It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch


Evolutionists need to get there house in order before running around dictating how others should act.

Isn't it the other way around? Doesn't judgement start with the house of God according to scripture? If Christians can't agree on creation, how can anyone else that isn't a Christian? If you accuse those outside the faith of having a disorderly house. Isn't it hypocritical, if your own house is in disorder?




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think this may have a bit to do with that as well.
Why Climate Change Skeptics and Evolution Deniers Joined Forces


All across the country—most recently, in the state of Texas—local battles over the teaching of evolution are taking on a new complexion. More and more, it isn't just evolution under attack, it's also the teaching of climate science. The National Center for Science Education, the leading group defending the teaching of evolution across the country, has even broadened its portfolio: Now, it protects climate education too.



There is the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory. In other words, anti-evolutionists and climate deniers were both getting dumped on so much by the scientific community that they sort of naturally joined forces. And that makes sense: We know that in general, people gather their issue stances in bunches, because those stances travel together in a group (often under the aegis of a political party).

But there's also the "declining trust in science" theory, according to which political conservatives have, in general, become distrustful of the scientific community (we have data showing this is the case), and this has infected how they think about several different politicized scientific issues. And who knows: Perhaps the distrust started with the evolution issue. It is easy to imagine how a Christian conservative who thinks liberal scientists are full of it on evolution would naturally distrust said scientists on other issues as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fooking TEXAS!! Too bad Family Guy didn't use them as an example - but Kansas is just as bad, and unfortunately I am trapped here in Kansas for now.

I'd be perfectly fine with both Texas AND Kansas seceding from the union - I'll go live with my daughter in Minneapolis, or my brother in Montana - or back to Colorado (which I loved)...my sensible, progressive family members who live in Texas (some in Austin and some in Houston - very cool people) can come along, too.

Texas and Kansas 'lawmakers' can have their 'area' and their backward thinking. I'm fine with them removing themselves from our misery.

Appalling.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I really don't understand what it is you are asking for. We already don't teach religion in science classes, are you also suggesting that we eliminate the possibility of a creator as well.... just because?
edit on 6-7-2015 by Bone75 because: Typo



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I didn't make this thread in response to any particular news stories right now. I'm just discussing how the debate is flawed to begin with.

Just because it may not be currently taught, doesn't mean that people aren't trying to change that. Plus it IS being taught as science in some private schools, and that is part of my point. It isn't science, even if you have every legal right to call it that as you teach it.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Do you find it annoying that the majority of the country's textbooks are made and printed in Texas like I do?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you think it's better to teach evolution?

Faith in an absurd amount of coincidences happening
in an absurd amount perfectly timed successions
all in symphony and coming together all for absolutely
no reason at all. Yet culminating in our world that at
a glance, has the creative genius of a master intelligence
and ultimate power far greater than ours, written all over it.

Looks like one hell of a train wreck to me. But I'm all
for a science class that teaches what science has actually
learned. But you're pushing an agenda here. And well,
maybe that's how you'll get your proof you've convinced
yourself, you need?

Mankind, always getting to big for their britches.
edit on Ram70615v33201500000052 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Do you find it annoying that the majority of the country's textbooks are made and printed in Texas like I do?

Yep!

I find it more than "annoying", really.
I did go to college and grad school at KU, and it is a progressive university - but we are rather isolated from the rest of "Kansas". But that would be derailing.......our governor is a clown - and his stupid 'experiment' is failing, big time. Right NOW there is a huge issue going down that the Kansas Supreme Court is going to announce whether or not they will hear a case regarding whether or not the school funding as proposed by our ridiculous governor is constitutional.

I SO hope they do.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
1 question, has evolution got all the answers, do all the scientists on earth agree that its all now rock solid and without issue?


No, that's why it's a scientific THEORY, not a Scientific LAW.

The issue you're having with this concept is that you equate Evolution and The Theory Of Evolution as the same thing, which it is not.

Evolution is the natural phenomena we see that exists within life as we know it, and through their successive reproduction. Our Theory OF Evolution is our attempt at explaining how the Naturally Occurring Phenomena of Evolution functions. It is why people say Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Just like we know that Gravity is a naturally occurring phenomena, and we have theories about how gravity functions. Thus, Gravity is both a fact and a theory.


originally posted by: borntowatch
Evolutionists need to get there house in order before running around dictating how others should act.


I haven't ever witnessed an "evolutionist" dictating how others should act. Could you source your claims please?


originally posted by: borntowatch
Post the evidence


Be more specific. The theory of evolution is one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of science. If you have a specific concern, I'd be more than willing to provide all the evidence and peer-reviewed information you need



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you think it's better to teach evolution?


Yes, because it is one of the most evidence-backed theories of all of science. Seems to make sense to add it to science classes.



originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Faith in an absurd amount of coincidences happening
in an absurd amount perfectly timed successions
all in symphony and coming together all for absolutely
no reason at all. Yet culminating in our world that at
a glance, has the creative genius of a master intelligence
and ultimate power far greater than ours, written all over it.


~Not sure how coincidences can occur when there is predictability within Evolution, just like any other scientific theory.
~ I don't know what you mean by "perfectly timed successions", can you elaborate?
~ Coming together for no reason? Are you referring to when life began? because that isn't part of evolution. Evolution explains what happens to life once it is already here (and reproducing)
~ Your assertion that our world is a result of a master intelligence is only your perspective of things. We know how planets form in totally natural ways without the assistance from magic.



originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Looks like one hell of a train wreck to me. But I'm all
for a science class that teaches what science has actually
learned. But you're pushing an agenda here. And well,
maybe that's how you'll get your proof you've convinced
yourself, you need?


Right, because you have clearly demonstrated your immense knowledge of science in this single post. Perhaps it is you that needs to go back to school?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I have to wonder if Creationism and anti-evolution beliefs are spreading, or shrinking. It feels like they are spreading, but I have no statistics. I started wondering this when I saw an anti-evolution, creationist billboard along the freeway here in Oregon.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer


I have to wonder if Creationism and anti-evolution beliefs are spreading, or shrinking. It feels like they are spreading, but I have no statistics.


They are shrinking. That's why SOME heads are spinning around and SOME eyes are bugging out and hysteria is now reigning among the Evangelicals. It's real-life death throes we are witnessing. What do they call it? Oh yeah, the 'death rattle.'



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Give some examples so I know what you are talking about. I mean I know that Phrenology itself is a pseudo-science, but are you referring to psychology in general here?


Yes, psychology in particular does not pass muster.


I disagree. I think that psychology is a sound science, it is just not a very old science like many of the other fields. So the gaps in our basic knowledge of the field are larger and thus we are more prone to believe unsubstantiated assumptions because we haven't show any traditional and testable patterns to develop sound ideas to describe things.

Keep in mind, our knowledge base in the field of Psychology has improved IMMENSELY since Freud and his dream analysis, Phrenology, and other hokey Psych theories. For instance, it should be noted that Freud didn't base any of his pyschoanalysis theory on really ANYTHING. He just invented it based off of anecdotal evidence and said it was true.

Now, I can see the reprehension of trusting where this science has gone since him, since he IS considered one of the fathers of that field of science, but keep in mind, he isn't the first scientist to push anecdote as fact, and we haven't discarded any of the other sciences where this has been attempted.

So in other words, I just think that Psychology just needs more time. It'll probably make much more sense to us with more evidence collected and analyzed. After all, that is how we overturned Freud's hokum.


I think you are just being contrarian. It's OK, I am guilty of it sometimes myself.



Think about it, there is nothing scientific about psychology.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


Think about it, there is nothing scientific about psychology.


How ironic.

"Think about it".

There is a plethora of research being done right now into how the brain functions - I was in the psychology field before retiring, and only a person who is refusing to look at that research would say such a thing.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: greencmp


Think about it, there is nothing scientific about psychology.


How ironic.

"Think about it".

There is a plethora of research being done right now into how the brain functions - I was in the psychology field before retiring, and only a person who is refusing to look at that research would say such a thing.



lol

What's that now?

I take it you are a budding psychology student, bravo.

Please don't take my rigorous adherence to the proper use of terminology to be a categorical dismissal of fields which cannot be considered sciences.

Glad we cleared that up.




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

No, dude. I was a clinical mental health practitioner; a credentialed, successful, professional one.

I take it you are a conspiracy theorist who doesn't know jack about what you are saying.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: greencmp

No, dude. I was a clinical mental health practitioner; a credentialed, successful, professional one.

I take it you are a conspiracy theorist who doesn't know jack about what you are saying.


Please continue to dig it deep and wide to accommodate all of your arrogance.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


Please continue to dig it deep and wide to accommodate all of your arrogance.

That's all you got?

Limp. **yawn**



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Actually, I'm going to have to agree with Greencmp here (but only to a degree). Psychology, although making a lot of advancement, and still being relatively accurate, is still not quite totally scientific.

A lot of Psychology's conclusions are based on scientific studies, such as neurology and biology, absolutely! However, the vast majority of psychology is still pretty much based on educated-guess work. Psychology is kind of a "soft" science.

Heck the entire diagnostic manual of mental disorders consistently continues to resist integration with research findings, and a lot of the views within the DSM can still be argued that they exist only through societal views, rather than scientific ones. A good example being in what would determine a sexual orientation (Most people would not include Pedophilia, Necrophilia, or Beastiality as a sexual orientation, and sometimes they would be correct, however, there is a lot of evidence that shows some individuals are simply biologically tuned to those attractions just like Heterosexuality, Bisexuality, and Homosexuality).

The point is, it is not entirely accurate to claim that Psychology is definitely scientific, or definitely not scientific. It clearly shows that it has traits from both ends of the spectrum. It's just not exclusively one or the other yet (but definitely moving towards total Scientific reasoning)

edit on 6/7/15 by Ghost147 because: colorful text!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you think it's better to teach evolution?


When it comes to which is and isn't science, evolution has creationism beat by a mile regardless of how believable it is or isn't.


Faith in an absurd amount of coincidences happening
in an absurd amount perfectly timed successions
all in symphony and coming together all for absolutely
no reason at all. Yet culminating in our world that at
a glance, has the creative genius of a master intelligence
and ultimate power far greater than ours, written all over it.

Looks like one hell of a train wreck to me. But I'm all
for a science class that teaches what science has actually
learned. But you're pushing an agenda here. And well,
maybe that's how you'll get your proof you've convinced
yourself, you need?


Me pushing an agenda? This coming from the guy who clearly just described evolution as silly as possible to gain sympathy votes for his position.


Mankind, always getting to big for their britches.


Give me a unified idea of Creationism that ALL Creationists can agree to and maybe THEN we can talk about including it as a form of science. Until then, it is just personal opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join