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.

 

Bush Advocates Teaching ID in Schools

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
My issue with creationism and ID is that it should not be taught in a science class. It is pseudoscience and compared to evolution in the amount of scientific 'proof' and 'evidence' it has it becomes clear that it shouldnt be taught in the science class.

Teach creationism/ID in a philosophy or religious studies (elective) classes?? that's fine with me. But dont try and poison science classes with crap.

thanks,
drfunk




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   


compared to evolution in the amount of scientific 'proof' and 'evidence' it has it becomes clear that it shouldnt be taught in the science class


That's the thing,,,, there is no PROOF for evolution. Only theory and speculation.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
That's the thing,,,, there is no PROOF for evolution. Only theory and speculation.


There is no PROOF of anything actual. Proofs apply only to formal problems in fields such as formal logic and geometry, etc.

For everything else, there's induction. If you wish to push ID, you must recognize the flaws in the premise. For example, the underpinning of ID, irreducible complexity, has already been proven false. There are in fact intermediate forms of complex organs such as eyes. Additionally, things like the appendix, the vestigal tail, etc. that show carelessness in design (assuming there was a design) and prove that the designer is not omni^3. Is that the ID you want taught?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I'm not usually much of an internationalist, but just this once I think America should open up to the ways of other cultures. In many countries, it is commonly believed that what should be taught in school ought to be decided by educators in the field in question. Sometimes they even do this based on what can be proven, or what is at least somewhat supported by evidence.

What else would Bush like to have taught in our schools I wonder? Should History class teach that he won the 2000 election in a landslide? Should Geography teach that Africa is a country? Perhaps English classes should teach the pronunciation of the letter "W" as "dubya"?

I wonder what Mr. Bush would be saying if the shoe was on the other foot? What would Bush say about presidential meddling in textbook content if it was Ralph Nader pushing for the teaching that Animal rights are equally important to Human rights?

You'd think by now I'd be accustomed to the ever expanding power of the federal government. Afterall, I grew up watching tanks flame broil cultists for Janet Reno and such. In recent years we've seen even broader and more official expansions of government powers in incredible volume, but somehow I was still unprepared for this.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm not usually much of an internationalist, but just this once I think America should open up to the ways of other cultures. In many countries, it is commonly believed that what should be taught in school ought to be decided by educators in the field in question.


I have to laugh (not at you, but at the situation), because per the Constitution, the federal governmet has no role whatsoever in education.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Until evolution can patch it's holes and explain it's gaps, then it is a questionable science. Swamp gas to man, whatever! Has anyone actually done the math on the possibility of this even happening without a creating force? It's laughable.

Each person may have his/her own beliefs about the creator, so I think studying a particular religion is a personal choice. A person should be free to choose to study Christianity or Bhudhism, or whatever if he choses to do so. If he doesn't want to, then that is his choice.

And I don't think evolution should be shoved down our throats as truth. That's not to say that evolution couldn't exist, but evolution surely could not exist without creation.

My two cents. Good night all, it's time for sleep.

Troy



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Evolutionists and Creationists can't accept challenges to thier "pet" theories.

Why not teach them all. Along With "space seed" theories, Gray "we are Cattle", theories. And every thing else?

Because of one thing. The Dogma of Absolute Power and control of tomorrow's Youth.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
In all fairness, I've been through public education recently- I graduated in 2001. It's not exactly shoved down our throats. It's a very short blurb in the textbook, presented as a theory, often acknowledging that many do not believe it.
My biology teacher actually spent more time teaching me about a pressure point he calls "the magic button" than he did about evolution. Of course he was also a wrestling coach, so that only figures.

Also, teachers are pretty gentle with it. I've been through three classes were evolution came up, and teachers were always careful to say they didn't want a debate in class, they didn't care what our personal beliefs were, they just wanted us to absorb the material regardless of our belief on it so that we would understand the state of the science.


Last but not least, evolution does exist and is observable in the fossil record. The origin of life and the point at which evolution began may be in doubt, but it requires only a simple understanding of genetics to understand that breeding patterns will affect the development of a species. We have a fossil record which shows the progression of mankind through several stages of development, and mitochondrial DNA evidence strongly suggests that these various stages in our development are in fact related to Homo sapiens.

Last but not least, I do not find science and religion to be particularly in conflict as I understand them, for a host of reasons. One can hardly deny that if in fact the universe was created by God, then God has clearly developed a universe which operates on rules. Events have consequences as dictated by the laws of physics upon which the universe operates. Processes using these rules create cause things to happen. We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not God planned the rules and the starting circumstances to generate all of those effects, or whether it all just happened, but ability of things to happen strictly as the result of scientifically explainable phenomenon does not rule out creation and design, so I find the "religion versus science" debate rather laughable. Even when they debate over science apparently contradicting the biblical narrative I find no reason why religion should be threatened when most branches of Christianity acknowledge that the bible was written man in a relatively primative civilization, based on God's inspiration. Great men, even men who may be inspired by God, are prone to misunderstandings and mistakes. I believe that it is possible for religion to embrace science without compromising its core doctrine.

All of this, in my opinion, is just a tempest in a teacup. It is the enduring legacy of an ill-advised confrontation between two sides which need not be in disagreement, namely the Scopes trial.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw



That's exactly it, and it's hurting the country. His endorsement of magical thinking detracts once more from science.


What magical thinking do you speak of? I surely hope you are not refering to his Christian beliefs.


Why would you hope that? Because of his presidency, are his views sacrosanct? Christian belief easily incorporates evolution, as with all the sciences.

In my abundant experience with this religion, I find that it is always one group or another who wants to hold Jesus and the Bible as a hostage. And each sect has particular superstitions that are sacred to them. Moreover, their hostility to science is both unconscionable and inexplicable. Of course it may very well be that science is threatening to specific superstitious constructs. That would explain their hubris.

No science is off limits to fundamentalists' derision. In fact, even classical Newtonian physics is mindlessly derided, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics. While I was serving as a deacon in a First Presbyterian Church, the minister made very specific points about that, despite him never having taken physics. I objected, though none there could understand what I was saying (in est, the language "tongues" of science).

At other places in Central Illinois and Indiana, I frequently heard the radio clergy assert verbal proofs, at least to their own satisfaction, that entropy is fantasy. Apparently, they think that would make their case for ID easier. But the logic escapes them, that if in a closed system entropy increases, then it would actually take an intelligent designer to impose the order we observe. Ergo, they would have at least one logical point favoring the ID "hypothesis." But of course, it's not science they're selling and they've already struck down the Second Law.

One must never underestimate the stupidity of large groups of people.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I have a daughter in her last year as a biology major, now I will only have to say that is not until you get into the bases of the biological science that you will understand of the meaning of evolution and how it applies to living things in this planet.

She said that in college is not such thing as fights againts the true of real science. she said people by then are pretty much well educated of what evolution, science and biology is all about.

The only uprobable theory in this world is the one of the Creationist myth.

"Magic, ghost, globins, satan and the unseen forces that did it all" are nothing but imagination, if that is what creatonist want for their children to believe, a fantasy world of "ifs or buts"that doesn't required much of an intellect, go a head but I will prefer my children with a well educated background that will prepare then intelectually and empower them to fight the under educated out there that think they know it all while wagging their bible.

Education bring the leaders of the future.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
At other places in Central Illinois and Indiana, I frequently heard the radio clergy assert verbal proofs, at least to their own satisfaction, that entropy is fantasy.


Any time you hear someone bring up entropy in a discussion of origins, you know you are speaking to an ignorant fool.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
.
deesw,
You have it exactly wrong.

ID and creationism are PURE theory and speculation. [wishfull thinking, magic, fantasy] There is no body of evidence supporting them.

Evolution on the other hand has Entire sciences that were predicted by evolutionary theory such as genetics & genetic engineering. The mechanism of passing traits.

It has evidence in the fossil record for a vast array of creatures that are not recorded in human history.

It fits with lengths of time correlated in geology.

It is a part of biology, organic chemistry and genetics. I works within the laws of chemistry, physics and mathematical logic.

Evolution is based in all other sciences and has mountains of evidence supporting it.

I notice now a days even many ID and creationists are conceding micro-evolution. Even they can see the nuts and bolts, while they deny the flange and the I-beam. They concede the tree, but not the forest.

ID and Creationism are based in a belief in magic.

When a field of study begins to make predictions that are at a later time found to be true it becomes almost impossible for any but the brain-dead to deny.

edit:
This is just too funny.
Now someone is saying there was a dinosaur on Noah's ark.

If i didn't know this was actual adults saying these things and thinking this way i would think it was some comical farce dreamed up in Hollywood.

Its seems funny, but its rather sad.

You grow up thinking humanity is a smart species, something to be proud of.
Then you see it for the ignorant species of animals it actually is.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by slank]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Uh wasn't it Men In Black where they said.

"A Person is smart, People are stupid."

Also more proof of evolution in the Wooly Mammoth.

When the Ice Age ended guess what happened? Water levels rose creating Islands, my favorites are Elsmere, Baffin, and Rengal. On these Islands an entire race of mini-mammoth creatures were found frozen. When the Ice Age ended the massive mammoth changed into a smaller version with shorter hair. Went from massive several ton beasts to the size of a small cow. That is in just the past 10-20 thousand years!



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Funny that JTL mentions that. Island dwarfing is one of the more stunning displays of what evolution can do in a relatively short period of time. It's not even difficult to understand really. You've got a host of possible genetic combinations from which you can derive some very very different species. As soon as conditions favor a certain result, it only takes a few generations for heavily favored traits to become extremely concentrated.

Think about the "hobbits" in Indonesia. Three foot tall specimens of what is apparently Homo erectus. A whole population reduced to about half of their normal size simply because their chances to survive and procreate are so heavily favored by being small.

Imagine what such a force can do over a longer time frame.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
But there is no proof that that is what those beings were or what happened. Remember there is a such thing as adaptation.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
.
deesw,

That is what Darwin said, adaptation occurs and at some point creates a new species.

You are arguing the case for evolution.
.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
No I'm not, there is a difference between something adapting to it's environment and something evolving into something else. If we evolved from something else, then why aren't we still evolving into something else? If we share a common ancestor with apes, then why can't we talk to each other? Too many loop holes, doesn't hold water, and Darwin was a Godless fruit.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
then why aren't we still evolving into something else? If we share a common ancestor with apes, then why can't we talk to each other? Too many loop holes, doesn't hold water, and Darwin was a Godless fruit.



I tell you what if you are so interested in "Evolution" and "biological" science get yourself into a biology major and find out for yourself.

Or, take what your religous leader is feeding you as face value.


God most had been experimenting a lot before he came with his "masterpiece" "the human race" because he realy left a lot of missing links with early species.


I believe God is a mad scientist.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   


God most had been experimenting a lot before he came with his "masterpiece" "the human race" because he realy left a lot of missing links with early species


God left nothing missing. How can you believe scientists that find bones scattered obout over a twenty mile radius and swear they belong to the same creature?



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
If we evolved from something else, then why aren't we still evolving into something else?

It takes a while.. and as we have adapted our enviroment to suit us evolving may involve things like intellect and longevity [already happening]. There is even a village in italy where everyone is immune to cancer.. it's in their dna.

If we share a common ancestor with apes, then why can't we talk to each other?

We can.. they can learn sign language. If you mean verbally.. language is something we developed and they didn't as our intellect increased and we needed to communicate more complex concepts to eachother. There are social/heiarchial reasons as well but I can't be bothered getting into that side of things. As we evolved our communities became more complex as well. Apes lack of verbal language means they didn't need to evolve that ability.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join