RE: Creationism in public schools

RE: Creationism in public schools (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

bluepanda -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:16:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Another fact is that scientists actually believe in creationism themselves. The Big Bang....release of energy from nothing. Origin of Life....inert molecules suddenly becoming self replicating and proceeding to the "life" we see today. So why prefer one form of creation to another ? Only arskin' Sure, but it's important to keep in mind that creationism and evolution are not necessarily contradictory, because in their purest form they don't attempt to answer the same questions. Creationism seeks to explain where life came from in the first place, whereas evolutionary science deals only with how life evolved once it got here. A scientist can spend their entire career studying how life evolved without ever even attempting to explain how it started in the first place, because you don't need the answer to that question in order to understand evolution. The problem with the "creationism vs. evolution" debate is that most religious nuts are unable to grasp that, and refuse to separate the two issues. They insist on trying to use creationism as some sort of lever to tip over evolutionary science because evolutionary science threatens their religious beliefs. And they can't tolerate any threat to their religious beliefs.

NihilusZero -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:19:06 AM)
I agree with bluepanda on isolating the difference between teaching it and allowing debate on the topic. In reality, there is nothing about creationism to teach. It provides no informative postulations other than "god did it!"...and there is no verifiable way to become aware of those mechanisms. In terms of debate, however, my one reservation lies sort of along the lines some others have mentioned: age. There is an age range in which the child's mind is a sponge that is still absorbing new information. At some point, the development of potential studious skepticism may kick into the brain and I do agree that older students should perhaps have a area of school that is devoted to such debates. It would be fantastic if the basic structure of critical thinking was specifically taught in order to encourage questioning things and determining their reliability through evidence, but even it it's not we'll have to draw the chronological line at a specific age when we presume the student to be capable of questioning what they're hearing, rather than admitting it wholly.

ygraine -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:26:48 AM)
Thank you and Musicmystery for pointing out the difference between theory as it is commonly used and it's use in science. Ideas do not become theory in science until they are discussed, reviewed, and tested repeatedly. The theory of Evolution has been tested, retested, and modfied and continues to be tested daily by the scientific community. Darwin would hardly recognize his theory today. Creationism is at best a religious philosophy. It has not been tested via scientific method enough to become scientific theory. Until that is the case, it does not belong in the science classroom. I am a secondary school biology teacher. I do not and would not teach this as science curriculum. This is obviously a hot button for many fundamentalist parents. I have no problem with it being taught as an idea in sociology class but it is NOT science. By the way, if you don't believe in evolution, perhaps the rapid mutation and evolution of bacteria that we have seen in our own lifetimes would change your mind: http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/doonesbury_takes_on_creationism/ Ygraine.

colouredin -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:31:35 AM)
Rule, science changes, what we believe to be true now we didnt twenty years ago, this is why its called theory, in a scientific context its true that the theories that stand for example gravity and evolution do so because no other more scientifically true theory is around, however it isnt fact. People will say well i BELIEVE in evolution and others will say they BELIEVE in creationism because it is in fact a belief and will be so until its fact which it never will be. Yes scientists challange their theories they actively try to proove them wrong to check they hold up something that religion doesnt do, however that still doesnt make it fact so no i actually dont see any irony because my statement wasnt borne out of ignorance.

UncleNasty -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:31:43 AM)
Science, in its purest form, has as its agenda a continuous search for truth. These days there are pretty deep influences and controls of corporate funding, so that agenda has been corrupted somewhat. There is still some pure science going on though. Creationism has a very different agenda. Rather than stumble and trip through my own perverted interpretation of what that is I instead suggest a search of something like "dover ohio school creationism." An example of a school board instituting creationism as part of its classes, and then the legal case that followed. It happened in the last few years so I think it can be considered current. Uncle Nasty

marieToo -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:47:12 AM)
No, I don't think this should be encouraged in public schools. Even though it's "debate" or hopefully neutral philisophical discussion it still crosses the line of discussing religion in the public school system. And kids are still a little bit too impressionable, even at the high school age. As a parent, I'm probably more laid back than most, but this is an area that I have very strong feelings about. And there is basically no way I would even allow my child to be exposed to this without my supervision, as I would have no idea if the teacher was slanted one way or the other or what the heck was being said in these discussions. Where religion is concerned, I don't trust the public school system with my child's mind, and I'm thankful for the separation of church and state.

SummerWind -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:50:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I believe that we share a common ancestor with the great apes. If you ever saw my Uncle Sal play lawn darts, at a family BBQ, with his shirt off.........this theory would be unequivically, scientifically, no fucking doubt about it........proven

Bethnai -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:52:11 AM)
Exactly. Its about.....that is my job. You do not have the right to interfere. Further, it is all about indoctrination and I trust me lots more than I trust you. (general)

bluepanda -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:54:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin Rule, science changes, what we believe to be true now we didnt twenty years ago, this is why its called theory, in a scientific context its true that the theories that stand for example gravity and evolution do so because no other more scientifically true theory is around, however it isnt fact. People will say well i BELIEVE in evolution and others will say they BELIEVE in creationism because it is in fact a belief and will be so until its fact which it never will be. Yes scientists challange their theories they actively try to proove them wrong to check they hold up something that religion doesnt do, however that still doesnt make it fact so no i actually dont see any irony because my statement wasnt borne out of ignorance. I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I'm afraid it is. What you don't seem to understand is that evolution is a proven fact. There's no question about that at all. The theory of evolution is, itself, a constantly evolving study of the basic details of how that all works, but the fact that science can't explain every detail of how evolution works doesn't mean there's any question that it does. If you attempt to argue that creation mythology is just as valid as evolutionary science because not knowing a few details about evolutionary science is exactly the same as not having any evidence whatsoever for creation mythology, then your argument is, unfortunately, borne of ignorance. Sorry.

DomKen -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 8:02:37 AM)
To answer the OP's question, creationism should not be taught as correct or possibly correct or given a significant place in a science curriculum. Teachers must be free to deal with questions and claims made by students about creationism while teaching about evolution and the theory of evolution but only to point out that there is no scientific evidence in support of classic young earth creationism or intelligent design. colouredin, evolution is a fact. populations of organisms change in genetic makeup and in expressed characteristics over time. The theory of evolution, based on Darwin's ideas but greatly refined into the modern synthesis, is the only scientifically supported explanation of the fact of evolution. This is similiar to such things as gravity, where we observe a fact (things fall down), and then seek a scientific explanation of that fact, the theory of gravity in this case. Confusing the facts that something happens with the scientific theory of why it happens is sure to lead into trouble. seeksfemslave, bring it on. Don't make more vague nonsensical claims but present what you think is evidence against the theory of evolution, or link to the website you're cribbing from, and I'll show you where its wrong.

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 8:06:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin Rule, science changes, what we believe to be true now we didnt twenty years ago, this is why its called theory, in a scientific context its true that the theories that stand for example gravity and evolution do so because no other more scientifically true theory is around, however it isnt fact. People will say well i BELIEVE in evolution and others will say they BELIEVE in creationism because it is in fact a belief and will be so until its fact which it never will be. Yes scientists challange their theories they actively try to proove them wrong to check they hold up something that religion doesnt do, however that still doesnt make it fact so no i actually dont see any irony because my statement wasnt borne out of ignorance. Excuse me, I have to go talk to my wall for a few minutes now. I'll be back shortly. Unless I start having to bang my head on it, in which case case I'll be back after my hospitalization.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 8:17:51 AM)
Many posters who are against the idea are confusing the issue IMO. A particular religion or religious view would not be taught. What would be taught is comparative religion and the underlying ideas that are involved. eg morals, social codes explanation as to origin etc. The mere fact that many posters claim that NS is scientifically true shows the power of brain washing/lazy thinking as does the belief that my religion represents the only truth . Opening up young minds to the different perceptions that exist in the world can only do good . Origin or first cause are almost certainly outside the scope of scientific enquiry. That in and of itself should help to deflate the arrogance underpinning the belief that the scientific method is the only valid world view when life and its meaning are considered. Simplicity never "evolves" into complexity. Adding: DomKen enters the fray big boots flailing. or Did he trip over his undone laces and fall on his arse. hehehe

bluepanda -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 8:32:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Many posters who are against the idea are confusing the issue IMO. A particular religion or religious view would not be taught. What would be taught is comparative religion and the underlying ideas that are involved. eg morals, social codes explanation as to origin etc. I agree that no education would be complete without studying those subjects, but they don't belong in science classes any more than English Literature should be taught in shop class. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The mere fact that many posters claim that NS is scientifically true shows the power of brain washing/lazy thinking as does the belief that my religion represents the only truth Here's where I display some of my own ignorance. What's NS? I don't recall hearing that term before. EDIT: Never mind, it just hit me. Sorry, I'm dense this morning. OK then. Your assertion is that natural selection is scientifically invalid. What's your factual argument in support of this assertion? quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Opening up young minds to the different perceptions that exist in the world can only do good . Origin or first cause are almost certainly outside the scope of scientific enquiry. That in and of itself should help to deflate the arrogance underpinning the belief that the scientific method is the only valid world view when life and its meaning are considered. Simplicity never "evolves" into complexity. Generally true, but not universally so. Explain helium. Is the helium atom not more complex than the hydrogen atom from which it was "built"? Or, by the same token, is the water molecule not more complex than the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom from which it was constructed?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 8:40:27 AM)
What's wrong is that it's a phony issue. The debate is ALREADY allowed public schools. What would be totally outrageous and unacceptable would be if creationism were placed on the curriculum or taught alongside evolution as a "viable" alternative. That's what people like Palin really want, but are afraid to say openly because it would reveal to Middle America just how fucking crazy they are. It's just like the school-prayer issue. Prayer is already allowed in public schools. People like Palin want school prayer to be MANDATORY, which is nuts, but they make their position sound more reasonable by theatrically pleading for prayer to be permissible in schools--which it already is. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou So again....what is wrong with allowing this debate in public schools?

Raechard -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 8:41:51 AM)
-fr- There is nothing wrong with teaching Creationism in a Religious Education class or similar, what I'm against is those that say it should be taught in a science class as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution, it isn't. A distinction should always be highlighted between faith and science that's not always so easy because every scientist will start out with a hypothesis (basically faith of what they think a test will prove). The difference I suppose is the scientist will always learn something even if it's only their hypothesis is wrong. Whereas the person with faith asking god to send them a sign will always see that sign in one form or another and so believe they are correct in their assumptions. Creationism is the same in this respect because it's not about finding answers it seems to be about manipulating the answers to suit the theory. The best result sometimes is to discover your theory is completely wrong because it opens up the possibility for more questions but with creationism the questions remain the same because the results are expected i.e. Does god exist: yes, was the universe created for humans: yes. etc. It's useful though for children to realise some adults have funny ideas about how the world should be and therefore develop their own counter belief systems. Children discovering that adults don't have the answers to all the questions is a good way of inspiring them to find their own answers using a methodical approach and for them to realise some people will stand in their way by telling them things that are utterly unrealistic. Someone said here once that no one thought the world was flat, they just didn't consider the question at all. Sometimes being told untruths is a good thing because it makes us question them untruths and why people propose them.

Bethnai -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 8:45:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Many posters who are against the idea are confusing the issue IMO. A particular religion or religious view would not be taught. What would be taught is comparative religion and the underlying ideas that are involved. eg morals, social codes explanation as to origin etc. The mere fact that many posters claim that NS is scientifically true shows the power of brain washing/lazy thinking as does the belief that my religion represents the only truth. . Opening up young minds to the different perceptions that exist in the world can only do good . Origin or first cause are almost certainly outside the scope of scientific enquiry. That in and of itself should help to deflate the arrogance underpinning the belief that the scientific method is the only valid world view when life and its meaning are considered. Brainwashing is having children get up and say the Pledge "under one god" on a daily basis, or getting up to say it without god. Its still brainwashing. I do not think the state is qualified to to jack with mine and then use it for whatever agenda is pulled at the time. Now, I am well read. I know people from many religions. I can take mine to a Mosque, a Synagogue or any type of church he thinks he wants to explore. I'm more than qualified to compare religions. Indoctrination is on my time and my way. I do not want it in the public school, primary or secondary, period. University, most excellent choice. Evolution.

marieToo -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 9:17:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bethnai Exactly. Its about.....that is my job. You do not have the right to interfere. And neither do I.

marieToo -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 9:20:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bethnai Brainwashing is having children get up and say the Pledge "under one god" on a daily basis, or getting up to say it without god. Its still brainwashing. Exactly. quote: I do not think the state is qualified to to jack with mine and then use it for whatever agenda is pulled at the time. Now, I am well read. I know people from many religions. I can take mine to a Mosque, a Synagogue or any type of church he thinks he wants to explore. I'm more than qualified to compare religions. Indoctrination is on my time and my way. I do not want it in the public school, primary or secondary, period. University, most excellent choice. Evolution. Well-stated.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 10:04:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Another fact is that scientists actually believe in creationism themselves. The Big Bang....release of energy from nothing. Origin of Life....inert molecules suddenly becoming self replicating and proceeding to the "life" we see today. So why prefer one form of creation to another ? Only arskin' "Only arskin'". eh? Granted, I've only been here less than a year, but I have seen DomKen, Zensee, SugarmyChurro, among others, post links to the most current research on the topic, only to see you categorically reject all of it because it conflicts with your belief in mythology, so I, for one, won't ever bother trying to lead you to facts, as it is simply an enormous waste of time. If you were really "just arskin'", I'd take the time, but you aren't, and you know it.

Roselaure -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 10:14:06 AM)
I have no objection to creationism being taught in schools in a comparative religions class or something like that. But not in a science class under the guise of an alternate theory. It's not science.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125