at it, there are other scientific discoveries that run counter to Christian teaching - discoveries that were enough to have people burned at the stake as heretics. So, will you stop teaching those ideas as well?

Dude, can you see that your whole argument rests on "It doesn't matter what every observation, every measurement and the best science we have says, it may change in the future." That's a pretty lame argument. You haven't actually refuted any of the flood criticisms presented at all.


The problem is, this evidence is all tainted by "researcher bias". I know the "hard sciences" claim to not have biases, but that is about as sound a position as to say that theologians don't have biases. In general, you see what you want to see and science is no different in that regard, no less susceptable to human influence than any other method of gathering "knowledge".

Give me the budget and man hours invested in evolution related research in the last 100 years, and I'll give you a flood theory that will hold more water than you have the capacity to fully understand.

LOL? Talking about 'holding' water, you still haven't explained where all the water supposedly came from...

Besides, Deluge has nothing to do with evolution... other than that it shares the trait that it contradicts Genesis. :p

I know, we've talked about this before and you're probably not willing to concede that scientist's atheistic biases have limited the amount of research on subjects that would support theories other than evolution, but just because the research has never been done, doesn't eliminate other options.

You are aware, I assume, that the percentage of atheists in the scientific population is no different from the population at large?

I wouldn't have a problem with evolution being taught if it was treated as a "theory" and presented with other competing theories, however bizarre.

So we should teach the flat-earth theory? And the little gnomes pushing the plants up theory?

Or should we just stick to the theories with the most evidence?

The problem is, this evidence is all tainted by "researcher bias". I know the "hard sciences" claim to not have biases, but that is about as sound a position as to say that theologians don't have biases. In general, you see what you want to see and science is no different in that regard, no less susceptable to human influence than any other method of gathering "knowledge".

Then please, explain to me how i can find brachiopods and crinoids inside boulders (marine sediments) which themselves lie inside conglomerates (river sediments)

Edit: this is a very serious example. I have these boulders right here at my hand...

It doesn't remove man's responsibility to God and his fellow man. It doesn't say that anywhere. And "survival of the fittest" is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood phrase in the whole theory.

While we're at it, there are other scientific discoveries that run counter to Christian teaching - discoveries that were enough to have people burned at the stake as heretics. So, will you stop teaching those ideas as well?

I don't want my child (hypothetical as I don't actually have one at this point) taught anything that contridicts the Bible. That doesn't mean that I believe the world is flat or many of the other things that have generated persecution by psuedo-christians in the past.

The problem is, this evidence is all tainted by "researcher bias". I know the "hard sciences" claim to not have biases, but that is about as sound a position as to say that theologians don't have biases. In general, you see what you want to see and science is no different in that regard, no less susceptable to human influence than any other method of gathering "knowledge".
Science is only biased toward scientific theories. That's all. Of course they are biased against "goddidit" because that can't be tested. Science requires falsifiability. Since Creation and your flood are unfalsifiable (you can always use god's magic powers to save your "theory" if the facts don't bear it out) they aren't scientific, and can't be taught in a science class.

Hell, if you're going to complain that science is biased against religion then you should complain that math is biased against Russian literature. They are simply different subjects, and you should stop trying to get your religion involved where it doesn't belong.

Again, have you examined every possible model? I doubt it... You chose to believe what current science "preaches" as religously as the Catholic church preached that the world was round not so long ago. In 100 or 1000 years, there will be completely new theories I'm sure...

There will, of course, be new theories in 100 or 1000 years - for many things. This will be due to the increasing amounts of evidence on hand.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach our children the process of science and the best theories we currently have.

Give me the budget and man hours invested in evolution related research in the last 100 years, and I'll give you a flood theory that will hold more water than you have the capacity to fully understand.

learn some geology, then come back.

and science cannot have 'god did it' as an explanation, because you can't test it.

I don't want my child (hypothetical as I don't actually have one at this point) taught anything that contridicts the Bible. That doesn't mean that I believe the world is flat or many of the other things that have generated persecution by psuedo-christians in the past.

I already feel sorry for your child. There are so many things in this world that obviously contradict the bible... :rolleyes:

The problem is, this evidence is all tainted by "researcher bias". I know the "hard sciences" claim to not have biases, but that is about as sound a position as to say that theologians don't have biases. In general, you see what you want to see and science is no different in that regard, no less susceptable to human influence than any other method of gathering "knowledge".

Except, of course, that science is open to criticism, interpretation, and repeated measurements by anyone.

Then please, explain to me how i can find brachiopods and crinoids inside boulders (marine sediments) which themselves lie inside conglomerates (river sediments)

Edit: this is a very serious example. I have these boulders right here at my hand...


It is rarely the data itself that contains the bias. Rather the interpretation of the data that is highly suspect.

I don't want my child (hypothetical as I don't actually have one at this point) taught anything that contridicts the Bible. That doesn't mean that I believe the world is flat or many of the other things that have generated persecution by psuedo-christians in the past.

Do you assume that your child will be medically retarded?

If not, why do you think that your child will be incapable of independent thought?

I don't want my child (hypothetical as I don't actually have one at this point) taught anything that contridicts the Bible. That doesn't mean that I believe the world is flat or many of the other things that have generated persecution by psuedo-christians in the past.

why lie to your child just to force your religious views on them?

most christians in europe have no issue with evolution.

It is rarely the data itself that contains the bias. Rather the interpretation of the data that is highly suspect.

No one, not even religious scholars, could find a hole in Lyell's interpretations.

No one to this date has found anything that was "highly suspect".

I suggest you get a copy and read it, unless you're afraid it will convince you.

learn some geology, then come back.

and science cannot have 'god did it' as an explanation, because you can't test it.

You could theorize and test models for a flood though that would explain current data.

It is rarely the data itself that contains the bias. Rather the interpretation of the data that is highly suspect.

Well, the data itself is on my side, effendi.

How much time do you think passed between when the brachiopods and crinoids were layed down in the sediment, and when the material was removed again and rolled into boulders. And tell me how much time passed after the boulders were themselves placed again as sediment?

Without any knowledge of geology, it must have been a *very long time* to do that... :p

Well, the data itself is on my side, effendi.

How much time do you think passed between when the brachiopods and crinoids were layed down in the sediment, and when the material was removed again and rolled into boulders. And tell me how much time passed after the boulders were themselves placed again as sediment?

Without any knowledge of geology, it must have been a *very long time* to do that... :p

That's what Lyell said. No one could find a hole in his book.

You could theorize and test models for a flood though that would explain current data.

if you can get one that fits with all geological data, i'll eat my hat.

none of the crazy creationists in the states have come up with one, what makes you think you're different?

why lie to your child just to force your religious views on them?

most christians in europe have no issue with evolution.

First and formost, having an honest disagreement about earth's history doesn't = lying. Second, I'm not going to force anything. I will teach and want taught to my child that which I believe to be true. When my child is of age and no long my responsibility, they have the freedom to pursue whatever they desire.

First and formost, having an honest disagreement about earth's history doesn't = lying. Second, I'm not going to force anything. I will teach and want taught to my child that which I believe to be true. When my child is of age and no long my responsibility, they have the freedom to pursue whatever they desire.

no, it's going against all the evidence. it's warping the truth to fit your ignorant religious views

Well, the data itself is on my side, effendi.

How much time do you think passed between when the brachiopods and crinoids were layed down in the sediment, and when the material was removed again and rolled into boulders. And tell me how much time passed after the boulders were themselves placed again as sediment?

Without any knowledge of geology, it must have been a *very long time* to do that... :p

Assuming that we understand the circumstances when those fossils were created, you could be right. I'm inclined to believe that science is to short sighted to really know what happened back then... I understand you disagree. That is okay with me, just don't teach my child that.

I want to know why Personal thinks that believing in evolution is somehow not believing in God - or in caring for your fellow man.

That's the biggest problem I have with his arguments - I'm a born-again Christian and I have no problem with evolution - and I don't see it as "not believing in God" or "not caring for your fellow man".

no, it's going against all the evidence. it's warping the truth to fit your ignorant religious views

No, it's going against, current interpretation of data that is already warped by human fallibility.

No, it's going against, current interpretation of data that is already warped by human fallibility.

go write a better theory then. but you already fail the bias test.

Assuming that we understand the circumstances when those fossils were created, you could be right. I'm inclined to believe that science is to short sighted to really know what happened back then... I understand you disagree. That is okay with me, just don't teach my child that.

W... T... F...?!?

I want to know why Personal thinks that believing in evolution is somehow not believing in God - or in caring for your fellow man.

That's the biggest problem I have with his arguments - I'm a born-again Christian and I have no problem with evolution - and I don't see it as "not believing in God" or "not caring for your fellow man".

Because the Bible is God's revelation to the world. To deny its truth is to call God a lier. Also, it suggests that man "spontaneously" came into existance. If that is the case, all morality is subjective and thereby devoid of real meaning making murder and rape morally equal to benevolent love. Just constructs of human creation that have no value other than someone else's word.

i believe magical trout save people with cancer.

go teach that in schools.

go write a better theory then. but you already fail the bias test.

That's the point, there isn't a soul on earth that isn't biased. It isn't humanly possible to be unbiased. That makes everything, every human theory suspect at best.

i believe magical trout save people with cancer.

go teach that in schools.

That makes just as much sense to me as teaching evolution... they're both ludicris IMO...

That's the point, there isn't a soul on earth that isn't biased. It isn't humanly possible to be unbiased. That makes everything, every human theory suspect at best.

some of the geologists i know are religious. if you want to prove your religion is right to validate yourself, then go on. but don't pretend to be a scientist when your aim is deliberately to fit the data to a predetermined conclusion

Because the Bible is God's revelation to the world. To deny its truth is to call God a lier. Also, it suggests that man "spontaneously" came into existance. If that is the case, all morality is subjective and thereby devoid of real meaning making murder and rape morally equal to benevolent love. Just constructs of human creation that have no value other than someone else's word.

So you're saying that it's an undeniable truth that creation happened in exactly six days, in exactly the manner laid out in Genesis? And that to deny Genesis is to call God a liar? The rest of your statement doesn't make any sense.

What if the whole thing, from the big bang, to the curious unknowable nature of quantum physics, to evolution, was all part of God's plan - a God not content to build something out of Tinkertoy, but a God who provided a Universe to explore and know - to keep our minds occupied throughout the ages?

There's nothing to say that I can't have a big bang and evolution and have God, too.

That makes just as much sense to me as teaching evolution... they're both ludicris IMO...

no, evolution explains where different animals and plants come from, explains the fossil record, explains the DNA record, and fits in with time spans found in geology and astrophysics

Because the Bible is God's revelation to the world. To deny its truth is to call God a lier. Also, it suggests that man "spontaneously" came into existance. If that is the case, all morality is subjective and thereby devoid of real meaning making murder and rape morally equal to benevolent love. Just constructs of human creation that have no value other than someone else's word.
Why the bible? Why not the Bhagavad Gita? Why is your book so privelaged? Can you provide evidence that yours is the true word of god?

Theists love to say that without god rape and murder would be morally acceptable. They conveniently overlook the fact that the percentage of theists in prison for those crimes dwarfs the percentage of atheists in prison for those crimes. I guess people who have their morality drummed into them by religion just don't seem to take it as seriously as those who've come upon their morality through experience and introspection.

Because the Bible is God's revelation to the world. To deny its truth is to call God a lier. Also, it suggests that man "spontaneously" came into existance. If that is the case, all morality is subjective and thereby devoid of real meaning making murder and rape morally equal to benevolent love. Just constructs of human creation that have no value other than someone else's word.

Morality is based on reason, it's not subjective. What you want is a morality based on blind dogma...

(a) Of course there's little room for error. That is as it should be.

One problem, in your #4, you refer to "basic fundamental laws of physics," ignoring the fact that the theories of physics are just as much up for review as any part of science. The current physics theories, like all scientific theories, are the best we have. And there are already occurrences which they do not mathematically explain, demonstrating that they are not perfect.

Thus, as I said, we cannot prove anything with science. We can disprove it, but we can never say that, the next time we try it, it won't happen differently. As such, in science, we have theories which are so well-supported that we can treat them as if they were proven, with the caveat that we are always open to the idea that they just might be wrong.

Oh yeah, of course there are errors, but if you do the experiment many times with different external variables, you find that errors fluctuate above and below the expected value. You never see a scientific proof that doesn't include a margin of error, it's ALWAYS quoted. It's only accepted if the error is within a margin of really about 5%.
I also agree that scientific theories and proofs can be proven wrong. Only recently was Prof. Hawking proved wrong in a theory about black holes, it happens all the time, which is why nothing is ever left alone in Physics. There's always someone new who pokes a head up and askes 'But why?' one more time, making scientists recheck their work

Oh yeah, of course there are errors, but if you do the experiment many times with different external variables, you find that errors fluctuate above and below the expected value. You never see a scientific proof that doesn't include a margin of error, it's ALWAYS quoted. It's only accepted if the error is within a margin of really about 5%.
I also agree that scientific theories and proofs can be proven wrong. Only recently was Prof. Hawking proved wrong in a theory about black holes, it happens all the time, which is why nothing is ever left alone in Physics. There's always someone new who pokes a head up and askes 'But why?' one more time, making scientists recheck their work
Being within the margin of errors does not PROVE anything though other then it does alright with what we know so far

Being within the margin of errors does not PROVE anything though other then it does alright with what we know so far

But over a huge range of values? It's highly unlikely that two different theories would fit the exact same curve for the exact same values.

Being within the margin of errors does not PROVE anything though other then it does alright with what we know so far

I'd like to see creationism or god fit within margins of error

Being within the margin of errors does not PROVE anything though other then it does alright with what we know so far

A perfect example of this is the theory of General Relativity and it's application to gravitational lensing. In 1905, Einstein postulated that light would bend at a certain degree around an object of significant mass and therefore gravitational force. In 1919, Arthur Eddington confirmed the theory of Relativity during the solar eclipse when he observed light from a distant star being diffracted around the sun precisely as predicted as Einsteins theory. The figures fit perfectly into the equations written down by Einsteins almost 15 years previous.

I'd like to see creationism or god fit within margins of error

I'm sure, with a large enough margin, you could cram whatever you liked in there...

I'm sure, with a large enough margin, you could cram whatever you liked in there...

the measure of a theory is how well it predicts results.

Evolution has predicted the need for linking fossils, which we have later found. It also predicted DNA evolution, which fits in well. It also ties in time scales with geology and astrophysics.

We are even finding odd things - like homo floresiensis - that are unexpected but still fit with evolution.

the measure of a theory is how well it predicts results.

Evolution has predicted the need for linking fossils, which we have later found. It also predicted DNA evolution, which fits in well. It also ties in time scales with geology and astrophysics.

We are even finding odd things - like homo floresiensis - that are unexpected but still fit with evolution.

Very true. If a theory does not fit in with what is observed, it is discarded, and scientists work on what does fit both theorised and observed. It does happen. This is also why the Grand Theory of Everything has eluded us for so long. If we just wrote down what fits, we would have solved it decades ago, but there's always something that doesn't fit. We have theorised the graviton and dark matter, we know they exist, but until we have found and studied these objects/substances, we can't create a theory. That's how science works. You try never to say something that someone else can say, 'No, you're wrong, and this is why' to.

Evolution, doesn't always make sense, sometimes, it creates something to see if it works. If it doesn't, it dies off and life goes on. Hence, survival of the fittest

Very true. If a theory does not fit in with what is observed, it is discarded, and scientists work on what does fit both theorised and observed. It does happen. This is also why the Grand Theory of Everything has eluded us for so long. If we just wrote down what fits, we would have solved it decades ago, but there's always something that doesn't fit. We have theorised the graviton and dark matter, we know they exist, but until we have found and studied these objects/substances, we can't create a theory. That's how science works. You try never to say something that someone else can say, 'No, you're wrong, and this is why' to.

Evolution, doesn't always make sense, sometimes, it creates something to see if it works. If it doesn't, it dies off and life goes on. Hence, survival of the fittest

well, I think we have that wrapped up.

What really pisses me off is the damned creationists who deny radioactive decay works how we think. I'm still waiting for the fucktards to build a damn radiotherapy machine I can use that will work based on THEIR theories.

well, I think we have that wrapped up.

What really pisses me off is the damned creationists who deny radioactive decay works how we think. I'm still waiting for the fucktards to build a damn radiotherapy machine I can use that will work based on THEIR theories.

Tell me about it. OK, we know the C-14 dating is not completely accurate, but we know it gets the date right to within a couple of percent error margin.
If it's so wrong, how come there's no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, and why do the ages of dinosaurs predate by 65 million years, the appearance of modern man by this dating method?

Lets see them answer these questions logically

Do creationists believe that God may have created life on other planets too?

You could theorize and test models for a flood though that would explain current data.

(a) If Creation "scientists" are any indication, not without making outrageous assumptions.

(b) If your intention is to prove that there was a flood, you have already stepped outside the scientific process and your results are invalidated. The idea has to come from the evidence, rather than fitting the evidence to meet the idea.

First and formost, having an honest disagreement about earth's history doesn't = lying. Second, I'm not going to force anything. I will teach and want taught to my child that which I believe to be true. When my child is of age and no long my responsibility, they have the freedom to pursue whatever they desire.

Fine, it isn't "lying". It is, however, indoctrination, which is just as bad. First of all, it is asking your children to have faith in you, rather than in God. Second of all, it is discouraging them from true faith.

Assuming that we understand the circumstances when those fossils were created, you could be right. I'm inclined to believe that science is to short sighted to really know what happened back then... I understand you disagree. That is okay with me, just don't teach my child that.

In other words, you don't want your children to learn any science that you don't personally agree with. Never mind that they don't have to believe it or agree with it. You don't even want them to learn about it. You would prefer ignorant children. Gotcha.

This bushanomics I think that being anything but a christian is wrong and you will go to hell. All you homosexual marring baby killing liberals. Liberals Liberals Liberal. My daddy tought me right from wrong. The government should control all school functions, just like how sex ed is controlled by the government. In which we spread the truth that sweat and tears transmit the aids virus. Like my good friend bill frist discovered. What we need to do is to take over the nations every personal matter that way we can take care of these "tourism" threats that have alot of "earl" sh*t I mean oppressed peoples. They have "nuclar" weapons of mass destruction. All hail bushanomics the like minded dictatorship d*amn I mean democracy.

Because the Bible is God's revelation to the world. To deny its truth is to call God a lier. Also, it suggests that man "spontaneously" came into existance. If that is the case, all morality is subjective and thereby devoid of real meaning making murder and rape morally equal to benevolent love. Just constructs of human creation that have no value other than someone else's word.

Evolution states a probably process by which current species came to be. It does not assume that there is no God, or that a God did not set this in motion. It does not suggest that morality is not objective, or that some higher power did not institute it.

If you would examine the theory itself, instead of coming up with bogus corollaries to it, I think you would have less of a problem here.

This bushanomics I think that being anything but a christian is wrong and you will go to hell. All you homosexual marring baby killing liberals. Liberals Liberals Liberal. My daddy tought me right from wrong. The government should control all school functions, just like how sex ed is controlled by the government. In which we spread the truth that sweat and tears transmit the aids virus. Like my good friend bill frist discovered. What we need to do is to take over the nations every personal matter that way we can take care of these "tourism" threats that have alot of "earl" sh*t I mean oppressed peoples. They have "nuclar" weapons of mass destruction. All hail bushanomics the like minded dictatorship d*amn I mean democracy.

Just what we need. Another person who thinks that all Christians are alike.

I will only tolerate creationism being taught in public schools if it is preceded by the following statement:

"A currently rejected theory of the origin of the universe is Creationism."

Keep religious propaganda out of my public schools.

Evolution states a probably process by which current species came to be. It does not assume that there is no God, or that a God did not set this in motion. It does not suggest that morality is not objective, or that some higher power did not institute it.

If you would examine the theory itself, instead of coming up with bogus corollaries to it, I think you would have less of a problem here.

Your thoughts are noble, Dempublicents1-san. But unfortunately i'm afraid he (Personal responsibilit) won't listen. Creationists hardly ever *really* listen... :(

Your thoughts are noble, Dempublicents1-san. But unfortunately i'm afraid he (Personal responsibilit) won't listen. Creationists hardly ever *really* listen... :(

Just wondering where my beliefs fit in. I'm not a person who believes in Creationism. I believe in the big bang and evolution.

But I believe that there's a God, and that he kicked the whole thing off. Not provable, not scientific, but I fail to see the harm in having that as a personal belief.

Wouldn't teach that in science class, either. Sounds like a topic for Sunday school.

Just wondering where my beliefs fit in. I'm not a person who believes in Creationism. I believe in the big bang and evolution.

But I believe that there's a God, and that he kicked the whole thing off. Not provable, not scientific, but I fail to see the harm in having that as a personal belief.

Wouldn't teach that in science class, either. Sounds like a topic for Sunday school.

Well, you fall in where most of us scientists do. The vast majority of scientists (like the vast majority of society as a whole) are theistic. Most believe in a creator (although their beliefs about said creator can and do vary). Basically, you accept the methods of science and their usefulness in determining truth. you also (I assume) accept that certain truths can be found through a spiritual, less empirical pathway.

Just wondering where my beliefs fit in. I'm not a person who believes in Creationism. I believe in the big bang and evolution.

But I believe that there's a God, and that he kicked the whole thing off. Not provable, not scientific, but I fail to see the harm in having that as a personal belief.

Wouldn't teach that in science class, either. Sounds like a topic for Sunday school.


Same as me, I like to believe that we're not alone in the Universe, and that there's someone to look over us, but I think creation was more like a computer program. God typed in the inputs and pressed enter, then sat back and watched what would happen...

Same as me, I like to believe that we're not alone in the Universe, and that there's someone to look over us, but I think creation was more like a computer program. God typed in the inputs and pressed enter, then sat back and watched what would happen...


I rather like the idea of the big bang, of difficult to fathom cosmological secrets - of highly ordered mathematics - of quantum concepts, and of evolution.

Makes the whole Universe look both complex and full of symmetry at the same time. A rather grand design.

So much more satisfying on an intellectual level than pulling someone's rib out, or making do with a handful of dust.

I rather like the idea of the big bang, of difficult to fathom cosmological secrets - of highly ordered mathematics - of quantum concepts, and of evolution.

Makes the whole Universe look both complex and full of symmetry at the same time. A rather grand design.

So much more satisfying on an intellectual level than pulling someone's rib out, or making do with a handful of dust.

As far as I'm concerned, the story of creation was written to be a nice story to explain things to an uneduated population in the absence of knowledge. Science has changed all that. If we weren't meant to know any more than what was handed to us, then we wouldn't have the ability or the brain power to better ourselves. I think the Universe was created full of puzzles for us to solve. Kinda makes life interesting... :)

Alright, look: You all should stop and take a step back and look at what you’re saying to me. You know how much you all dislike it when “christians” are judgmental and tell you your ignorant or immoral. What are you saying to me? You might want to consider that calling me an uneducated ignoramus, simply because I disagree with your or science’s interpretation of the data pertaining to evolution, is no less judgmental or hypocritical than someone who claims to be a “christian” condemning you for your lack of faith.

You should also consider that all I am asking for is the same freedom that you, yourselves desire. You want to live in a world where Christianity is not forced on you or your family and you deserve that freedom. I want to live in a world where evolutionary theory is not forced on me or my family. Yet, somehow, you seem to feel that it is acceptable to force your, science’s opinion on others. That is religious dogmatism if I ever saw it. It is NO different than the Catholic church in the Dark Ages forcing itself upon the masses.

I am not an uneducated man. I have read Darwin and Dawkins, sat through numerous classes in which evolutionary theory was taught. I have personally viewed parts of the geologic column, examined fossils, read journal articles on carbon dating and the like. How hypocritical can you be that you would call me an ignorant and uneducated man simply because I disagree with your interpretation of the data.

When you have lived my life, seen what I’ve seen, studied what I’ve studied, experienced the miracles I’ve experienced, had God move in your life the way He has moved in mine, then you will have the right to sit in judgment, until then please afford me and my family the same freedoms you desire for yourselves, the freedom to live and believe on the basis of your experience and study without having someone else’s dogma forced upon you.

I voluntarily subject myself to it in a forum like this and I enjoy the exchange of ideas and debate, at least when it is reasonable and not derogatory in nature, but my children should not be force fed the dogma of evolutionary theory by the federal government in mandatory classes. I have little else to say on this subject at this time. I have found many of you to be insulting and rude and as I do not wish to respond in kind, I think it is time for me cease posting in this thread. If you’d like to say something to me personally on the subject feel free to send a telegram to my nation.

Alright, look: You all should stop and take a step back and look at what you’re saying to me. You know how much you all dislike it when “christians” are judgmental and tell you your ignorant or immoral. What are you saying to me? You might want to consider that calling me an uneducated ignoramus, simply because I disagree with your or science’s interpretation of the data pertaining to evolution, is no less judgmental or hypocritical than someone who claims to be a “christian” condemning you for your lack of faith.

You should also consider that all I am asking for is the same freedom that you, yourselves desire. You want to live in a world where Christianity is not forced on you or your family and you deserve that freedom. I want to live in a world where evolutionary theory is not forced on me or my family. Yet, somehow, you seem to feel that it is acceptable to force your, science’s opinion on others. That is religious dogmatism if I ever saw it. It is NO different than the Catholic church in the Dark Ages forcing itself upon the masses.

I am not an uneducated man. I have read Darwin and Dawkins, sat through numerous classes in which evolutionary theory was taught. I have personally viewed parts of the geologic column, examined fossils, read journal articles on carbon dating and the like. How hypocritical can you be that you would call me an ignorant and uneducated man simply because I disagree with your interpretation of the data.

When you have lived my life, seen what I’ve seen, studied what I’ve studied, experienced the miracles I’ve experienced, had God move in your life the way He has moved in mine, then you will have the right to sit in judgment, until then please afford me and my family the same freedoms you desire for yourselves, the freedom to live and believe on the basis of your experience and study without having someone else’s dogma forced upon you.

I voluntarily subject myself to it in a forum like this and I enjoy the exchange of ideas and debate, at least when it is reasonable and not derogatory in nature, but my children should not be force fed the dogma of evolutionary theory by the federal government in mandatory classes. I have little else to say on this subject at this time. I have found many of you to be insulting and rude and as I do not wish to respond in kind, I think it is time for me cease posting in this thread. If you’d like to say something to me personally on the subject feel free to send a telegram to my nation.

But if the science class is taught correctly it is just presenting found facts and the theory that so far explains them … like any other theory that is taught
You are asking for censure of one theory because you don’t personally agree with it.
I think it is a much better Idea to ADD a theology class then deprive both your kids and others of another well tested idea

Most of us want MORE knowledge taught not the removal of that knowledge (and taught in the correct class) I am sure you catch the difference between them

I defiantly want my kid (if I was going to have one) exposed to a wide range of theological perspectives

But if the science class is taught correctly it is just presenting found facts and the theory that so far explains them … like any other theory that is taught
You are asking for censure of one theory because you don’t personally agree with it.
I think it is a much better Idea to ADD a theology class then deprive both your kids and others of another well tested idea

Most of us want MORE knowledge taught not the removal of that knowledge (and taught in the correct class) I am sure you catch the difference between them

I defiantly want my kid (if I was going to have one) exposed to a wide range of theological perspectives

I'm not opposed to that option, but from a logistical and Constitutional perspective I don't see any way it can happen. As soon as you start teaching one theology, you have to teach them all and the potential for abuse, teaching one perspective as more valid than another, is huge. All you have to do is look at how evolution is currently taught to see that.

And those hang ups don't even begin to deal with the seperation of church and state issue that would have to be dealt with as well...

I'm not opposed to that option, but from a logistical and Constitutional perspective I don't see any way it can happen. As soon as you start teaching one theology, you have to teach them all and the potential for abuse, teaching one perspective as more valid than another, is huge. All you have to do is look at how evolution is currently taught to see that.

And those hang ups don't even begin to deal with the seperation of church and state issue that would have to be dealt with as well...
The difference is that people seem to think science is important enough to require it taught .. and evolution is just one of the many theories taught. The emphasis as you call it is placed on science not necessarily evolution (which kind of tags along)

And I am all for a brief overview of a whole bunch of religions … whatever people want to learn about really people tend to think we spend massive time on that one theory when it really was not so (at least 4 years ago) yeah if you take a biology class it may be touched on (usually to busy memorizing body organs)
But all in all there are so many theories and other stuff to cover (everything from astrology to aerobatic rate is taut in a 1 year period) there is no real time (or wasent at my school)

Anyways I know I am babbling
But I would rather see our students taught more rather then filtered from a predominant viewpoint whatever it is
Just because it is easer to try and block what we dont agree with in the end it just does more harm

The difference is that people seem to think science is important enough to require it taught .. and evolution is just one of the many theories taught. The emphasis as you call it is placed on science not necessarily evolution (which kind of tags along)

And I am all for a brief overview of a whole bunch of religions … whatever people want to learn about really people tend to think we spend massive time on that one theory when it really was not so (at least 4 years ago) yeah if you take a biology class it may be touched on (usually to busy memorizing body organs)
But all in all there are so many theories and other stuff to cover (everything from astrology to aerobatic rate is taut in a 1 year period) there is no real time (or wasent at my school)

Anyways I know I am babbling
But I would rather see our students taught more rather then filtered from a predominant viewpoint whatever it is
Just because it is easer to try and block what we dont agree with in the end it just does more harm

The problem is that evolution gets taught in progressively more detail throughout the course of schooling and is mandatory. Are you willing to do the same for every religion in existance? That is what it would take and I just don't think its practical. Ideal maybe, but probably not practical.

The problem is that evolution gets taught in progressively more detail throughout the course of schooling and is mandatory. Are you willing to do the same for every religion in existance? That is what it would take and I just don't think its practical. Ideal maybe, but probably not practical.
But the problem is you are picking on one theory you dont agree with when it is taught as an example of a larger whole this is not a theistic viewpoint it is a collection based off of observeable data and continues to grow just because you dont agree with what that implies about your faith does not change the fact that it is still a theory
and the best description we have thus far. To get rid of evolution you have to PROVE it is wrong

Its not about wishes you just have to find better or different observeable data.

If your viewpoint is right the data will reflect this and evolutionary theory will swing that way


Its like me saying christianity is important enough to be made manditory in school but I dont agree with the part about the fish and bread feeding the masses so I am going to fight just that story
it is part of a greater whole, you either think science is important enough to be required or you dont ... but picking and choosing on opinion is not a good way to go about things

Alright, look: You all should stop and take a step back and look at what you’re saying to me. You know how much you all dislike it when “christians” are judgmental and tell you your ignorant or immoral. What are you saying to me? You might want to consider that calling me an uneducated ignoramus, simply because I disagree with your or science’s interpretation of the data pertaining to evolution, is no less judgmental or hypocritical than someone who claims to be a “christian” condemning you for your lack of faith.

You should also consider that all I am asking for is the same freedom that you, yourselves desire. You want to live in a world where Christianity is not forced on you or your family and you deserve that freedom. I want to live in a world where evolutionary theory is not forced on me or my family. Yet, somehow, you seem to feel that it is acceptable to force your, science’s opinion on others. That is religious dogmatism if I ever saw it. It is NO different than the Catholic church in the Dark Ages forcing itself upon the masses.

I am not an uneducated man. I have read Darwin and Dawkins, sat through numerous classes in which evolutionary theory was taught. I have personally viewed parts of the geologic column, examined fossils, read journal articles on carbon dating and the like. How hypocritical can you be that you would call me an ignorant and uneducated man simply because I disagree with your interpretation of the data.

When you have lived my life, seen what I’ve seen, studied what I’ve studied, experienced the miracles I’ve experienced, had God move in your life the way He has moved in mine, then you will have the right to sit in judgment, until then please afford me and my family the same freedoms you desire for yourselves, the freedom to live and believe on the basis of your experience and study without having someone else’s dogma forced upon you.

I voluntarily subject myself to it in a forum like this and I enjoy the exchange of ideas and debate, at least when it is reasonable and not derogatory in nature, but my children should not be force fed the dogma of evolutionary theory by the federal government in mandatory classes. I have little else to say on this subject at this time. I have found many of you to be insulting and rude and as I do not wish to respond in kind, I think it is time for me cease posting in this thread. If you’d like to say something to me personally on the subject feel free to send a telegram to my nation.

This is all very nice.

Except evolution is not inconsistent with any religion EXCEPT a vary narrow, literalist interpretation of the Bible.

Almost every major Christian and Jewish religious organization/church in the US recognizes that evolution should be taught in schools.

And those same organizations object -- on religious as well as scientific grounds -- to creationism being taught.

Creationism is not Christianity. You are welcome to your beliefs. But they are not accepted science -- to the contrary, creationism requires the rejection of basic principles of almost every field of science. They are wholly religious views -- and religious views irreconcilable with almost every other religion.

People have lots of deeply held religious beliefs that may be contradicted by otherwise neutral education. Tough. Neither free exercise of religion nor the prohibition against the establishment of religion means that neutral laws and policies must yield to every individual belief.

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (http://fp.bio.utk.edu/evo-eco/resources-this_semester/McLean%20v_%20Arkansas%20Board%20of%20Education.htm), 529 F.Supp 1255 (E.D. Ark 1982) &
Edwards v. Aguillard (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/482/578.html ), 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573 (1987) are seminal cases regarding why creationism cannot be taught in public schools because it violates the First Amendment. In both cases, major US religious organizations were on the side objecting to the teaching of creationism.

In McLean, the plaintiffs seeking an end to the teaching of creationism included representatives of United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian Churches, and Southern Baptist Churches.

Unlike those who support the teaching of the secord-order science of evolution, you wish to impose your religious views on first-order questions of religion as well as second-order questions of science. That is simply wrong.

The problem is that evolution gets taught in progressively more detail throughout the course of schooling and is mandatory. Are you willing to do the same for every religion in existance? That is what it would take and I just don't think its practical. Ideal maybe, but probably not practical.

The problem is that evolution is a theory, backed by observations.

It is not a religion.

Creationism is not a theory. It is a hypothesis, and its only backing is faith.

There are certainly a large number of hypotheses, some of which have been roundly proven false. Would you have us continue to teach those are are patently false?

Other beliefs that used to be Christian dogma were:

1. The Earth is Flat.
2. The Earth is the Center of the Universe.
3. There are Celestial Spheres that guide the movement of all heavenly bodies.
4. The observable array of stars is celestially perfect, unchanging, and unchangeable.

Shall we go back and teach these as well?

But the problem is you are picking on one theory you dont agree with when it is taught as an example of a larger whole this is not a theistic viewpoint it is a collection based off of observeable data and continues to grow just because you dont agree with what that implies about your faith does not change the fact that it is still a theory
and the best description we have thus far. To get rid of evolution you have to PROVE it is wrong

Its not about wishes you just have to find better or different observeable data.

If your viewpoint is right the data will reflect this and evolutionary theory will swing that way


Its like me saying christianity is important enough to be made manditory in school but I dont agree with the part about the fish and bread feeding the masses so I am going to fight just that story
it is part of a greater whole, you either think science is important enough to be required or you dont ... but picking and choosing on opinion is not a good way to go about things

To make that state first statement about "proving it wrong" is rather problematic. I'd challenge you to prove that Creation is wrong. It isn't possible to prove either. So, why don't we still teach both. They are alternate explanations of data, each containing unknowns.

Either way, I really don't want the Federal Govenment ever dictating what my children are taught. It is a parents right to pick and chose as they so desire.

Alright, look: You all should stop and take a step back and look at what you’re saying to me. You know how much you all dislike it when “christians” are judgmental and tell you your ignorant or immoral. What are you saying to me? You might want to consider that calling me an uneducated ignoramus, simply because I disagree with your or science’s interpretation of the data pertaining to evolution, is no less judgmental or hypocritical than someone who claims to be a “christian” condemning you for your lack of faith.

I have yet to call you ingorant because you disagree. I have called into question your intentions to indoctrinate children and purposely keep them ignorant of the theories that make up science. I stand by that.

You should also consider that all I am asking for is the same freedom that you, yourselves desire. You want to live in a world where Christianity is not forced on you or your family and you deserve that freedom. I want to live in a world where evolutionary theory is not forced on me or my family. Yet, somehow, you seem to feel that it is acceptable to force your, science’s opinion on others. That is religious dogmatism if I ever saw it. It is NO different than the Catholic church in the Dark Ages forcing itself upon the masses.

How does asking that science be taught as science force anything upon you? You seem to think that no one in the world can possibly disagree with anything they are taught.

I ask again, are you convinced that your children will be mentally retarded? If not, why do you assume they will not be able to examine the evidence for themselves?

To make that state first statement about "proving it wrong" is rather problematic. I'd challenge you to prove that Creation is wrong. It isn't possible to prove either. So, why don't we still teach both. They are alternate explanations of data, each containing unknowns.

Either way, I really don't want the Federal Govenment ever dictating what my children are taught. It is a parents right to pick and chose as they so desire.
Unlike the observable data creationism draws on things that can’t be tested
That is precisely the reason it is NOT a scientific theory

But is it their right to pick and choose what theories they want their kid to hear? Either science is important or it is not. If you choose that science and the theories derived from the method are not important to your kids all is well and fine but evolution is just that method in practice and one of the many examples.
As much as I think it is a bad idea maybe teaching science should be an option but you cant just pick and choose theories because they do not agree with entrenched opinions. Either you think the method is valid or not and that it is working towards a more accurate description of what happened or you don’t

But if you don’t your real problem is with the method because evolution is just an example (like the fish and bread story is an example of Christ like behavior) either I think the teaching of religion is important or I don’t … I don’t pick and choose witch story my kids can hear just because I do not personally agree with the individual example

The problem is that evolution gets taught in progressively more detail throughout the course of schooling and is mandatory. Are you willing to do the same for every religion in existance? That is what it would take and I just don't think its practical. Ideal maybe, but probably not practical.It's not the school's responsibility to teach religion. It is the school's responsibility to teach science.

To make that state first statement about "proving it wrong" is rather problematic. I'd challenge you to prove that Creation is wrong. It isn't possible to prove either. So, why don't we still teach both. They are alternate explanations of data, each containing unknowns.

Creationism cannot be proven wrong. It is impossible. That is exactly why we cannot teach it as science.

Either way, I really don't want the Federal Govenment ever dictating what my children are taught. It is a parents right to pick and chose as they so desire.

Do you realize how ignorant most people are? Do you really think it is a good idea to increase the divide between the educated and the uneducated by encouraging parents to keep their kids from learning?

I have yet to call you ingorant because you disagree. I have called into question your intentions to indoctrinate children and purposely keep them ignorant of the theories that make up science. I stand by that.



How does asking that science be taught as science force anything upon you? You seem to think that no one in the world can possibly disagree with anything they are taught.

I ask again, are you convinced that your children will be mentally retarded? If not, why do you assume they will not be able to examine the evidence for themselves?

It is my responsibility to train, parent and raise my child, no one else's! That being the case, I have to answer to God for what my child is exposed to and the damaging effect on morality caused by a Godless society for which science and, particularly, theories that deny the truth's of the Bible, are issues that I have to address with my children as I see fit. Who are you and who is the Gov. to require me to raise my children in a manner that directly violates my free practice of religion?

It is my responsibility to train, parent and raise my child, no one else's! That being the case, I have to answer to God for what my child is exposed to and the damaging effect on morality caused by a Godless society for which science and, particularly, theories that deny the truth's of the Bible, are issues that I have to address with my children as I see fit. Who are you and who is the Gov. to require me to raise my children in a manner that directly violates my free practice of religion?

I still don't see several things:

1. Why learning evolution inescapably implied Godlessness.
2. Why you aren't upset with advanced mathematics or quantum physics - which DO imply Godlessness directly - by logical proof, by mathematics, and by observable experiment.

The theory of Evolution is wrong. The world was created by God. This should be taught in all schools. Exclusively.

It is my responsibility to train, parent and raise my child, no one else's! That being the case, I have to answer to God for what my child is exposed to and the damaging effect on morality caused by a Godless society for which science and, particularly, theories that deny the truth's of the Bible, are issues that I have to address with my children as I see fit. Who are you and who is the Gov. to require me to raise my children in a manner that directly violates my free practice of religion?
Science does no such thing ... science is a process that helps us explain the observable (I am not saying any theory right now is 100 percent right but it shoud in theory be working closer to it)
Just because your religion does not fit with the perponderance of observerable data does not mean science is trying to deny anything
It is mearly a tool ... people USE that observed data/outcome to try and disprove it but that has nothing to do with scientific intention

The theory of Evolution is wrong. The world was created by God. This should be taught in all schools. Exclusively.
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world

Creationism is the ONLY thing that should be taught in schools LOL, What a first post!

The theory of Evolution is wrong. The world was created by God. This should be taught in all schools. Exclusively.

Prove it.

The theory of Evolution is wrong. The world was created by God. This should be taught in all schools. Exclusively.

Way to create a non-argument. SO let's just through out all the imperical evidence for evolution simply because you say it is wrong, teach creationism even though it has nothing at all to prove itself with just because you think it is true, and force it to be taught in all schools? Sounds rediculous.

It is my responsibility to train, parent and raise my child, no one else's! That being the case, I have to answer to God for what my child is exposed to and the damaging effect on morality caused by a Godless society for which science and, particularly, theories that deny the truth's of the Bible, are issues that I have to address with my children as I see fit. Who are you and who is the Gov. to require me to raise my children in a manner that directly violates my free practice of religion?

If you indoctrinate your children, they will never truly have faith in God. They may have faith in you, but never in God. By your own religion, you will be personally damning them, by not allowing them true faith.

Edit: To add, there is nothing in any of science which implies Godlessness unless that is what you want to see.

There is also the fact there is nothing in science which implies that the Bible is not true. There is that which implies that it is not TRUE, in a literal sense. Of course, it is the lessons in the Bible that are often most important. Does it matter if there was a specific woman named Ruth? Not really. It is her story that teaches the lesson.

I still don't see several things:

1. Why learning evolution inescapably implied Godlessness.
2. Why you aren't upset with advanced mathematics or quantum physics - which DO imply Godlessness directly - by logical proof, by mathematics, and by observable experiment.

2.Because advanced mathmatics and quantum physics are not taught to minors.

1. Anything that deny's the validity of Biblical truth, like Creation, destoys the credibility of Christianity. Evolution implies that God did not create man in His own image and denies that God created man completely. If that is the case there is no basis for morality. It becomes completely subjective, the creation of human imagination which make murder as morally valid as helping an elderly lady across the street. Everything becomes completely subjective in the absence of an omniscient being that can define objective reality.

If you indoctrinate your children, they will never truly have faith in God. They may have faith in you, but never in God. By your own religion, you will be personally damning them, by not allowing them true faith.

Faith is something that you arrive at on your own - by encountering its truths on your own.

It doesn't come from being pounded into your head. That's why we have free will.

The theory of Evolution is wrong. The world was created by God. This should be taught in all schools. Exclusively.
Exactly. And we should also make sure we teach that god was born from the dungpile beneath the Keebler elve's hollow tree. We must teach the truth.

We seem to be under the influence that faith is nothing more than a triviality; something that can be tossed out the window without a second glance. I would have to wholeheartedly disagree.

Faith is a very important factor in how we as humans think and behave. Those who support scientific claims are practicing just as much faith in their theories as would a relgious man be in believing in a higher being. Data drawn from experimentation is interpreted as such. It's not proven as conclusive. Scientists place faith in that data, believing it to either support or deny the hypothesis they tested. Science even stresses that there is never any "fact" or "proof" in theories, only opinionated conclusions.

Atheists, naturalists, and nihilists all place their faith in the belief that there is no higher being and that we all came from lower beings. There is no set proof or fact about it. While there are assertions that evolution and the Big Bang are supported by scientific evidence, again that evidence is only deemed as such by opinion, be it intelligent opinion or no.

Faith is a factor in everything. Please don't discount it.

If you indoctrinate your children, they will never truly have faith in God. They may have faith in you, but never in God. By your own religion, you will be personally damning them, by not allowing them true faith.

My faith is my own. I chose to continue to believe what I believe. No matter what my parents taught me, at some point in time, it becomes my choice, my own true faith. The same will be true, I hope, for my children should I ever have them.

My faith is my own. I chose to continue to believe what I believe. No matter what my parents taught me, at some point in time, it becomes my choice, my own true faith. The same will be true, I hope, for my children should I ever have them.
But did your parents go to the extreme of making sure you were never exposed to any other ideas in your education/life ? you has the chance to make that decision ... but you are limiting their chance to make the same decision

My faith is my own. I chose to continue to believe what I believe. No matter what my parents taught me, at some point in time, it becomes my choice, my own true faith. The same will be true, I hope, for my children should I ever have them.

Not if you make it impossible for them by sheltering them from all dissention.

Do you know what indoctrination breeds? Zealots and bigotry.

We seem to be under the influence that faith is nothing more than a triviality; something that can be tossed out the window without a second glance. I would have to wholeheartedly disagree.

Faith is a very important factor in how we as humans think and behave. Those who support scientific claims are practicing just as much faith in their theories as would a relgious man be in believing in a higher being. Data drawn from experimentation is interpreted as such. It's not proven as conclusive. Scientists place faith in that data, believing it to either support or deny the hypothesis they tested. Science even stresses that there is never any "fact" or "proof" in theories, only opinionated conclusions.

Atheists, naturalists, and nihilists all place their faith in the belief that there is no higher being and that we all came from lower beings. There is no set proof or fact about it. While there are assertions that evolution and the Big Bang are supported by scientific evidence, again that evidence is only deemed as such by opinion, be it intelligent opinion or no.

Faith is a factor in everything. Please don't discount it.
You're simply wrong. Science doesn't require faith in it's findings. It actually discourages it through peer review, the need for reproducible experiments whenever possible, and the constant competition between rival theories. Science provides results and evidence that support it's point of view. There's no faith there.

Atheism also requires no faith. Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born with religion. Something convinces them to join one. That something may be the culture, parents, friends, whatever, but we all start out atheist. It requires no faith to stay that way.

*snip*

1. Anything that deny's the validity of Biblical truth, like Creation, destoys the credibility of Christianity. Evolution implies that God did not create man in His own image and denies that God created man completely. If that is the case there is no basis for morality. It becomes completely subjective, the creation of human imagination which make murder as morally valid as helping an elderly lady across the street. Everything becomes completely subjective in the absence of an omniscient being that can define objective reality.

I'm not even going into the number of logical fallacies you used. It is mind-boggling.

1. Evolution does not deny Christianity.

2. Evolution is not inconsistent with the belief that God created Man.

3. Evolution does not deny morality.

4. There can be and is morality without God.

5. Morality need not be subjective in the absence of God.

6. Reality need not be subjective in the absence of God.

7. Morality and reality are both subjective if you require them to be based on an individual's belief in God.

Atheism also requires no faith. Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born with religion. Something convinces them to join one. That something may be the culture, parents, friends, whatever, but we all start out atheist. It requires no faith to stay that way.

I think it depends one whether or not you are referring to "hard atheism". A lack of belief does not require faith. A belief in a lack, however, does. Most atheists I have met specifically believe that there is no God. This requires no less faith than believing that there is a God.

I think it depends one whether or not you are referring to "hard atheism". A lack of belief does not require faith. A belief in a lack, however, does. Most atheists I have met specifically believe that there is no God. This requires no less faith than believing that there is a God.
Really? In real life or something cause from the impression I get most of us on here are of the soft atheist variety

You're simply wrong. Science doesn't require faith in it's findings. It actually discourages it through peer review, the need for reproducible experiments whenever possible, and the constant competition between rival theories. Science provides results and evidence that support it's point of view. There's no faith there.

Atheism also requires no faith. Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born with religion. Something convinces them to join one. That something may be the culture, parents, friends, whatever, but we all start out atheist. It requires no faith to stay that way.

Science provide results that support their point of view, but never prove it. All I'm trying to get across is those who are supporting their point of view do hold a belief in that view until they are discredited. The evidence gathered is believed to be connected to that hypothesis. For all we know, we could be wrong about everything we know about physics. We only assume that it is true based upon presuppositioned notions that data is linked to the specific hypotheses we test on.

Atheism being a default position is irrelevant to the discussion. Once we believe that there is no higher power, it takes a measure of faith to stay in that belief. How do you know that assertion? Do you remember what you believed when you were born? Those who make claim that children have n belief are basing that on data that cannot be proven.

I'm not trying to come across as a hardass if that's what you're deriving from this, nor am I trying to insult your intelligence. Please don't that my argument to mean such. I'm just trying to let you understand where I'm coming from. :)

I think it depends one whether or not you are referring to "hard atheism". A lack of belief does not require faith. A belief in a lack, however, does. Most atheists I have met specifically believe that there is no God. This requires no less faith than believing that there is a God.

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying for me, Dem. ^^

Science provide results that support their point of view, but never prove it. All I'm trying to get across is those who are supporting their point of view do hold a belief in that view until they are discredited. The evidence gathered is believed to be connected to that hypothesis. For all we know, we could be wrong about everything we know about physics. We only assume that it is true based upon presuppositioned notions that data is linked to the specific hypotheses we test on.

Atheism being a default position is irrelevant to the discussion. Once we believe that there is no higher power, it takes a measure of faith to stay in that belief. How do you know that assertion? Do you remember what you believed when you were born? Those who make claim that children have n belief are basing that on data that cannot be proven.

I'm not trying to come across as a hardass if that's what you're deriving from this, nor am I trying to insult your intelligence. Please don't that my argument to mean such. I'm just trying to let you understand where I'm coming from. :)
No facts provide results science is just a method for organizing it for quality control

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying for me, Dem. ^^
Ya have to be specific hard athiesm is the one that requires the beleif soft is more of a "ehh dont know so not making a decision either way till something is proved" sort of grey area (like general theiesm or diesm is on the other side) they are both kind of defaults of a type

Ya have to be specific hard athiesm is the one that requires the beleif soft is more of a "ehh dont know so not making a decision either way till something is proved" sort of grey area (like general theiesm or diesm is on the other side) they are both kind of defaults of a type

Somewhat like an agnostic, only not in the belief that there's something out there already?

I think you're all leaving out mathematical proof.

It's rather hard to get around a math proof, unless you can show someone made a mistake, or the underlying postulates are inapplicable to real life.

Really? In real life or something cause from the impression I get most of us on here are of the soft atheist variety

On here, I have seen that too. I was speaking more of the "in real life" kind of meet. LOL

OMG what happened in the meantime?!? :eek:

The theory of Evolution is wrong. The world was created by God. This should be taught in all schools. Exclusively.

OMG ROTF, welcome in the Medieval Ages... :D

Somewhat like an agnostic, only not in the belief that there's something out there already?
Well sort of … most of us agnostics are also soft atheist as well … which is why they blend together

Agnosticism describes the field of thought that says “we CANT know weather there is a god or not” but it does not describe our feelings

It is blurry I know so I will try to be clear

As an example I am agnostic/soft atheist, I don’t really believe in god because I have no proof so far (there is a difference I do not actively believe there is no god I just do not take it on faith …) and my agnostic side says not only do I have no belief in god but I don’t think there is a way to prove that there is one for sure

(see how they fit together)


There can be theist agnostics (“I think there is a deity but don’t think we can ever PROVE it”)

On here, I have seen that too. I was speaking more of the "in real life" kind of meet. LOL
Ahhh I see :) All the ones I know of are kind of soft atheist /agnostic … or mutt (mix of Buddhist and other philosophies)

Question: From what i can tell (and which has been proven over and over again), Creationism involves denying reality (i mean, denying evidence that evolution is real). So... i am wondering now, is Creationism a form of solipsism?

Alternatively, i've been thinking about if it was a form of historical revisionism. Prehistoric revisionism, that is. They want to tell us that those million years of life history never happened and the Earth was only recently created.

Hmmm... maybe a bit of both... :p

Should the Theory of Creation be taught in schools?

Always an interesting topic. No good answers, but sometimes good debates.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.

Creation Theory only states that some Power created the Universe by design. Not necessarily God.

By the way, dig out a copy of the US Constitution. No Separation clause. Never was, probably never will be.

It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing. It would be no better if Congress mandated Atheism than any other. The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.

The cluase that most people refer to was aid by Thomas Jefferson, in one of his letters to Congress, most people do not know that the letter did say that there should be a seperation between church and state, but the rest of the letter later states that it was only to keep the government fro saying that The Offical Religion is Whatever.... Thomas Jefferson never had the intentions to take God out of the public eye or to take it out of the government its self, the government is a God Based government and that is stated by the Founding fathers multiple time in the letters to each other...

Science provide results that support their point of view, but never prove it. All I'm trying to get across is those who are supporting their point of view do hold a belief in that view until they are discredited. The evidence gathered is believed to be connected to that hypothesis. For all we know, we could be wrong about everything we know about physics. We only assume that it is true based upon presuppositioned notions that data is linked to the specific hypotheses we test on.

Atheism being a default position is irrelevant to the discussion. Once we believe that there is no higher power, it takes a measure of faith to stay in that belief. How do you know that assertion? Do you remember what you believed when you were born? Those who make claim that children have n belief are basing that on data that cannot be proven.

I'm not trying to come across as a hardass if that's what you're deriving from this, nor am I trying to insult your intelligence. Please don't that my argument to mean such. I'm just trying to let you understand where I'm coming from. :)
1 Science makes no claim to absolute certainty. It states it's findings on a contunum from almost certainly false to almost certainly true, backs it's findings up with evidence, and allows for review of it's findings whenever new evidence comes to light. If that requires a leap of faith then so does beleiving that you actually exist. That definition of faith is so broad as to have meaning only to obscure philosophers.

2 It takes no measure of faith to remain atheist. It only takes a lack of evidence to change one's mind.

Well sort of … most of us agnostics are also soft atheist as well … which is why they blend together

Agnosticism describes the field of thought that says “we CANT know weather there is a god or not” but it does not describe our feelings

It is blurry I know so I will try to be clear

As an example I am agnostic/soft atheist, I don’t really believe in god because I have no proof so far (there is a difference I do not actively believe there is no god I just do not take it on faith …) and my agnostic side says not only do I have no belief in god but I don’t think there is a way to prove that there is one for sure

(see how they fit together)


There can be theist agnostics (“I think there is a deity but don’t think we can ever PROVE it”)


Well, you may not see it this way but agnostics, at least the theistic ones, and the Christians are in the same boat. Sort of.

There is no real way to prove the existance of (the Christian) God, nor is there any way to prove that the Bible is divinely inspired. We take it upon a matter of faith. Even Jesus stressed that we were to believe in the Father through faith and not scientific evidence. Even faith "the size of a mustard seed" would suffice.

So.. yeah. Christians don't believe necessarily that there is any physical "hard" proof that God exists, but we do believe that God designed creation to be that way.

Just a thought. :)

Anyway, I'm in the process of job-hunting for the summer. I'll stop in later.

Even if you put evolution aside...

How does someone who believes that the Universe and Earth were created a million years ago (or less) account for:

1. The observable universe - obviously in existence for billions of years already.
2. The existence of the rocks on earth - which have been checked for age many times by many scientists - and the age of the moon rocks - which all set the age of the Earth at billions of years in age.

Let's leave out the final "days" of Creation, and focus on the first few. I want to hear the "scientific" explanation from a Creationist on the evidence that backs a logical explanation for those first two items.

I voluntarily subject myself to it in a forum like this and I enjoy the exchange of ideas and debate, at least when it is reasonable and not derogatory in nature, but my children should not be force fed the dogma of evolutionary theory by the federal government in mandatory classes.

Then it's all fine and well. The federal government has yet to ever mandate evolution in schools. In fact, it's quite different - it's state governments that have mandated "creationism" in schools (only to be repeatedly overruled by both state and federal courts). ;)

Well, you may not see it this way but agnostics, at least the theistic ones, and the Christians are in the same boat. Sort of.

There is no real way to prove the existance of (the Christian) God, nor is there any way to prove that the Bible is divinely inspired. We take it upon a matter of faith. Even Jesus stressed that we were to believe in the Father through faith and not scientific evidence. Even faith "the size of a mustard seed" would suffice.

So.. yeah. Christians don't believe necessarily that there is any physical "hard" proof that God exists, but we do believe that God designed creation to be that way.

Just a thought. :)

Anyway, I'm in the process of job-hunting for the summer. I'll stop in later..
I understand but the real issue is that the bible is thrown in there … the supposedly (at least by a lot of Christians) literal truth. And they use it AS proof of gods existence (but if we get into this we start getting into the argument that logically if we COULD prove gods existence it would no longer be god)

Another issue comes in when you give him certian specific atributes that can not be proven (a lot of the arguements out there are bassed off of this)

All in all a big tangle of issues

Even if you put evolution aside...

How does someone who believes that the Universe and Earth were created a million years ago (or less) account for:

1. The observable universe - obviously in existence for billions of years already.
2. The existence of the rocks on earth - which have been checked for age many times by many scientists - and the age of the moon rocks - which all set the age of the Earth at billions of years in age.

Let's leave out the final "days" of Creation, and focus on the first few. I want to hear the "scientific" explanation from a Creationist on the evidence that backs a logical explanation for those first two items.

add
3. The existence of minerals and rocks on the surface of Earth which can only form under certain requirements of pressure and temperature (this has been verified over and over again in laboratory experiments), and some of which take enormous amounts of time to form.
4. The existence of Komatiites (looked it up ^_^)

add
3. The existence of minerals and rocks on the surface of Earth which can only form under certain requirements of pressure and temperature (this has been verified over and over again in laboratory experiments), and some of which take enormous amounts of time to form.
4. The existence of Coomatites (spelled right?)
Oh, and no "handwaving" allowed for an explanation...

It is my responsibility to train, parent and raise my child, no one else's! That being the case, I have to answer to God for what my child is exposed to and the damaging effect on morality caused by a Godless society for which science and, particularly, theories that deny the truth's of the Bible, are issues that I have to address with my children as I see fit. Who are you and who is the Gov. to require me to raise my children in a manner that directly violates my free practice of religion?

If what the Bible says is at all true, if there is any value to any components of the Christian religion, if your children are taught to exercise reason for themselves, if there is any reason indeed to adhere to narrow absolutist doctrines - then there should be no worry as to your children choosing correctly.

After all, it has been a universal observation throughout history that the children of those who believe in Zeus, Shiva, YHWH, etc, almost always grow up to belive in Zeus, Shiva, YHWH, etc. History indicates that parents usually do a fine job of indoctrinating children before they're even capable of rational discrimination - so there's little worry they'll ever exercise it for themselves.

A bit less satirical: no one is forcing anyone to raise someone in violation of free practice of religion. The government neither endorses nor condemns religion (the Bush Administration's Office Of Faith Based Religious Inquisitions, or whatever its exact name may be, is an exception) - and for good reason. The dissemination of scientific theories in line with scientific education under the aegis of public education is viewpoint neutral and is the end result of the desire to provide a thorough and wide ranging liberal arts education.

To do otherwise is to undermine the entire philosophy upon which public education is founded.

Oh, and no "handwaving" allowed for an explanation...

Heh, sorry... i couldn't resist. :cool:

The theory of Evolution is wrong. The world was created by God. This should be taught in all schools. Exclusively.

I'm convinced.

But there has to be an Inquisition to enforce the policy. And to hunt down heretics. And extradite them to Kansas for sentencing and then to Texas for execution. Otherwise, no deal.

The cluase that most people refer to was aid by Thomas Jefferson, in one of his letters to Congress, most people do not know that the letter did say that there should be a seperation between church and state, but the rest of the letter later states that it was only to keep the government fro saying that The Offical Religion is Whatever.... Thomas Jefferson never had the intentions to take God out of the public eye or to take it out of the government its self, the government is a God Based government and that is stated by the Founding fathers multiple time in the letters to each other...

Wow.

Only 2 sentences. At least 5 falsehoods!

2.Because advanced mathmatics and quantum physics are not taught to minors.

1. Anything that deny's the validity of Biblical truth, like Creation, destoys the credibility of Christianity. Evolution implies that God did not create man in His own image and denies that God created man completely. If that is the case there is no basis for morality. It becomes completely subjective, the creation of human imagination which make murder as morally valid as helping an elderly lady across the street. Everything becomes completely subjective in the absence of an omniscient being that can define objective reality.

I'm not sure what logical fallacy(ies?) this one is - but, by Jove ;), is it used too much.

Ethics is worthwhile of study. Approached with an open mind you could come to recognize that murder is never ethically valid, nor indeed is killing ever to be desired.

Morality, anyway, is that which is determined to be "right" by a particular community, whether a society or a religion. The sociological term "more" (pronounced approximately "more ey") is an operative term with that precise meaning (the same word and meaning "morality" descends from).

We seem to be under the influence that faith is nothing more than a triviality; something that can be tossed out the window without a second glance. I would have to wholeheartedly disagree.

Faith is a very important factor in how we as humans think and behave. Those who support scientific claims are practicing just as much faith in their theories as would a relgious man be in believing in a higher being. Data drawn from experimentation is interpreted as such. It's not proven as conclusive. Scientists place faith in that data, believing it to either support or deny the hypothesis they tested. Science even stresses that there is never any "fact" or "proof" in theories, only opinionated conclusions.

Atheists, naturalists, and nihilists all place their faith in the belief that there is no higher being and that we all came from lower beings. There is no set proof or fact about it. While there are assertions that evolution and the Big Bang are supported by scientific evidence, again that evidence is only deemed as such by opinion, be it intelligent opinion or no.

Faith is a factor in everything. Please don't discount it.

Faith needs reason - otherwise "faith" is blind.

Faith relates to "trueness". The USMC: "semper fidelis" - "always faithful", "always true".

Faith without reason has nothing to stand on. Religious faith stands upon the reason or reasons derived from any number of texts of religious nature. Faith in science derives from exhaustively repeated observations and experiments.

Some faiths are more reasonable than others.

If "evidence" can be such only by opinion... well, my what a relative world we live in, indeed.

The cluase that most people refer to was aid by Thomas Jefferson, in one of his letters to Congress, most people do not know that the letter did say that there should be a seperation between church and state, but the rest of the letter later states that it was only to keep the government fro saying that The Offical Religion is Whatever.... Thomas Jefferson never had the intentions to take God out of the public eye or to take it out of the government its self, the government is a God Based government and that is stated by the Founding fathers multiple time in the letters to each other...

They may or may not have talked about there being a deity involved, but it certainly was not the Christian deity.

One of our first treaties, which holds as the "supreme law of the land" according to the Constitution, explicitly states that we are in no way a Christian country.

Go figure.

They may or may not have talked about there being a deity involved, but it certainly was not the Christian deity.

One of our first treaties, which holds as the "supreme law of the land" according to the Constitution, explicitly states that we are in no way a Christian country.

Go figure.

surely its irrelevant as most churches accept evolution?

surely its irrelevant as most churches accept evolution?

Well, it should be relevant for Christian fundamentalists, but since reality is largely irrelevant to most of them, they don't care. :)

a post from jillybean008 -

Yeah, yeah, sure. Keep taking God out of every area of every day life. Ban prayer in public places. Ban the teachings of God in public schools. Ban His mention or His commandments from government buildings. Take Him out of every public view. Take Him out of the pledge (AS IF it were Him to whom they were referring to begin with. :rolleyes: Same with "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill.) I've got news for you. He won't go away. He always was, He is, and He always will be. Just because a person doesn't believe and wants Him gone it isn't going to make it so. As a matter of fact expect a visit from Him soon. This world is quickly becoming more and more corrupt to the point I'm certain He will return soon in His wrath. Many of you will say, "People have been saying that for 2000 years." Yeah, well... I'm saying it again. Read the signs of the times and watch. The very idea of eliminating Him from all public places is just one of the signs and it is becoming more and more prominent as the years pass...

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!
Praise Him all creatures here below!
Praise Him above ye heavenly hosts!
Priase Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!
Amen.

Yo, that's my 2 cents. ;)

a post from jillybean008 -

Yeah, yeah, sure. Keep taking God out of every area of every day life. Ban prayer in public places. Ban the teachings of God in public schools. Ban His mention or His commandments from government buildings. Take Him out of every public view. Take Him out of the pledge (AS IF it were Him to whom they were referring to begin with. :rolleyes: Same with "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill.) I've got news for you. He won't go away. He always was, He is, and He always will be. Just because a person doesn't believe and wants Him gone it isn't going to make it so. As a matter of fact expect a visit from Him soon. This world is quickly becoming more and more corrupt to the point I'm certain He will return soon in His wrath. Many of you will say, "People have been saying that for 2000 years." Yeah, well... I'm saying it again. Read the signs of the times and watch. The very idea of eliminating Him from all public places is just one of the signs and it is becoming more and more prominent as the years pass...

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!
Praise Him all creatures here below!
Praise Him above ye heavenly hosts!
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!
Amen.

Yo, that's my 2 cents. ;)

a post from jillybean008 -

Yeah, yeah, sure. Keep taking God out of every area of every day life. Ban prayer in public places. Ban the teachings of God in public schools. Ban His mention or His commandments from government buildings. Take Him out of every public view. Take Him out of the pledge (AS IF it were Him to whom they were referring to begin with. :rolleyes: Same with "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill.) I've got news for you. He won't go away. He always was, He is, and He always will be. Just because a person doesn't believe and wants Him gone it isn't going to make it so. As a matter of fact expect a visit from Him soon. This world is quickly becoming more and more corrupt to the point I'm certain He will return soon in His wrath. Many of you will say, "People have been saying that for 2000 years." Yeah, well... I'm saying it again. Read the signs of the times and watch. The very idea of eliminating Him from all public places is just one of the signs and it is becoming more and more prominent as the years pass...

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!
Praise Him all creatures here below!
Praise Him above ye heavenly hosts!
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!
Amen.

Yo, that's my 2 cents. ;)
Nobody's trying to ban religion, only trying to keep religious ideas out of science class and keep religion and government separate from each other.

another post from jilly -

ugh! I apologize for the double posting.

Yeah, yeah, sure. Keep taking God out of every area of every day life.

Who has suggested this?

Ban prayer in public places.

Who has suggested this?

Ban the teachings of God in public schools.

The Constitution does a good job of that on its own.

Ban His mention or His commandments from government buildings.

(a) Do you really limit God by assigning a gender?

(b) Do you really want our government and our churches mixed? Do you know what happens then? Both get corrupted.

Take Him out of every public view.

Who has suggested this?

Take Him out of the pledge (AS IF it were Him to whom they were referring to begin with.

Why shouldn't the pledge be returned to its original form? Would that really be a threat to your religion?

:rolleyes: Same with "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill.)

It wasn't always there. Would its removal be any threat to anyone's faith?

another other post from jilly -

Dang, Commie, you were right on top of that! :P

a reply from jilly to Dempublicents1 -

My lunch break is over so I'll be brief.

If you watch the news, read the paper, or just pay attention to the world's events, you'll see that the points I was referring to are and have been issues. As far as this forum, maybe I read into it. ;)

Ciao

Just what we need. Another person who thinks that all Christians are alike.

Dude this was a joke i was just making fun of the president. For example take a look at this quote from the president
"Theres an old saying in Texas probobaly in Tennesse too but originated in Texas. You fool me once and ... (stutters awhile)... shame shame on you. You ...(Stutters awhile)...***(several moments later) you fool me once you cant fool me again." George W. Bush. Also interseting fact the W in his name stands for "Wish I had a brain".

another one from jilly to Dempublicents1 -

Oh and...

Why shouldn't the pledge be returned to its original form? Would that really be a threat to your religion?

No. My FAITH, rather, cannot be threatened. Although, the god in the pledge is not the same God that I worship. I worship the Creator of the heavens and the earth. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The god in the pledge is Ba al. So take him out. I'd rather we did.

Muahahahahahahahaha*cough* :D

a reply from jilly to Dempublicents1 -

My lunch break is over so I'll be brief.

If you watch the news, read the paper, or just pay attention to the world's events, you'll see that the points I was referring to are and have been issues. As far as this forum, maybe I read into it. ;)

Ciao

I do watch the news, read the paper, and pay attention to the world's events. I have yet to see people suggesting most of what you brought up. Maybe it's just because I don't have the martyr complex that you seem to.

No. My FAITH, rather, cannot be threatened. Although, the god in the pledge is not the same God that I worship. I worship the Creator of the heavens and the earth. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The god in the pledge is Ba al. So take him out. I'd rather we did.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that Ba'al worship was a big thing in the '50's.

Oh sure Dem! You see, since everyone was getting all scared of the "Godless" commies back in the 50's, they decided to start worshipping Ba'al. It had nothing to do with McCarthyism and paranoia forcing people to achknowledge a God on their money and in their pledge of allegiance to their nation.

a post from jillybean008 -

Yeah, yeah, sure. Keep taking God out of every area of every day life. Ban prayer in public places.

It isn't. Mandatory or coerced prayer is.

Ban the teachings of God in public schools.

Sorry. I don't want public school teachers indoctrinating children in a state religion.

Neither does any major Judeo-Christian sect (nor most other religions).

But if you want Timmy coming home from school a Catholic and Tina coming home a Hindu, send them to private school.

Ban His mention or His commandments from government buildings.

God's mention is not banned from Government buildings.

Which commandments do you prefer? Which of the 4 major versions should be state endorsed and established?


Take Him out of every public view.

Last I knew, God was kind of a recluse. Not seen in public recently.

But She can stroll down the mall anytime She likes.

Take Him out of the pledge (AS IF it were Him to whom they were referring to begin with. :rolleyes: Same with "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill.)

The Pledge didn't refer to God to begin with, but you are right that both these references are improper. Relatively innocuous, but improper.

I've got news for you. He won't go away. He always was, He is, and He always will be. Just because a person doesn't believe and wants Him gone it isn't going to make it so. As a matter of fact expect a visit from Him soon. This world is quickly becoming more and more corrupt to the point I'm certain He will return soon in His wrath. Many of you will say, "People have been saying that for 2000 years." Yeah, well... I'm saying it again. Read the signs of the times and watch. The very idea of eliminating Him from all public places is just one of the signs and it is becoming more and more prominent as the years pass...

Yep. The last time we were this close to the Apocalypse some nutter was running around trying to convince people to "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's."

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!
Praise Him all creatures here below!
Praise Him above ye heavenly hosts!
Priase Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!
Amen.

Yo, that's my 2 cents. ;)

Given the oppressive powers of the ACLU, I hope you posted this from an underground bunker and relayed it through several dummy accounts.

'Cuz otherwise they're comming to get you!

But did your parents go to the extreme of making sure you were never exposed to any other ideas in your education/life ? you has the chance to make that decision ... but you are limiting their chance to make the same decision

I learned about existance of evolutionary theory and some of its basic tenants from my parents in the context of explaining what other people believe and why it is inaccurate. I wasn't taught evolutionary theory seperate from that context until I attended college, which is exactly how intend to raise my own children should I ever have them...

I learned about existance of evolutionary theory and some of its basic tenants from my parents in the context of explaining what other people believe and why it is inaccurate. I wasn't taught evolutionary theory seperate from that context until I attended college, which is exactly how intend to raise my own children should I ever have them...

So, you have been indoctrinated with Creationism from child-age on? That is really sad... :(

Not if you make it impossible for them by sheltering them from all dissention.

Do you know what indoctrination breeds? Zealots and bigotry.

Have I treated you with anything other than respect. Clearly I disagree with you about a great number of things, but I'd like to think that I have not behaved in a bigotted maner towards you or anyone else here.

As for being zealous, I don't see that as a bad thing. You are certainly zealous in your defense of the practice of forcing children to be educated on this particular theory regardless of respect for the religious freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Have I treated you with anything other than respect. Clearly I disagree with you about a great number of things, but I'd like to think that I have not behaved in a bigotted maner towards you or anyone else here.

As for being zealous, I don't see that as a bad thing. You are certainly zealous in your defense of the practice of forcing children to be educated on this particular theory regardless of respect for the religious freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution of the United States.

and if my religion means that my children cannot be taught about maths, gravity or the earth not being flat?

Have I treated you with anything other than respect. Clearly I disagree with you about a great number of things, but I'd like to think that I have not behaved in a bigotted maner towards you or anyone else here.

How is that relevant?

As for being zealous, I don't see that as a bad thing.

Zealots have no true faith. A zealot does not actually believe, that is why they become zealots to begin with.

You are certainly zealous in your defense of the practice of forcing children to be educated on this particular theory regardless of respect for the religious freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution of the United States.

I have never said anything about forcing children to be educated on any theory. If they would like to leave science out of the curriculum, I suppose they can. I would certainly advise against it.

And you ignore the fact that the teaching of evolutionary theory, or any scientific theory for that matter, has nothing whatsoever to do with religious freedoms. The teaching of science does not, in any way, infringe upon your right to believe whatever you want.

Again, I ask, are you really that convinced that your children will be unable to think for themselves?

I'm not even going into the number of logical fallacies you used. It is mind-boggling.

1. Evolution does not deny Christianity.

2. Evolution is not inconsistent with the belief that God created Man.

3. Evolution does not deny morality.

4. There can be and is morality without God.

5. Morality need not be subjective in the absence of God.

6. Reality need not be subjective in the absence of God.

7. Morality and reality are both subjective if you require them to be based on an individual's belief in God.

1. Christianity accepts that the Bible is true. Evolutionary theory teaches that man and or life evolved over the course of millions of years. The Bible teaches that the world was created between 6 and 7 thousand years ago. To accept evolutionary theory which clearly contridicts this position is to deny the truth of the Bible and thereby denies the validity of Christianity.
2. One of the things that Jesus taught was that the Old Testament was valid scripture. Genisis states that God form man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him and that this is how man became a living soul. Please tell me how that is compatible with the idea that man evolved from a primordial soup?
3. Given points 1 and 2, morallity can be little more than a man made theoretical construct which can not be anything other than subjective.
4. You can call what we codify as morality in the absense of God, but it has no objective basis for being call that more than being called evil. It has no frame of reference without an Objective Definer of Reality.
5. As finite and fallible human beings how is it possible to be certain of the objectivity of anything?
6. Same answer as number 5.
7. My and every other human beings' understanding of morality and reality are subjective and will be no matter what. However, an omniscient being would have the capacity to legidimately claim a knowledge of both objective reality and objective morality.

and if my religion means that my children cannot be taught about maths, gravity or the earth not being flat?

You should, according to the Constitution of the United States, have the freedom to teach them that.

You should, according to the Constitution of the United States, have the freedom to teach them that.

but should I force schools to teach it?

How is that relevant?

I was raised in the method I would like to raise my children, which you stated creates bigots and zealots. I have behaved in a zealous manner, but not a bigoted one. I believe that reality would falsify the statement to which I responded.

Zealots have no true faith. A zealot does not actually believe, that is why they become zealots to begin with.

By who's defintion of the word?

I have never said anything about forcing children to be educated on any theory. If they would like to leave science out of the curriculum, I suppose they can. I would certainly advise against it.

And you ignore the fact that the teaching of evolutionary theory, or any scientific theory for that matter, has nothing whatsoever to do with religious freedoms. The teaching of science does not, in any way, infringe upon your right to believe whatever you want.

Again, I ask, are you really that convinced that your children will be unable to think for themselves?

I'll agree that teaching evolutionary theory doesn't infringe on my ability to believe whatever I want, but it does force me to do something that violates those beliefs. That is, it infringes upon my freedom to practice my religious beliefs.

As for the issue of children thinking for themselves, how comfortable would you be having your child taught that Nazism was a valid way of life/thinking through out their educational experience. The point being that children are impressionable and adults have the capacity to manipulate what they believe with relative ease, particularly when given a position of respected authority on a daily basis in a child's life.

Have I treated you with anything other than respect. Clearly I disagree with you about a great number of things, but I'd like to think that I have not behaved in a bigotted maner towards you or anyone else here.

As for being zealous, I don't see that as a bad thing. You are certainly zealous in your defense of the practice of forcing children to be educated on this particular theory regardless of respect for the religious freedoms guarenteed by the Constitution of the United States.

You have been courteous. Although that should be standard on here, it is not (--myself included). So your courtesy is commendable.

But:

(1) evolution is not just a "particular theory." Aspects of evolution are central to a host of scientific fields. And it is nigh universally accepted among the scientific community. (Most that dissent do so out of their field of expertise.)

(2) evolution is not a religious theory. It is a second-order question. Any decent theologian makes the distinction between first- and second-order questions. Most who accept evolution are religious. Most Christian and Jewish denominations accept evolution as consistent with (or not contradictory of) their teachings.

(3) teaching evolution is wholly consistent with the First Amendment

(4) creationism, on the other hand, is a very particular theory. It has not essential to any braches of science nor does it contribute to any science. To the contrary, it is opposed to and undermines precepts of a wide range of scientific disciplines.

(5) creationism is a religious theory. That is its raison d'etre.

(6) teaching creationism violates the First Amendment. It is not just teaching religion. It is teaching a very narrow sectarian version of religion. That is why it is opposed by most religious organizations and churches.

(7) You are not entitled to have your religious viewpoint shielded from anything that might challenge it. There are those that believe -- as a deeply held religous belief -- that whites are racially superior to others. They are not entitled to have this taught in public schools. Nor are they entitled to prohibit the opposite from being taught. There narrow sectarian view must yield to the conveyance of neutral knowledge. (I do not equate creationism with white supremacy. That is simply an illustration of one of many religious beliefs people may (and do) have to which schools need not cater.)

but should I force schools to teach it?

Schools should teach every belief structure that a parent might desire with no biases or none. Teaching the belief structure that suggests evolution explains the origin of man included.

Schools should teach every belief structure that a parent might desire with no biases or none. Teaching the belief structure that suggests evolution explains the origin of man included.

that would leave them teaching nothing.

If you have freakish beliefs, home school your children.

School science should be about well established scientific theories, with errors and exceptions noted. Creationism should be left to church.

People talk about God not being something that can be proved, I'll agree that it is based on faith and no one will be convinced with facts and science, however, I do have a question. How has evolution been proved? Micro and Macro evolution are two different things, Micro has been proven, do we have the ability to prove Macro? I say no. My sister is studying to be a Microbiologist and she says in the Scientific community many people no longer believe in evolution. Carbon dating is now disproven, and who can test the big bang?

I was raised in the method I would like to raise my children, which you stated creates bigots and zealots.

You were indoctrinated and discouraged from free-thinking? How sad for you.

By who's defintion of the word?

Mine. A person who is unwilling to question their faith has none at all.

I'll agree that teaching evolutionary theory doesn't infringe on my ability to believe whatever I want, but it does force me to do something that violates those beliefs. That is, it infringes upon my freedom to practice my religious beliefs.

Please show me where in any version of Christianity you are told that you cannot learn about something you disagree with?

As for the issue of children thinking for themselves, how comfortable would you be having your child taught that Nazism was a valid way of life/thinking through out their educational experience.

Straw man.

Evolution has nothing to do with a way of life or a philosophy. It is a scientific theory. In other words, it is part of science. Like I said, if you disagree with science, by all means lobby to have it removed from schools. By all means refuse to teach your children about it. By all means refuse to use anything that comes out of it.

As for children being impressionable and being able to exploit that - you are talking about doing just that! You are claiming that it is somehow "right" for you to exploit your children's vulnerability to force them into believing whatever you say (as if you are infallible), but balk when someone wishes to teach them about something without insisting that they believe in it.

Schools should teach every belief structure that a parent might desire with no biases or none. Teaching the belief structure that suggests evolution explains the origin of man included.

I believe god is evil and all christians are demented. Now, should schools teach that?

Should the Theory of Creation be taught in schools?

Always an interesting topic. No good answers, but sometimes good debates.

In my opinion, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution should get the same treatment. Both or neither. Science shouldn't play favorites.


I have to agree with this. There are some that argue that Evolution doesn't even rate being referred to as a "theory".


By the way, dig out a copy of the US Constitution. No Separation clause. Never was, probably never will be.

It only states that Congress shall pass no laws abridging the free practice of religion. Whether that is Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, or Athiest. Again, it should be all or nothing. It would be no better if Congress mandated Atheism than any other. The Founding Fathers wanted to keep the government from starting and forcing one, not that one's religious belief should become a criminal offense.

The funny thing about the "seperation of church and state" argument is that it all started with a letter from a Baptist organization in Connecticut, back in 1801. They had a concern that they wished President Jefferson to address, because they had heard rumors that the government was planning to somehow limit religious practice by some groups. Jefferson wrote back, explaining that nothing of the sort would happen. He said that he believed that the government had no business meddling in the affairs of religious groups. You can read more about it here: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html . If you read the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association and the letter from President Jefferson, you will find that the intent was not what it is understood to mean today.

Schools should teach every belief structure that a parent might desire with no biases or none. Teaching the belief structure that suggests evolution explains the origin of man included.

The vast majority of parents want science (which I suppose you might call a belief structure taught in public schools.

People talk about God not being something that can be proved, I'll agree that it is based on faith and no one will be convinced with facts and science, however, I do have a question. How has evolution been proved? Micro and Macro evolution are two different things, Micro has been proven, do we have the ability to prove Macro? I say no. My sister is studying to be a Microbiologist and she says in the Scientific community many people no longer believe in evolution. Carbon dating is now disproven, and who can test the big bang?

go read up

1 - carbon dating is fine. you're wrong
2 - most scientists do still accept evolution
3 - microwave background radiation was a prediction of the big bang. Then we found it. Exactly right too.
4 - evolution was conceived before DNA, but DNA models show how species have evolved, another proved prediction

You have been courteous. Although that should be standard on here, it is not (--myself included). So your courtesy is commendable.

But:

(1) evolution is not just a "particular theory." Aspects of evolution are central to a host of scientific fields. And it is nigh universally accepted among the scientific community. (Most that dissent do so out of their field of expertise.)

(2) evolution is not a religious theory. It is a second-order question. Any decent theologian makes the distinction between first- and second-order questions. Most who accept evolution are religious. Most Christian and Jewish denominations accept evolution as consistent with (or not contradictory of) their teachings.

(3) teaching evolution is wholly consistent with the First Amendment

(4) creationism, on the other hand, is a very particular theory. It has not essential to any braches of science nor does it contribute to any science. To the contrary, it is opposed to and undermines precepts of a wide range of scientific disciplines.

(5) creationism is a religious theory. That is its raison d'etre.

(6) teaching creationism violates the First Amendment. It is not just teaching religion. It is teaching a very narrow sectarian version of religion. That is why it is opposed by most religious organizations and churches.

(7) You are not entitled to have your religious viewpoint shielded from anything that might challenge it. There are those that believe -- as a deeply held religous belief -- that whites are racially superior to others. They are not entitled to have this taught in public schools. Nor are they entitled to prohibit the opposite from being taught. There narrow sectarian view must yield to the conveyance of neutral knowledge. (I do not equate creationism with white supremacy. That is simply an illustration of one of many religious beliefs people may (and do) have to which schools need not cater.)

The problem here is that you consider evolutionary theory to be "neutral knowledge". I clearly do not and find it an offense to that which I believe to be true. For you or the governement to force that teaching on my child is clearly a violation of my right to freely exersize my religion, sectarian or not.

I'm not advocating that creationism be taught. I'd prefer that any teaching that speaks to a belief/theory on the origin of man be left out of the educational system until such time as either a parent consents to a specific teaching or the individual is no longer a minor.

Schools should teach every belief structure that a parent might desire with no biases or none. Teaching the belief structure that suggests evolution explains the origin of man included.

Ridiculous.

By this logic, all public education should cease. As not all of the infinite "belief structures" can or should be taught on every subject, no subjects should be taught.

Simply because something is contrary to one individual's "belief structure" does not make it wrong or unconstitutional to teach it.

Moreover, if you apply your view of the protection of belief structures outside the school setting -- as one constitutionally must -- we can have no society at all. At least some people have deeply held religious beliefs contrary to just about every aspect of modern society and law. Neither the Constitution nor common sense embraces the view that we must tailor society to cater to every viewpoint. Such would be impossible -- and wrong, as it would give special privilege to those having such religious convictions.

My biggest problems with your views on creationism are not that they are contrary to the overwhelming consensus. It is that they are contrary to basic theology and basic law.

People talk about God not being something that can be proved, I'll agree that it is based on faith and no one will be convinced with facts and science, however, I do have a question. How has evolution been proved?

Actually, you have that mixed up. People talk about God not being something that can be disproven. To be a scientific theory, something must be able to be disproven.

Micro and Macro evolution are two different things, Micro has been proven, do we have the ability to prove Macro?

Incorrect. Science cannot prove anything. It can simply disprove and support hypotheses. Microevolution has not been proven, it has been supported, as has macroevolution (which is not in any way a separate theory).

PMy sister is studying to be a Microbiologist and she says in the Scientific community many people no longer believe in evolution.

Your sister is either a liar or nonexistant. There are a select few in the scientific community who do not agree with evolutionary theory. Most of these are not biologists. There are, and always will be, disputes over the exact details of the theory, but the theory itself remains.

PCarbon dating is now disproven,

No, it isn't. It has problems and a limited area of use, but has not been "disproven".

and who can test the big bang?

Physicists and astronomers.

honest question:

let's assume that the universe was chiefly formed (in its infancy, anyway) by the big bang.

a)What went into the big bang?
b)What is science's theory on what made the things that went into the big bang (or, how were they made... what was their origin)?

danke

The problem here is that you consider evolutionary theory to be "neutral knowledge". I clearly do not and find it an offense to that which I believe to be true. For you or the governement to force that teaching on my child is clearly a violation of my right to freely exersize my religion, sectarian or not.

You have yet to provide a reason that evolution is not neutral. It does not profess that there is no God. It is not based on the premise that any religion is wrong. It is, in fact, a theory derived completely without regard to any type of religion or philosophy. Why then, is it not neutral? Just because you don't happen to agree with it?

I don't agree that marijuana should be illegal. As far as I am concerned, if nicotine and alcohol are legal, marijuana should be as well. That doesn't mean it isn't a neutral law. It isn't applied differently to me, because of my lack of agreement, than it did to my grandfather, who agreed with it.

The problem here is that you consider evolutionary theory to be "neutral knowledge". I clearly do not and find it an offense to that which I believe to be true. For you or the governement to force that teaching on my child is clearly a violation of my right to freely exersize my religion, sectarian or not.

I'm not advocating that creationism be taught. I'd prefer that any teaching that speaks to a belief/theory on the origin of man be left out of the educational system until such time as either a parent consents to a specific teaching or the individual is no longer a minor.

Nice way of avoiding most of my points.

You attribute things to evolution that are not there and then take offense to them.

Evolution does not preclude religion or God. You have created an artificial conflict that is not accepted by scientists or theologians.

You may say "but I believe otherwise." Such is your right. But you do not have the right to impose that religious view on the public schools.

I can have a revelation and believe that algebra is contrary to my understanding of the Bible. I cannot expect that algebra cease to be taught because I have a religious objection to it. That is not how the First Amendment has worked, works, or should work.

You were indoctrinated and discouraged from free-thinking? How sad for you.



Mine. A person who is unwilling to question their faith has none at all.



Please show me where in any version of Christianity you are told that you cannot learn about something you disagree with?



Straw man.

Evolution has nothing to do with a way of life or a philosophy. It is a scientific theory. In other words, it is part of science. Like I said, if you disagree with science, by all means lobby to have it removed from schools. By all means refuse to teach your children about it. By all means refuse to use anything that comes out of it.

As for children being impressionable and being able to exploit that - you are talking about doing just that! You are claiming that it is somehow "right" for you to exploit your children's vulnerability to force them into believing whatever you say (as if you are infallible), but balk when someone wishes to teach them about something without insisting that they believe in it.

I'd suggest you take some psychology or social learning theory classes if you honestly believe that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with a persons belief structure.

I would certainly not claim that Christianity states that it is wrong to learn about things one disagrees with. My problem is that in a class room setting, evolution is taught as being a fact, a point that I would say, based on this discussion, is clearly not universally accepted as true.

I have questioned my faith and continue to grow in it and question it further. Just because I have not come to the same conclusions that you have does not mean that I don't think for myself. For you to imply such is boardering on the kind of stereotyping or bigotry you seem so opposed to. You seem to think that anyone that has come to a conclusion about science that is different than your own can't possibly be a thinking person. I'd be careful about such thinking, particularly if you intend to set yourself in a position to tell others they are bigotted.

I'd suggest you take some psychology or social learning theory classes if you honestly believe that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with a persons belief structure.

I would certainly not claim that Christianity states that it is wrong to learn about things one disagrees with. My problem is that in a class room setting, evolution is taught as being a fact, a point that I would say, based on this discussion, is clearly not universally accepted as true.

I have questioned my faith and continue to grow in it and question it further. Just because I have not come to the same conclusions that you have does not mean that I don't think for myself. For you to imply such is boardering on the kind of stereotyping or bigotry you seem so opposed to. You seem to think that anyone that has come to a conclusion about science that is different than your own can't possibly be a thinking person. I'd be careful about such thinking, particularly if you intend to set yourself in a position to tell others they are bigotted.
:rolleyes:

Yep, I'm immoral because I believe in evolution. Someone shoot me before I rape a child.

Ridiculous.

By this logic, all public education should cease. As not all of the infinite "belief structures" can or should be taught on every subject, no subjects should be taught.

Simply because something is contrary to one individual's "belief structure" does not make it wrong or unconstitutional to teach it.

Moreover, if you apply your view of the protection of belief structures outside the school setting -- as one constitutionally must -- we can have no society at all. At least some people have deeply held religious beliefs contrary to just about every aspect of modern society and law. Neither the Constitution nor common sense embraces the view that we must tailor society to cater to every viewpoint. Such would be impossible -- and wrong, as it would give special privilege to those having such religious convictions.

My biggest problems with your views on creationism are not that they are contrary to the overwhelming consensus. It is that they are contrary to basic theology and basic law.

And you suggest that I'm illogical. In society adults can chose to expose or not expose themselves to any set of teachings they desire. Religious teaching is not forced on any unconsenting adult in this country the last time I checked, at least not legally.

As for the theological validity of my beliefs about creation, all I can say is read the first 3 chapters of Genisis and the first chapter of John.

As for basic law, I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically.

As to the Constitutionality of forcing a person to be taught something contrary to ones belief structure, I'd say that is a clear violation of ones right to the free practice of religion.

I'd suggest you take some psychology or social learning theory classes if you honestly believe that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with a persons belief structure.

If someone accepts evolution in some sort of faith-based way, then it is part of their belief structure. If they deny it in some sort of faith-based way, then it is part of their belief structure. Having it be there as the most accepted scientific theory and learning it as such in no way changes a person's belief structure.

I would certainly not claim that Christianity states that it is wrong to learn about things one disagrees with. My problem is that in a class room setting, evolution is taught as being a fact, a point that I would say, based on this discussion, is clearly not universally accepted as true.

Unless you have a really horrible science teacher, science is not taught as fact. If your issue is with a scientific theory (any scientific theory) being taught "as fact", then take issue with shoddy teachers.

Meanwhile, the idea that the Earth is round is not universally accepted as true. I don't hear you railing against that theory being taught.

I have questioned my faith and continue to grow in it and question it further. Just because I have not come to the same conclusions that you have does not mean that I don't think for myself. For you to imply such is boardering on the kind of stereotyping or bigotry you seem so opposed to. You seem to think that anyone that has come to a conclusion about science that is different than your own can't possibly be a thinking person. I'd be careful about such thinking, particularly if you intend to set yourself in a position to tell others they are bigotted.

Wow, martyr complex anyone? I have neither said nor implied that you do not question your faith. I have neither said nor implied that you disagreeing with me makes you an unthinking person. A zealot is someone who is unwilling to question their faith, as is a fundamentalist (these are essentially the same). If you are not unwilling to do so, then the definition does not apply to you.

Meanwhile, you have expressed an intention to keep your children from having any opportunity to question their faith (which I use lightly, since it would not really be their faith, but yours) by "sheltering" them from anything that might disagree with you.

On top of that, I have yet to express any problem with you coming to a different conclusion about science. My problem is that you have expressed a wish to keep children from coming to their own conclusions about science, and the various theories that are developed using it.

Evolution has some scientific evidence. Therefore, it should be taught in science class. Evolution has no part in science.

However, creationism CAN be taught in literature class, because the bible is a piece of literature. You could argue evoultion is also a piece of literature, but who the hell wants to read a science journel?

It would explain some of the anomolies and variation in the Geologic column, particularly if you consider the possibility of "the waters above" being devided from the "waters beneath" to suggest that much of earth's water was contained under ground rather than in large seas. This would also account for the "fountains of the deep" breaking up in the biblical account of the flood.


There is no universal phenomenon of anomolies in the Geologic column. There are abberant areas, granted... but look where they are??? It is hard to be too surprised that an earlier layer occassionally overlaps a later layer on faultlines...

Aother question... where is this 'water beneath' now? There is no evidence of the awesome amounts of water required being currently underground. Nor is there any evidence of the massive seismic damage that would have been left behind by the influx of such a great volume of water from below.


Also, if there was a flood of this nature, it would make sense that "lower" life forms would be on the bottom of the Geologic column due to the larger, stronger animals fighting their way to the top before drowning and being burried by sediment.


Doesn't work, I'm afraid. Fish are often smaller than elephants, but are certainly better swimmers... thus fish remains should be atop ALL the other layers, with 'swimming' mammals/reptiles etc next.

Also - larger animals are by no means guaranteed to be better swimmers. I am much bigger than my daughter, but she swims much better than I.

Your theory also doesn't account for how the youth v's mature survivablity SHOULD have worked, if the sudden flood were an actual event.

In fact, I am hard pressed to come up with a SINGLE explanation more feasible than... "more complex creatures lie on top of less complex ones, because they evolved from them".


The pressure of such a flood could also explain the massive oil deposits on this planet, which could have been created as the result of pressure and organic material being buried. Along with a host of the other geological characteristic of this planet...


Most of which, unfortunately for your argument, are FAR better explained by less 'miraculous' means.


I know, we've talked about this before and you're probably not willing to concede that scientist's atheistic biases have limited the amount of research on subjects that would support theories other than evolution, but just because the research has never been done, doesn't eliminate other options.


Science doesn't have an 'atheistic' bias... nor a 'theistic' one. Anything purporting to be science that DOES exhibit a religious/non-religious bias, is flawed science... at very best.


I wouldn't have a problem with evolution being taught if it was treated as a "theory" and presented with other competing theories, however bizarre. However, I see that as impractical from a teaching perspective, at least in elementary ed. and would prefer to see other subjects dealt with for my tax dollar.

Evolution IS taught as a theory. In science class.

Creationism ISN'T taught in science class, because it isn't scientific.

My PERSONAL belief is that religion (ALL religions - well, as many as realistically possible) should be examined in schooling, as should science. I believe that individuals should be given the information, and left to make their own decisions.

I'd hate to see a situation where a schooling system actually removed the right to teach sciences... just as I would hate to see the same thing done to religion.

Unfortunately - the Christian Right in the US, is trying to acheive BOTH of those goals, even as we speak.

You have yet to provide a reason that evolution is not neutral. It does not profess that there is no God. It is not based on the premise that any religion is wrong. It is, in fact, a theory derived completely without regard to any type of religion or philosophy. Why then, is it not neutral? Just because you don't happen to agree with it?

I don't agree that marijuana should be illegal. As far as I am concerned, if nicotine and alcohol are legal, marijuana should be as well. That doesn't mean it isn't a neutral law. It isn't applied differently to me, because of my lack of agreement, than it did to my grandfather, who agreed with it.
neu·tral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntrl, ny-)
adj.
Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground.
Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other.
Sexless; neuter.
Chemistry.
Of or relating to a solution or compound that is neither acidic nor alkaline.
Of or relating to a compound that does not ionize in solution.
Physics.
Of or relating to a particle, an object, or a system that has neither positive nor negative electric charge.
Of or relating to a particle, object, or system that has a net electric charge of zero.
Of or indicating a color, such as gray, black, or white, that lacks hue; achromatic.
Linguistics. Pronounced with the tongue in a middle position, neither high nor low, as the a in around.

I'd say evolutionary theory is in the middle of this controversy. It directly contridicts the Biblical teaching that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Sea and all that in them is in six days.

And you suggest that I'm illogical. In society adults can chose to expose or not expose themselves to any set of teachings they desire. Religious teaching is not forced on any unconsenting adult in this country the last time I checked, at least not legally.

As for the theological validity of my beliefs about creation, all I can say is read the first 3 chapters of Genisis and the first chapter of John.

As for basic law, I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically.

As to the Constitutionality of forcing a person to be taught something contrary to ones belief structure, I'd say that is a clear violation of ones right to the free practice of religion.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Although I question the theological validity of views about creation, that was not my point. It is the theological invalidity of your view of evolution that is critical. Evolution does not teach religion. You have yet to explain how it does in any way other than "because I say so."

As for basic law, you fail to consider basic principles of the First Amendment or political philosophy. You keep crying "freedom of religion" without a proper understanding of what that means. It does not mean your beliefs must be catered to at every turn. It does not mean that things you object to cannot be taught. Religion cannot be taught in public schools as truth. Evolution is not religion. And your belief that it is does not make it so. Nor does your belief that it is sufficient to require that it not be taught.

Religous teaching is not forced on any unconsenting adult or upon any child whose parents do not consent. At least not legally. That does not mean that every religious view must be taught or that nothing that may challenge a religious view can be taught.

You do not have a unilateral right to muzzle public education.

I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson said something about the Seperation of Church and State. So you can use that to augment your argument.

Teaching creation in science class, is like teaching the earth is the center of the universe.

My PERSONAL belief is that religion (ALL religions - well, as many as realistically possible) should be examined in schooling, as should science. I believe that individuals should be given the information, and left to make their own decisions.


Can't people interested in a religon go to the church of that religon and learn about it there instead of violating Seperation of Church and State?

Nice way of avoiding most of my points.

You attribute things to evolution that are not there and then take offense to them.

Evolution does not preclude religion or God. You have created an artificial conflict that is not accepted by scientists or theologians.

You may say "but I believe otherwise." Such is your right. But you do not have the right to impose that religious view on the public schools.

I can have a revelation and believe that algebra is contrary to my understanding of the Bible. I cannot expect that algebra cease to be taught because I have a religious objection to it. That is not how the First Amendment has worked, works, or should work.

Does evolution provide a teaching on the origin of species? If so, this is not an artificial conflict. If not, your right somethings changed since I took college biology and perhaps I need further study.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Although I question the theological validity of views about creation, that was not my point. It is the theological invalidity of your view of evolution that is critical. Evolution does not teach religion. You have yet to explain how it does in any way other than "because I say so."

As for basic law, you fail to consider basic principles of the First Amendment or political philosophy. You keep crying "freedom of religion" without a proper understanding of what that means. It does not mean your beliefs must be catered to at every turn. It does not mean that things you object to cannot be taught. Religion cannot be taught in public schools as truth. Evolution is not religion. And your belief that it is does not make it so. Nor does your belief that it is sufficient to require that it not be taught.

Religous teaching is not forced on any unconsenting adult or upon any child whose parents do not consent. At least not legally. That does not mean that every religious view must be taught or that nothing that may challenge a religious view can be taught.

You do not have a unilateral right to muzzle public education.
Nice Post.

I'd say evolutionary theory is in the middle of this controversy. It directly contridicts the Biblical teaching that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Sea and all that in them is in six days.

The idea of not teaching anything non-neutral does not mean we cannot teach anything that has controversy surrounding it. You won't find a single thing taught in any school that someone won't object to.

Again, do you object to teaching the idea that the world is round? Do you object to teaching in history that we have had a man land on the moon? Do you object to teaching that Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet? Do you object to teaching that the Holocaust occurred?

All of the above have controversies surrounding them, but we teach them, because our best evidence points to them being true.

:rolleyes:

Yep, I'm immoral because I believe in evolution. Someone shoot me before I rape a child.


I'm not saying that your immoral because you believe in evolution. I'm saying that if evolution is the true explanation of the origin of humanity, morality has nothing other than contrived meaning...

I'm not saying that your immoral because you believe in evolution. I'm saying that if evolution is the true explanation of the origin of humanity, morality has nothing other than contrived meaning...
So what? Are you seriously suggesting that morality has a higher meaning? Morality stems from force of arms, mutual distrust, and relatedness coefficients.

I'm not saying that your immoral because you believe in evolution. I'm saying that if evolution is the true explanation of the origin of humanity, morality has nothing other than contrived meaning...
What exactly do you think will happen if evolution is taught? Will people all of a sudden start raping, killing and stealing? Remember that the percentage of theists who are convicted of those crimes is actually higher than the percentage of atheists convicted. Assuming that your morality comes from a god doesn't mean you'll be a moral person and assuming that morality comes from love of country and love of humanity doesn't mean your morality will be weaker.

I'm not saying that your immoral because you believe in evolution. I'm saying that if evolution is the true explanation of the origin of humanity, morality has nothing other than contrived meaning...

Morality is a very subjective word. For example, my morals are different from yours. Your morals may be, "You should not download music," where my morals may be, "Freedom for information," which supports hacking.

My opinion is that religion is based off of morality. For example, what do you get out of the story of Adam and Eve? When some one tells you not to do it, don't do it. Just look at the 10 commandments. Aside from the first one, the rest deal with morality and proper conduct. Because the majority has similar morals, religion was allowed to develope.

Evolution does not demean morality. Everybody has their own morals. Morals vary between people.

neu·tral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntrl, ny-)
adj.
Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground.
Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other.
*snip*

I'd say evolutionary theory is in the middle of this controversy. It directly contridicts the Biblical teaching that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Sea and all that in them is in six days.

Middle of what controversy?

Evolution does not favor particular religions or religion over non-religion. It is generally neutral.

Is it absolutely neutral? No. Almost nothing taught in public schools is absolutely neutral to all religious beliefs. That would be impossible.

Only a very literal and sectarian view rejected by most Judeo-Christian sects and overwhelming majority of the American public believes that evolution contradicts the Bible.

Evolution has nothing to do with whether someone created the Heavans, the Earth, and the Sea. Evolution has nothing to do with, if they were created, by whom they were created. Evolution has next to nothing to do with the time period in which creation might have occured -- even when it does, it only creates a contradiction if you wish to commit the theological error of confining God to 6 human days.

You lump together as "evolution" anything that you believe might contradict your particular religious view -- regardless of whether or not such things are part of evolutionary theory or whether they are geology, or physics, or chemistry, etc.

Apparently, we cannot teach most fields of modern science, lest they offend you. Much as I suspected.

If someone accepts evolution in some sort of faith-based way, then it is part of their belief structure. If they deny it in some sort of faith-based way, then it is part of their belief structure. Having it be there as the most accepted scientific theory and learning it as such in no way changes a person's belief structure.



Unless you have a really horrible science teacher, science is not taught as fact. If your issue is with a scientific theory (any scientific theory) being taught "as fact", then take issue with shoddy teachers.

Meanwhile, the idea that the Earth is round is not universally accepted as true. I don't hear you railing against that theory being taught.



Wow, martyr complex anyone? I have neither said nor implied that you do not question your faith. I have neither said nor implied that you disagreeing with me makes you an unthinking person. A zealot is someone who is unwilling to question their faith, as is a fundamentalist (these are essentially the same). If you are not unwilling to do so, then the definition does not apply to you.

Meanwhile, you have expressed an intention to keep your children from having any opportunity to question their faith (which I use lightly, since it would not really be their faith, but yours) by "sheltering" them from anything that might disagree with you.

On top of that, I have yet to express any problem with you coming to a different conclusion about science. My problem is that you have expressed a wish to keep children from coming to their own conclusions about science, and the various theories that are developed using it.

So, your real issues then is with parental rights? I'll grant you that they are hard to address from a Constitutional perspective unless it is doen within the framework of other rights. My religion says that I should "Train up a child in the way he should go..." part of which is training him/her to believe that God created the world and man, not that he is a derivative of the evolutionary process. As a result, to freely exersize my religion, I have to have the freedom to ensure that he/she is not taught something else while my charge.

You did say that I was dogmatised. You also said that to be so dogmatised would make an individual bigotted. You also stated that to be zealous is to not question their faith. I think your definition of zeal may be somewhat askew, if you actually believe that statement to be true. Zeal doesn't mean to be unquestioning. It means to act or believe with fervor and intensity, which does not necessitate to act or believe unquestioningly.

I was raised in the method I would like to raise my children, which you stated creates bigots and zealots.

I still don't see why parents have so much of a say in their children's upbringing. They often have no experience with children, they don't have to show any faculty or qualification for childbirth other than the ability to procreate without protection,and their judgement is certain to be clouded.

I don't want my child (hypothetical as I don't actually have one at this point) taught anything that contridicts the Bible. That doesn't mean that I believe the world is flat or many of the other things that have generated persecution by psuedo-christians in the past.

How can you not teach anything that contradicts the bible?

Even the bible contradicts the bible.

So, we now have an education system dedicated to..... textiles?

Can't people interested in a religon go to the church of that religon and learn about it there instead of violating Seperation of Church and State?

A knowledge of various religions/societies/cultures is a powerful tool, and helps dismiss xenophobia in children. There's a difference between teaching about religions and presenting them as the truth. I say, teach everything, but let the children work out for themselves what to believe. I'm against any sort of religious upbringing for any child - if Catholicism/Islam/most major religions were not forced upon children, and the families of said children not allowed to indoctrinate their children so much, I think there would be a massive decline in the populations of organised religion in general.

Science doesn't have an 'atheistic' bias... nor a 'theistic' one. Anything purporting to be science that DOES exhibit a religious/non-religious bias, is flawed science... at very best.



Evolution IS taught as a theory. In science class.

Creationism ISN'T taught in science class, because it isn't scientific.

My PERSONAL belief is that religion (ALL religions - well, as many as realistically possible) should be examined in schooling, as should science. I believe that individuals should be given the information, and left to make their own decisions.

I'd hate to see a situation where a schooling system actually removed the right to teach sciences... just as I would hate to see the same thing done to religion.

Unfortunately - the Christian Right in the US, is trying to acheive BOTH of those goals, even as we speak.

And I disagree with the Christian Right on this. If, as you suggested, religion and science were taught as equally valid explanations regarding the origin of life and world history, I wouldn't have a problem. But it isn't done that way and you know it.

Please note, I state that scientist's had the atheist bias, not science. Of course, the result would be similar, either way the bias is introduce into the conclusions made by scientists.

As for the flood related things you said, give me the kind of budget and man power to research the potiential for that alternate explanation of the current data as has been invested in evolutionary theory and I bet we get a result equally a plausable. Not that it makes much difference... it is the whole issue of "seeking after a sign" demanding proof that is, as expected, the result of a faithless generation.

So, your real issues then is with parental rights? I'll grant you that they are hard to address from a Constitutional perspective unless it is doen within the framework of other rights. My religion says that I should "Train up a child in the way he should go..." part of which is training him/her to believe that God created the world and man, not that he is a derivative of the evolutionary process. As a result, to freely exersize my religion, I have to have the freedom to ensure that he/she is not taught something else while my charge.

You did say that I was dogmatised. You also said that to be so dogmatised would make an individual bigotted. You also stated that to be zealous is to not question their faith. I think your definition of zeal may be somewhat askew, if you actually believe that statement to be true. Zeal doesn't mean to be unquestioning. It means to act or believe with fervor and intensity, which does not necessitate to act or believe unquestioningly.

No. You don't. At least not as you envision it.

You do not have the right to forbid the teaching of subjects in public school because you believe they contradict your religion.

To the contrary, to enforce such a "right" would be unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/97.html ), 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (striking down as unconstitutional a state statute which made it unlawful for any teacher in any state-supported educational institution ''to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals,'' or ''to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches'' this theory):

The antecedents of today's decision are many and unmistakable. They are rooted in the foundation soil of our Nation. They are fundamental to freedom.

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

As early as 1872, this Court said: "The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect." Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728. This has been the interpretation of the great First Amendment which this Court has applied in the many and subtle problems which the ferment of our national life has presented for decision within the Amendment's broad command.

Judicial interposition in the operation of the public school system of the Nation raises problems requiring care and restraint. Our courts, however, have not failed to apply the First Amendment's mandate in our educational system where essential to safeguard the fundamental values of freedom of speech and inquiry and of belief. By and large, public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities. Courts do not and cannot intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems and which do not directly and sharply implicate basic constitutional values. On the other hand, "[t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools," Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960). As this Court said in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the First Amendment "does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom." 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967).

The earliest cases in this Court on the subject of the impact of constitutional guarantees upon the classroom were decided before the Court expressly applied the specific prohibitions of the First Amendment to the States. But as early as 1923, the Court did not hesitate to condemn under the Due Process Clause "arbitrary" restrictions upon the freedom of teachers to teach and of students to learn. In that year, the Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held unconstitutional an Act of the State of Nebraska making it a crime to teach any subject in any language other than English to pupils who had not passed the eight grade. The State's purpose in enacting the law was to promote civic cohesiveness by encouraging the learning of English and to combat the "baneful effect" of permitting foreigners to rear and educate their children in the language of the parents' native land. The Court recognized these purposes, and it acknowledged the State's power to prescribe the school curriculum, but it held that these were not adequate to support the restriction upon the liberty of teacher and pupil. The challenged statute, it held, unconstitutionally interfered with the right of the individual, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, to engage in any of the common occupations of life and to acquire useful knowledge. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). See also Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923).

For purposes of the present case, we need not re-enter the difficult terrain which the Court, in 1923, traversed without apparent misgivings. We need not take advantage of the broad premise which the Court's decision in Meyer furnishes, nor need we explore the implications of that decision in terms of the justiciability of the multitude of controversies that beset our campuses today. Today's problem is capable of resolution in the narrower terms of the First Amendment's prohibition of laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma. In Everson v. Board of Education, this Court, in upholding a state law to provide free bus service to school children, including those attending parochial schools, said: "Neither [a State nor the Federal Government] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947).

At the following Term of Court, in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), the Court held that Illinois could not release pupils from class to attend classes of instruction in the school buildings in the religion of their choice. This, it said, would involve the State in using tax-supported property for religious purposes, thereby breaching the "wall of separation" which, according to Jefferson, the First Amendment was intended to erect between church and state. Id., at 211. See also Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). While study of religions and of the Bible from a literary and historic viewpoint, presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, need not collide with the First Amendment's prohibition, the State may not adopt programs or practices in its public schools or colleges which "aid or oppose" any religion. Id., at 225. This prohibition is absolute. It forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma. As Mr. Justice Clark stated in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, "the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them . . . ." 343 U.S. 495, 505 (1952). The test was stated as follows in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 222: "[W]hat are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution."

These precedents inevitably determine the result in the present case. The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment. It is much too late to argue that the State may impose upon the teachers in its schools any conditions that it chooses, however restrictive they may be of constitutional guarantees. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 605 -606 (1967).

In the present case, there can be no doubt that Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that Arkansas' law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens. It is clear that fundamentalist sectarian conviction was and is the law's reason for existence. ...

Arkansas' law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality. ... The law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth, Amendment to the Constitution.

Thre are multiple other US Supreme Court cases on point. I bring them up not just because the Supreme Court is the arbiter of the Constitution (as the Court can and has been wrong), but also because the reasoning is utterly sound.

That is part of what I meant re an understanding of basic law and political philosophy. The "right" you claim is no such thing. It is a power of censorship.

So, your real issues then is with parental rights? I'll grant you that they are hard to address from a Constitutional perspective unless it is doen within the framework of other rights. My religion says that I should "Train up a child in the way he should go..." part of which is training him/her to believe that God created the world and man, not that he is a derivative of the evolutionary process. As a result, to freely exersize my religion, I have to have the freedom to ensure that he/she is not taught something else while my charge.

You misunderstand your own text. It tells you to train your child, not indoctrinate him/her. Train them to decide the truth for themselves. pray that they find God, if you want, but don't bias them for or against something which should be entirely their own decision.

Religous teaching is not forced on any unconsenting adult or upon any child whose parents do not consent. At least not legally. That does not mean that every religious view must be taught or that nothing that may challenge a religious view can be taught.

You do not have a unilateral right to muzzle public education.

Your definition of religion and mine are different. I would say that science is an equally if not more dogmatised religion than Dark Ages Catholocism. There in lies the rub. Evolutionary theory clearly affects what one believes about the origin of man which is a competing teaching to that of other religions and should be addressed as such within the educational system. To do otherwise is to forceably teach a child a religious teaching without parental consent.

Science, dogmatized? If it ever became dogmatized, it wouldn't be SCIENCE.

So what? Are you seriously suggesting that morality has a higher meaning?

Actually, that is exactly what I'm saying. Otherwise, I'd be justified in trying to rape, kill and steal on the basis of my personal whim provided I had the capacity to pull it off.

Your definition of religion and mine are different. I would say that science is an equally if not more dogmatised religion than Dark Ages Catholocism. There in lies the rub. Evolutionary theory clearly affects what one believes about the origin of man which is a competing teaching to that of other religions and should be addressed as such within the educational system. To do otherwise is to forceably teach a child a religious teaching without parental consent.

Ah. I see.

So science is a religion, in your view.

Therein lies the absurdity of your position.

Under that precept then, yes, a religion contrary to yours is being taught. Also the Earth is not flat and the moon is not made of cheese.

The Constitution does not and should not cater to every absurd belief.

Your definition of religion and mine are different. I would say that science is an equally if not more dogmatised religion than Dark Ages Catholocism. There in lies the rub. Evolutionary theory clearly affects what one believes about the origin of man which is a competing teaching to that of other religions and should be addressed as such within the educational system. To do otherwise is to forceably teach a child a religious teaching without parental consent.

Science is a term that covers a variety of theories, which have been formed by collecting data over the centuries and forming logical conclusions based on these data. In essence, science is the scientific method, which precludes lies - they are by definition unscientific. Because adults are retarded and believe children cannot grasp this, they teach it in a manner that makes it appear in a quite different light, which adversely affects the thought processes of that child. Organised religion does the same thing, but does not back these ideas up at a higher level with something more sensical - each more intimate and advanced study of the Bible, for instance, reveals that belief precludes organised religion, and is a matter of personal faith.

How can you not teach anything that contradicts the bible?

Even the bible contradicts the bible.

So, we now have an education system dedicated to..... textiles?

LOL :) Now your just poking fun at me GI. You know we will just have to agree to disagree about whether or not the Bible contridicts the Bible because you will point out things you believe to be conridictory and I will have to respond that it only appears that way because we don't understand it accurately rather than there being an actual contridiction.

But textiles sounds good to me. :p ;)

Actually, that is exactly what I'm saying. Otherwise, I'd be justified in trying to rape, kill and steal on the basis of my personal whim provided I had the capacity to pull it off.

Ridiculous. And I think you know better.

You can be restrained as a matter of social contract.

Moreoever, you actions can be condemned from countless ethical systems not dependent upon religion.

On the other hand, if I believe God told me to rape, kill, and steal (which your Bible says he has done many times) would I be justified in doing it. Why not?

(Hint: try to be consistent about why we must all agree to an objective morality based on religion but not an objective morality not based on religion.)

I've boiled it down to a statement I presume nobody will disagree with:

"Schools should not teach the truth, but teach how to find it and provide the necessary provisions for students to discover their own truths."

Ergo, they should teach critical thinking, mental tools, etc., and guide their students/pupils; provide facts and documents, etc.

Any disagreement?

None. I wish more schools did that today.

Ridiculous. And I think you know better.

You can be restrained as a matter of social contract.

Moreoever, you actions can be condemned from countless ethical systems not dependent upon religion.

On the other hand, if I believe God told me to rape, kill, and steal (which your Bible says he has done many times) would I be justified in doing it. Why not?

(Hint: try to be consistent about why we must all agree to an objective morality based on religion but not an objective morality not based on religion.)

The problem is that neither social contract nor ethical systems have any more objective validity than that of someone who concludes it is ethical an moral to rape, murder and steal. That is the point, only an omniscient being could objectively define what the right thing to do in any situation is.

Well, I don't see any of them around, so I'll just muddle through life following my own distorted moral code.

The problem is that neither social contract nor ethical systems have any more objective validity than that of someone who concludes it is ethical an moral to rape, murder and steal. That is the point, only an omniscient being could objectively define what the right thing to do in any situation is.

As you conspicuously avoided answering, the belief in what an omniscient being has defined as right and wrong has no objective validity whatsoever.

Moreover, if you think that neither social contract theory nor any ethical systems have any objective validity, methinks you haven't study either particularly well.

Our laws and common morals are not based on agreement about religion. They are historically and emperically based on reason and experience -- ethics.

I've boiled it down to a statement I presume nobody will disagree with:

"Schools should not teach the truth, but teach how to find it and provide the necessary provisions for students to discover their own truths."

Ergo, they should teach critical thinking, mental tools, etc., and guide their students/pupils; provide facts and documents, etc.

Any disagreement?

Yes.

Although "truth" is a slippery concept, it rather ridiculous to propose that each child discover, for example, the periodic table by himself/herself.

Knowledge should be passed on for the good of us all.

I posted this in another forum, but I see it would be better suited here.

In response to the idea that science is a religion, or that religion is a science:

Creationism is not a science. Period. The reason? It is taking a premise and trying to find evidence to support it (God created earth). Any evidence that does not support this premise (i.e. almost all evidence that has ever been found) is either discounted as a misinterpretation, or molded to fit the theory. In short, a creationist believes what they believe, and any evidence that contradicts this belief is ignored.

Evolution is a science. The reason? A question was asked (how did animals end up the way they are?). A hypothesis was formed based on a small amount of evidence. As more evidence was gathered, the hypothesis continued to change. This changing is the basis to science. If the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is changed, not the evidence.

Evolution is not a complete science. That is why there are some loopholes that are yet to be explained. In the future, more evidence will be gathered. As that happens, the theory of evolution will become more refined as it continues to mold to the evidence. Or, the theory of evolution will be proven wrong with more evidence, in which case a new hypothesis will have to be formed.


No matter what, science is not going to take up creationism as a valid theory. It should never be taught as a science because it is not. Creationism is simply an attempt to mold evidence to fit a theory.


This is why I am against the proposal for "equal rights for creationism".


EDIT: Well, that was long and drawn out. Here's a much simpler way of putting it...

Religious Dogma (creationism): Evidence is altered to fit a theory.
Scientific Teaching (evolution): Theories are altered to fit the evidence.

Yes.

Although "truth" is a slippery concept, it rather ridiculous to propose that each child discover, for example, the periodic table by himself/herself.

Knowledge should be passed on for the good of us all.

Ergo "provide facts and documents".

As you conspicuously avoided answering, the belief in what an omniscient being has defined as right and wrong has no objective validity whatsoever.

Moreover, if you think that neither social contract theory nor any ethical systems have any objective validity, methinks you haven't study either particularly well.

Our laws and common morals are not based on agreement about religion. They are historically and emperically based on reason and experience -- ethics.

That have no more or less objective validity than the opinions of any given individual.

That have no more or less objective validity than the opinions of any given individual.

Are you under the impression that repeating the same statement makes it more persuasive or true?

And, as noted, individual beliefs about "God's morality" have no more or less objective validity than the opinions of any given individual.

Further, if laws and moral codes have no objective validity and are merely the opinions of individuals, what is the basis of your "religious freedom" you keep going on about?

Ergo "provide facts and documents".

Ergo teaching "truth" or a reasonable fascimile thereof.

Way to come around!

Yes, I'm going to say it, I disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, which I believe to be unconstitutional. oooooo :eek: They were on the right track up to the point where they failed to recognize that the teaching of evolution is teaching a belief structure that favors the belief in non-religion thereby violating the 1st ammendment.

Yes, I'm going to say it, I disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, which I believe to be unconstitutional. oooooo :eek: They were on the right track up to the point where they failed to recognize that the teaching of evolution is teaching a belief structure that favors the belief in non-religion thereby violating the 1st ammendment.

Please read my previous post. Your word "belief" is making an assumption that evolution has just as much credibility scientifically as creationism. If we were arguing about teaching only evolution and not creationism in a Religious Studies class, your argument would be valid. However, we are arguing about the science class, and therefore scientific theories take precidence over religious beliefs.

Dude, since when does religion surpass the bounds of truth and education?

I have to say one thing. The theory of evolution has a lot of scientific evidence. I believe in it. That is not to say its factuality is not open for debate. Creationism, although not something i believe in, is something you're entitled to learn about if you want. But, It isn't science, and should be kept out of the science classroom. If you want to learn it, read a bible or go to religous school. You have the right to practice your religion. And yet, if our constitution protects religious beliefs, it by the same hand piotects a lack thereof. If I was an atheist (for purpose of debate I won't say), I would not want to be forcefed Creationism as the only accepted theory. So, leave room for lots of INTELLIGENT and RATIONAL debate, but remember that creationism's place is not in science class, the same way evolution is not something taught at sunday school. Furthermore, if you allow this, wouldn't it stand to reason that people could start teaching other beliefs from religions other than those creationists seem comfortable with overriding the others. Would you still want the ability to teach religion in school if teachers started holding black masses. How about animal slaughter. Making all girls wear heddresses, or boys wear crosses. See where I'm going. It seems to me people only want religion in schools if it's theirs.

Well everyone, its been fun, but its time for me to head home to my lovely wife. I accept that many of you disagree with me. I just wish you were willing to afford me the same freedoms you demand for yourselves. I recognize that this will not likely ever happen and am okay living under those circumstances. Ultimately, in the words of Peter and John, "Whether it is right in the sight if God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things that we have seen and heard... We ought to obey God rather than men."

"Here I stand, I can do no other." Martin Luther

Well everyone, its been fun, but its time for me to head home to my lovely wife. I accept that many of you disagree with me. I just wish you were willing to afford me the same freedoms you demand for yourselves. I recognize that this will not likely ever happen and am okay living under those circumstances. Ultimately, in the words of Peter and John, "Whether it is right in the sight if God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things that we have seen and heard... We ought to obey God rather than men."

"Here I stand, I can do no other." Martin Luther

<sigh>

I wish you were willing to recognize you are demanding a "freedom" to which no one is entitled.

Yes, I'm going to say it, I disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, which I believe to be unconstitutional. oooooo :eek: They were on the right track up to the point where they failed to recognize that the teaching of evolution is teaching a belief structure that favors the belief in non-religion thereby violating the 1st ammendment.

Actually you disagree with over 100 years of Supreme Court precedent and multiple specific rulings. With no better explanation that "I disagree." :rolleyes:

Pray tell how you would justify requiring that no view be taught that could possibily contradict or offend any religious belief.

I have to say one thing. The theory of evolution has a lot of scientific evidence. I believe in it. That is not to say its factuality is not open for debate. Creationism, although not something i believe in, is something you're entitled to learn about if you want. But, It isn't science, and should be kept out of the science classroom. If you want to learn it, read a bible or go to religous school. You have the right to practice your religion. And yet, if our constitution protects religious beliefs, it by the same hand priotects a lack thereof. If I was an atheist (for purpose of debate I won't say), I would not want to be forcefed Creationism as the only accepted theory. So, leave room for lots of INTELLIGENT and RATIONAL debate, but remember that creationism's place is not in science class, the same way evolution is not something taught at sunday school.

Thank you! I wholeheartedly agree. I have been to church with my family, and have never heard evolution taught there. So, creationism (not a science) should not be taught in the science classroom.

Ergo teaching "truth" or a reasonable fascimile thereof.

Way to come around!

It's about how it's presented - not saying "this is true", but "this is what has been found to work". In some cases, it's just a similar matter of wording, but it's about the way the ideas are placed and reinforced in the children's minds - a change in the entire philosophy of permanancy of truth that's embedded in current teaching methods.

Because the Bible is God's revelation to the world. To deny its truth is to call God a lier. Also, it suggests that man "spontaneously" came into existance. If that is the case, all morality is subjective and thereby devoid of real meaning making murder and rape morally equal to benevolent love. Just constructs of human creation that have no value other than someone else's word.

Or, alternatively... the Bible is just a book, written by fallible men.

Thus - to deny it's truth is no affront to god, because it isn't HIS word.

Personally, I don't see how subjectivity removes any meaning from 'morality'... we are subjective creatures... our actions are subjective, and are experienced subjectively.

BTW, I'm studying evolution in school right now. I reccomend you all get the DVD of the pbs special "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" It presents a very well rounded approach that not only eccelently presents darwin's life and scientific work while backing up the theory but gives an interesting insight into the conflicts that religous scientists face and how they resolve them.

wow, i always enjoy discussions like these for one reason only, some people have absolutely no concept whatsoever of what they're arguing about. (just to get it out of the way, NO, i don't think anything relating to religion should be taught in a public school. Period.) unless you can provide indesputible proof that the concept of creationism is even remotely feasible, it has ABSOLUTELY no place in a room designed to teach things accepted as highly probable theories. those of you who justified the teaching of creationism by pointing out that roman and greek religions are taught, i have this to say: they are taught in english class and studied as works of literature if you want a class where you discuss the Bible as a work of literature, you can talk about creationism all you want (as an idea, NOT, as an established fact. however, most religious finatics find such discussions offensive, because it's inevitably pointed out that the Bible was written by men who never even knew Jesus. and as we all know, men are highly likely to take a factual story and twist it, or make something up completly to fit their own agenda. and just as a final clarification in the hope that those reading this and posting later won't make the same mistake again: merriam-webster defines a theory as "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" the key words being "plausible" and "scientifically acceptable" (two words, i know) So, to sum it all up: until you can prove that God creating the universe (or that he even exists in the first place) is even plausible (which is of course, impossible) your story about the origin of creatures has no place in a science classroom. End. Of. Debate.

I'm not saying that your immoral because you believe in evolution. I'm saying that if evolution is the true explanation of the origin of humanity, morality has nothing other than contrived meaning...

Apart from the fact that morality has nothing to do with the teaching of the Theory Of Evolution and the refusal to teach so-called creationism (and is only invoked on the grounds that evolution denies all Christianity and hence denies al morality), you have yet to show any reason that morality - or more so, ethics - has no grounds other than deity.

I've boiled it down to a statement I presume nobody will disagree with:

"Schools should not teach the truth, but teach how to find it and provide the necessary provisions for students to discover their own truths."

Ergo, they should teach critical thinking, mental tools, etc., and guide their students/pupils; provide facts and documents, etc.

Any disagreement?

What's "thinking"? ;)

Oh, I wish. I hope.

The problem is that neither social contract nor ethical systems have any more objective validity than that of someone who concludes it is ethical an moral to rape, murder and steal. That is the point, only an omniscient being could objectively define what the right thing to do in any situation is.

So, the Constitution of the United States Of America - which is a social contract, which provides the structure for the composition of government, and delineates certain principles - has no objective validity.

Therefore, it is null and void, and so are all laws created under it - within its jurisdiction - and so too all state constitutions and their laws, down to the most very simple divisions of society.

As none can be objectively valid, and all affect and often define or at least restrict or regulate actions in light of ethics, therefore all are invalid and just as valid as social contracts that allowed for wanton murder, rape, pillaging, and stampeding cattle through the Vatican.

Which is exactly why a theocratic state should be erected in place of a secular society founded upon the principles enshrined within the Constitution and its several amendments, etc.

Or can we accept that humans manage to do a pretty good job, considering the circumstances? God/gods/whatever don't drop in to say "hi" very frequently, much less to omnisciently and purely objectively explain anything and everything perfectly, far beyond anything the imperfect and dysfunctional human mind is able to explain on its own.

"For we cannot but speak the things that we have seen and heard... We ought to obey God rather than men."

Is nature not revelation? It can indeed be revelation even when understood as completely divorced from any and all religion - it is what is revealed, not just to one man or a few, but to all.

Science has existed, in one form or another, from our very origins - it was only codified, first by the Greeks, and later by the natural philosophers of the Enlightenment, yet the tenets of the scientific method have been followed throughout our race's long history. Trial and error is a very simple thing - we witness species of birds and fellow primates acting much along the same lines, if without the same intellectual pursuit as we today engage in.

With the exception of pure theory, which itself is predominantly derived from empirical sources, all of science finds its basis, its evidence, in the natural world - there is no other source for it.

With the passage of time - indeed, millennia - our species has accumulated a vast store of knowledge and understanding of the Cosmos. The foundations thereof were hard won, as those who would understand the Universe have been ostracized, exiled, or put to death on many an occasion.

We can accept as valid that which we have observed with our eyes and ears, measured with far keener instruments, considered with our minds, and deliberated in councils, universities, public squares, and chambers of government. Or we can reject it. Science speaks only of what we are able to see and hear (or more generally and accurately, detect and measure). It extrapolates and predicts, to the extent that we understand such practice to be valid, but all extrapolations and predictions are to be rejected when understood as invalid.

I can not think of any omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnijust, omniwhatever being - existent or otherwise - worth even a moment's consideration who would expect anything less than the full utilization of that reason for which we have the potential. It would be a sad world indeed in which "reason" were contrary to actual reality (and not a world we could say possessed reason!).

"Here I stand, I can do no other." Martin Luther

So said he, as he actively opposed an entrenched dogmatic belief system. Evolution - if indeed it actively opposes any religion or any article of religious belief - has faced nothing but opposition from entrenched religious dogma since its modern rebirth (in the 1800s). Were the position reversed, it would be little different than an anti-Inquisition - but science, nor its proponents do nothing of the sort (there are zealots on every issue, but the presence of zealots does not indicate that a general party is itself zealous).

Who stands where?

The scientific viewpoint is that, if something happens 1000 times in response to a stimulus, it will most likely continue in that vein. However, a scientists would never claim that they have proven that causality, as a scientist must always be open to the idea that, on the 1001th try, something completely different might happen.

Meanwhile, if all you are looking for is something that has held up to examination so long that it might as well be proven, then you will have no problem with teaching the concepts of evolution in the schools.
When did I say anything about "proving" something?
And I certainly have no problem with scientific lines of reasoning being taught in public schools, certainly not evolution.

I rather like the idea of the big bang, of difficult to fathom cosmological secrets - of highly ordered mathematics - of quantum concepts, and of evolution.

Makes the whole Universe look both complex and full of symmetry at the same time. A rather grand design.

So much more satisfying on an intellectual level than pulling someone's rib out, or making do with a handful of dust.

I've said it before, in other threads... but to me the 'Big Bang' theory, and the theory of Evolution work to serve a much more majestic version of 'god'.

It always perturbs me that those who rely most heavily on the eternity and omnipotence of 'god' INSIST that he does everything in 6000 year intervals, and makes everything out of clay.

If I were to believe in a 'god'... I think I'd prefer one with grand designs, and ineffable methods. Not a 'god' that knocks-up pottery people during lunch-hour.

I'm not opposed to that option, but from a logistical and Constitutional perspective I don't see any way it can happen.


Actually, you said earlier that you WERE against teaching ANYTHING that contradicted the Bible.


As soon as you start teaching one theology, you have to teach them all...

So, why do you favour Christian Creationism (specifically - of thousands of creation-myths) to be taught as opposition to Evolution?

2.Because advanced mathmatics and quantum physics are not taught to minors.

1. Anything that deny's the validity of Biblical truth, like Creation, destoys the credibility of Christianity. Evolution implies that God did not create man in His own image and denies that God created man completely. If that is the case there is no basis for morality. It becomes completely subjective, the creation of human imagination which make murder as morally valid as helping an elderly lady across the street. Everything becomes completely subjective in the absence of an omniscient being that can define objective reality.

Christianity is not 'credible', and never has been.

But that isn't a handicap, in matters of faith.

I learned about existance of evolutionary theory and some of its basic tenants from my parents in the context of explaining what other people believe and why it is inaccurate. I wasn't taught evolutionary theory seperate from that context until I attended college, which is exactly how intend to raise my own children should I ever have them...

See - I don't agree with this... but then, it is (or will be) your child.

My daughter is currently a six-year-old Southern Baptist. She attends church regularly, she says her prayers, she goes to Sunday school.

She knows I WAS a Christian, and she knows I am no longer a believer.

Whenever she asks me a question, I answer it. If it's a biblical question, I answer it in biblical terms. If she THEN asks me about OTHER answers to that question, I might answer in more personal terms, or lead her into examination of another religion, and how THEY have dealt with the same issue.

When she asks me a 'loaded' question - like the classic "Did God make people"... I always inform her that opinion is divided, and I try to explain to her as many of those opinions as I can.

Though her 'religion' doesn't match 'mine' - I don't think that is MY choice. I think MY responsibility is to give her as MUCH information as I can... and let her make her own decisions.

I'll agree that teaching evolutionary theory doesn't infringe on my ability to believe whatever I want, but it does force me to do something that violates those beliefs. That is, it infringes upon my freedom to practice my religious beliefs.


I don't see how attending a class that teaches Evolution infringes upon anyone's freedom to practise relgious belief?

Unless, you believe that learning is a handicap to the practise of religion?

Can't people interested in a religon go to the church of that religon and learn about it there instead of violating Seperation of Church and State?

A program that taught ALL religions (or, as I said, as many as realistically possible)... in equal terms, with equal critical analysis... would not be violating the principle of Separation... since it would not be 'endorsing' any one religion.... merely illustrating and discussing the wonderful world of theology.

Being a newbie and an Athiest, I was wondering something

(I apologise if this has been answered during this thread, but I just found it. I have to go to college in a minute and subsequently do not have the time to look through 50 pages. :))

I appreciate some people believe Creationism and indeed religion should be taught in schools. The question I put to you is: Which religion? Which Creationism theory? There are a lot of metanarrative religious theories in the world that conflict with eachother on the grounds of who created the world, what the "correct" moral codes of life are, and indeed in their interpretation of whatever holy text they have.

So how do you decide? Societies being incresingly multicultural means you have conflicting beliefs and theories. For example, if I was a British Muslim, I may object to being taught about Christianity and Christian theories of Creationism in a State School because it would go against my own beliefs.

So, how do you choose?

EDIT: Ahh, hang on - I think you just covered it - sorry. :)

Teaching kids Creationism is like teaching them to play on the railway tracks. Aside from a Maths class that teached 2+2=5, there isn't anything more fundamentally wrong that you could teach them.

[Yes I'm a commie pinko liberal jackass, so I have to attack religion wherever I see the opportunity... it's like a condition or something, a kneejerk reaction.]