Originally posted by marg6043
I always feel that Darwin Theory is worth of classroom discussion and so is creationism.
Science for science classrooms. If creationism is going to be discussed in science class, then the religionists should have lessons in darwinism in
their sunday schools.
Both theories are missing the "link" any way, so they could be discussed without not body really winning anything.
Do you mean the 'missing link', ie an organism between ape and man?
Creationism falls on far more problems than any 'missing link' tho.
After all human beings has not been the only species that walk the earth in two legs.
It needn'thave anything to do with man at all, all species undergo evolution, man is just one of them.
That is the distinction that I make
Fair enough, my only concern is over the politics and attempts to have religion as part of public education.
and actually, spend maybe one class period, to teach the students.
I just can't see any reason to teach it. There's lots of other 'failed' ideas out there, but we don't teach them. Heck, most of them have been
more influential on modern scientific thought than creationism. I mean, why teach students about 'the ether' in a physics class?
I could understand something like creationism comming under consideration in a philosophy class, and certainly, natural theology is something every
student of the history of science should be aware of, but I think that that goes beyond the basic education that everyone is required to get. Also,
anyone who isn't a member of that religion isn't going to be interested in it. The average evangelical isn't going to care one whit about islamic
creationism. They're going to receive this religious education outside of school. Heck, often, christian students are permited
school, in the middle of the day, to go to another building for religious education. This is a big distraction for the rest of the non-christians,
and of course, if the teacher actually does teach anything in that time and test on it, there's an uproar. Already, the religionists perhaps get
more than they should.
This is the same argument that the scientific community has used many times in the past few centuries when they challenged the beliefs of
Its probably the right decision. Creationism simply doesn't deserve the attention of science on a public scale, its meaningless charlatanism and
Think about it, you are a snake oilsalesman from the old days. You tell people 'those doctors don't even dare to come down here and refute my
miraculous claims'. Well, why should they, the doctors know its bunkum to begin with, and any clear thinking person should be able to figure it
The creationist 'leaders' are just that, liars and hucksters.
On this issue, science is the one that is hiding it's head in the sand
Untrue. Everything that the creationist bring up has been addressed and refuted. Yet they fraudulently act like its new information. Its all bs.
Science isn't hiding its head in the sand. Its taking a stand, its saying 'we don't send emails to your inbox explaining why you can't use a pill
to 'increase then length and girth of your penis', and we don't send investigators to nigeria every time there is a bank fraud scam. "
Creationism is one the same level as these scams.
By the scientific community refusing to address the issue
Thats the thing, the scientific community should only be addressing scientific evidence. There is
no scientific evidence for creationism,
creationism is not
a branch of science, it itsn't a science at all.
And the community most certainly has been addressing it, when there is a claim for 'scientificness', there's allways numerous educated people
willing to look at it. The big scientific organizations, however, won't address it, becuase they are well aware of the methods of fraud and
charlatanism. When they don't send people to debate these guys on the pulpit, the creationists claim that they are scared because they know they are
wrong. When they do, they send out notices 'Even harvard university is actively interested in the subject' or 'Big Creationist reseracher thrashes
academic fool in debate', even tho the exact opposite has happened.
Scientific organizations don't debate creationists, genearlly, because creationists are immoral frauds and liars who have absolutely no basis for
making an argument in the first place.
you will also take note that after sending his son to die for our sins that he has ceased dirrect interferance untill the end of times.
Not according to the people who have waged war in his name.
these acts are acts of MEN done in God's name
Demonstrate a way to distinguish between that and actual stuff that god himself did.
you DID NOT HAVE TO BE A WITCH TO STAND ACCUSED. all yo needed was someone who had something to gain
Precisely. That is perhaps JTLS primary point, you have the bible, and then you have a lot of people more than willing to use it to vent their rage.
The complaint was that if you disagree with a religion, its members invariably try to destroy you, and if they can't get to you in life, they condemm
you in the after life. It was true for the 'witches' in salem, and its true for anyone. Luckily, in the modern era, the secular state rules, not
the ecclesiastical one. Take the majority of people in the creationist movement, and you've got the same sort of mentality, 'my religion is
objective truth, the evidence the supports it is the true evidence, anything and anyone that contradicts it is a nonbeliver doomed to hell'. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
it seems that there was some foucasing on the suffering of christ. well why not?
Beleive me, I am not complaining. After seeing that movie i was like 'now thats
how you deal with a dissident'. But the point is,why does
one of the very few movies focus on the violence? Why is that more popular than a movie about the message of love and what not? We've all seen those
lame 'bible stories' movies. They're lame. That
movie was awesome, all the blood and guts and beatings! Excellent. People didn't love it
simply because it was a message about how suffering leads to redemption. They loved the brutality
. And the audience of the bible, today, or
3,000 years ago, loved the brutality, the romans trampling peopel down, the babylonians enslaving the entire nation, the rivers running with blood,
the ammonites literally feeding babies into idols, and the yehudis comming into an area, killing all the men, enslaving the few women and children
that they neglected to kill, and even going so far as to chop up the legs of the enemies horses while the beasts were stil alive. People find comfort
in the saviour, but they also love
the idea of jesus swooshing out of the sky, thrashing satans armies, and melting the faces of the
nonbeleivers and blazing their souls out of existence in a big gnarly lake of fire!
not realy after all we would have had plenty of warning that that was going to happen
Excellent. The religion that states its all about compassion says to the people who's limbs are being gnawed off by post-apocalyptic demon-rats
"told ya so'.
how do you know that people are "salivateing" about this?
By watching their lips move when they read.
Ok, that was a cheap shot. But lets face it, the books are poorly written, they're all about gore and violence, and people love them. It follows that
people love gore and violence.
to them the bible is just a big fairy tale isn't it?
The world is not black and white. Its not just biblical literalists and foolish poor old non-belivers. IOW, there are belviers
, who are not
literalists. Ask yourself, why is the apocalypse even in the bible? There were lots
of books to choose from, why was it so popular?
Becuase people like violence
, or at least, they like to see the 'bad guy' get it in the end. Thats what the apocalypse is about, "all those
bad guys who persecute me and don't beleive like I beleive, oh man, they're gonna get it one day!'. Its juvenile, honestly, its a mentality that
was considered unrefined 2,000 years ago.
but isn't it rather predudical to point at almost every church for this?
I, honestly, have not seen any that have indicated that they are special. It would require a church to be very special indeed to not do this. And,
since we're talking about creationism, the creationist supporting churches are almost certianly not the type to 'play nice'. They're suing to get
their religion taught as objective truth (ie science) in schools. They're mostly literalists, and, as such, excpect and call for the destruction of
all non-beleivers. They're every bit the state and church melding fundamentalists that the Puritans, dark ages Catholics, and modern age jihadis,
are. They're just weak
, too weak to wreack the destruction that they contain. I could
be wrong, but, lets face it, they recject
rational thought and dissesent, and worship a 'big sky daddy' who periodically rains nuclear like terror on cities that are merely offensive, not
even dangerous. No one can claim surprise if they did just repeat the common practice that we've seen unfold in history.
just being a christan does not give you the ultimate wisdom of being compleatly right. or the legality to act upon it.
Thats the problem, it does
do that when you start having religious dogma taught as objective knowledge by the state itself.
just as evolutionists are trying to surpress creation.
Evolutionists, and any rational thinking people, are not surpressing creationism. They are addressing the fraudulent, flat out wrong, claims that
creationists make. Thats not supression. Refuting claims is what science is
. If they wanted to be a science, then, well hell they'd be
working to refute their own claims, not leaving it up to the scientists.
if creationists were doing the supressing we would be learning of creation in schools and not evolution.
I do no accept the 'power is required for wrongdoing' in this respect, tho I understand the rational. Its sort of like stating that 'black people
arent' racist, because racism requires that you be in power' (which is an arguement I have heard). But, it simply does not follow. Go to a
evangelical christian church where many members accept, say, young earth creationism, and, in the middle of a sermon, start asking questions out loud.
Bring charts that show the decay rates of various radionuclides, and discuss them. You will be supressed. Where they have power, they use it, where
they don't, they try to get it. They have no power in the schools, so they sued in court to get power, failed, and now use other methods to gain
otherwise we would be learning about at least BOTH UNPROVAN THEORIES, not just evolution
Thing is, there is no theory of creationism
. Creationism is simply not science. Additionally, the theory of evolution is as equally proven as
atomic theory. I don't hear anyone calling for physics classes to discuss the idea that angels use angel glue to hold protons and neutrons
and there is nothing any more irrational in the belief of creation than the belief of evolution.
You are fundamentally incorrect. Creationism is an irrational faith based system. Evolution, being a part of science, is a rational consideration of
the world around us. Perhaps
the world in primarily irrational and non-sensical. Nevertheless, evolution is a rational-logical examination of
that world. Its incorrect to call rational thought irrational.
however we do have the beginning of the world documented, and it makes the same ammount of sence as evolution if not more
There are two fables of creation in the bible. Neither make the least bit of sense. They are complete nonsense, literally, they are nonsense.
just as everyone dosn't believe in evolution
You cna not beleive in evolution, gravity, electricty, all you want, but you will not teach about angels flying thru copper wires to power magic image
boxes, at least
not in a science class. Creationism is not science. It should not be taught in a science class.
and if most evolutionists are christians does that mean that much of the world being non-christans do not believe in this theory
Why in the world should it matter what relgiion one is as to wether or not one can accept a basic scientific premise?? Science is 'objective', it
doesn't matter if you are a muslim or hindu, you perform a reaction, you get the products in solution. Pray to shiva or allah to have the reaction
stop and it won't stop.
and teaching evolution in all schools while totaly ignoreing another theory that is just as valid, is not proppaganda?
Creationism is completely invalid. There is no theory of creationism.
who are the ones currantly "foisting their ideas on the public"?
The creationists. When they held sway, they arrested
a teacher who taught science. They made their irrational religion (not a slight, all
religions are definitionally irrational) law. Nowadays, thankfully, they don't have that much power. And still
they sue in courts and
finance propaganda campaigns to force students, even those of different faiths, to learn about their religion.
lets see that would be the evolutionists that are shoveing their theory down childrens throughts as truth.
Science does not teach itself as being 'fundamental truth'. Scientists are well aware that they cannot know if their rational-logical methodology
uncovers or gets at ground Truth. They don't teach it as such, and they don't ram it down anyone's throats. They teach science in scienceclasses.
Is that such a burden? Creationists teach creationism in religion classes. Thats
equal, thats fair.
and yes i do find comparison to the "church of the dark ages" to evolutionary sciance
I'm sorry, but thats absolutley preposterous.
BOTH ARE SURPRESSING OTHER IDEAS and MAINTAINING that theirs are ONLY CORRECT ones
This is entirely untrue. Evolution is not taught as fundamental truth, its taught as science.
what the heck is a "vapour canopy"?never heard of it.
An example of complete BS that would get taught if we permited creationism in the class rooms. Google it, its stupid
so there is plenty of room on it.
For what? Certainly not for representatives of all the different kinds of animals alive today, let alone
all the kinds that would be alive if
the fossil record represents victims of the flood.
This is precisely why creationism isn't going to be taught in schools. We're not going to have students wasting their time trying to figure out how
much food X many animals would need and try to make up magical excuses as to how these animals survived the voyage, got their in the first place ,and
arrived at their curent biogeographic locations. You can't
refute anything in the bible, becuase you can allways just make up some other
stuff to get around any problem. Not enough room on the ark? Well, maybe the dinosaurs were all babies and in eggs. Still not enough room? Well
maybe everything was in a stage of hibernation and didn't need to eat very much. STill not enough room, well it was a miracle then.
Evolution makes the entire message of the bible nonsense
It gives it a problem if its taken completely and unerringly literally. The bible talks about adam and even in paradise, they sin and are cast out
and life becomes hard for them and what not.
Why, in the world, take this as literal truth
? Especially when the two accounts of man in paradise in the bible are contradictory, if taken
[edit on 9-5-2005 by Nygdan]
[edit on 9-5-2005 by Nygdan]