One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

reply to post by apaulo


I'm not interested in proving to you god doesn't exist. You believe and I don't and I don't see any problem with that. It just comes down to the individual and isn't really anyone elses business.

This thread, however, is about teaching creationism in a science class. It's been shown in this thread that evolution, whether you agree with it or not, is a vald scientific theory based on testable and observable evidence whereas creationism is a matter of faith. That's why I think it should be kept out of science class and left in the realm of religious studies / philosophy, it's not science.



[edit on 5-6-2008 by Chris McGee]

reply to post by Chris McGee


Agreed. Teaching people something happened because you choose to believe it is HARDLY science and should be left out of the science classroom.

Originally posted by apaulo

God does not cease to exist when an ATHIEST closes their eyes!

ANd God doesn't exist because a believer wishes it to be so.

editoh somebody beat me to it. Although we're not saying the EXACT same thing. Ah well the point remains the same.



[edit on 5-6-2008 by Gigatronix]

Originally posted by apaulo
Well all you smug atheist types, step up and prove God doesn’t exist to us ignorant believers. I will go out on a limb and state truthfully that God is all around us, we have proof. What we don't know is how you can’t see Him, too.

That's what I love about this argument, neither side can prove anything but posture as if they can.

Here's one for you believers: Tell me how I can disprove God to you. No point in proving it if you're just going to say that doesn't qualify as proof.

Same for Atheists: Tell these believers how they can prove to you God is real.

Until we have some criteria for proof that we can all agree on, everybody shut their pie holes LOL

That is the saddest thing I've ever heard
So what are the students of these teachers supposed to believe in.
Evolution and creationism simply don't mix.

reply to post by apaulo

A creation = Creator

Mona Lisa = creation
Da Vinci = creator

The premise is flawed in your analogy as it pre-assumes that there is agreement that reality is a creation. How could you restructure your argument to make it less reliant on a weak premise?

Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by apaulo

 

A creation = Creator

Mona Lisa = creation
Da Vinci = creator

The premise is flawed in your analogy as it pre-assumes that there is agreement that reality is a creation. How could you restructure your argument to make it less reliant on a weak premise?

A “weak premise”? WOW. This is really sad.

Yet,I would have to agree with you to a degree, but only in the fact that da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is like a child’s finger painting compared to reality… at BEST!! Reality, or creation as I prefer, is totally AWESOME! It is far more complex in structure and design than anything man can create. Take for example a simple seed. For thousands of years… possibly millions, it has continued to work. It has never broke down or needed repair, but to you, it JUST a seed. It JUST evolved, but if WE could do something like that, we’d be considered a genius, but we couldn’t even come close!!!

If reality was an accident then make me a seed on purpose!

reply to post by apaulo

A “weak premise”? WOW. This is really sad.

I am glad you agree. It is understandable though. There is a huge opportunity cost associated with not teaching critical thought in grade school. Much effort is spent spewing dogma and flame bait on these threads instead of reasoned, structured argument.

Yet,I would have to agree with you to a degree, but only in the fact that da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is like a child’s finger painting compared to reality… at BEST!! Reality, or creation as I prefer, is totally AWESOME!

I repeat the question: How can you restructure your argument to not rely on a flawed premise?

Flawed premise: Reality and creation are synonymous terms
Flawed sub-premise: Reality is a matter of preference.

It is far more complex in structure and design than anything man can create. Take for example a simple seed. For thousands of years… possibly millions, it has continued to work. It has never broke down or needed repair, but to you, it JUST a seed. It JUST evolved, but if WE could do something like that, we’d be considered a genius, but we couldn’t even come close!!!

Chain of argument above relies on flawed premise that reality = creation.

My point is unless there is commonality in base premises there is very little point in continuing the discussion.

Any thoughts on how to close the gap in premises?

What i want to know...is what they teach exactly? Is each lesson about Bible quotes and how God put fossils in the ground to test our faith?...I fail to see what they can teach,for the simple fact creationists dont have any evidence outside the Bible...if you could even call the Bible proof,Pretty strange...definetly not anything that could be taught in the science classroom,gather some evidence and that may change,until then though

Originally posted by Chris McGee
reply to post by apaulo

 

I'm not interested in proving to you god doesn't exist. You believe and I don't and I don't see any problem with that. It just comes down to the individual and isn't really anyone elses business.

This thread, however, is about teaching creationism in a science class. It's been shown in this thread that evolution, whether you agree with it or not, is a vald scientific theory based on testable and observable evidence whereas creationism is a matter of faith. That's why I think it should be kept out of science class and left in the realm of religious studies / philosophy, it's not science.
[edit on 5-6-2008 by Chris McGee]

The theory of gravity is something that we can all observe and agree that it does indeed work. It is a fact that what goes up does come down, but the theory of evolution is NOT a fact and it can NOT be observed.

The problem with teaching evolution in the classroom is that, like religion, it teaches origin. In this, evolution would qualify as a religion, especially since the evidence is not FACTual, and must be accepted by faith. ((Quite frankly, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God.)) BTW, Darwin plagiarized the Bible when he described the order in which he says things evolved.))

All atheists, hail the unholy church of Evolution!

reply to post by Murangelo


Except that it has been observed and is considered to be the best guess at what is going on.

Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by Murangelo

 

Except that it has been observed and is considered to be the best guess at what is going on.

Correct..micro evolution..and i love it when people say they believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution

reply to post by Lethil


and I certainly love it when people put words in my mouth.

Macro Evidences

reply to post by bigbert81


The bulk of these teachers must be from the God all mighty South.

I can see them in Biologly class as they pull (dead rattlesnakes) from a box and place it on the dissectiion table...

Teacher - " These are Gods slithering creatures... hand rolled by Jesus from Mississippi mud & Acorn nuts... there is no such thing as "EVIL- lution".... Lets us pray.... we must thank Reverand Lowery at the church of the latter day serpents for his contribution."

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, two droids sat quietly within the hull of the Millennium Falcon as it raced through the emptiness of space. They rested quietly for the longest time as if their power was off, or deep in thought. Suddenly C-3PO straightened up excitedly and smacked R2-D2.
“Oh, my!” said C-3PO. “I figured it out!”
R2-D2 chirped and whistled.
“Figured out what? Why, the last thing to be figured out… the mystery of the universe.” C-3PO paused for a moment. “We evolved!”
R2 rocked back and forth with several quick chirps.
“What are you laughing at you ancient bucket of bolts. You are far too dated to even begin to understand my highly advanced line of thinking. It would take thousands of credits to upgrade your system to match mine.”
Again, R2 buzzed as he rocked back and forth. This time C-3PO stood up and looked sternly at R2. “That is just your problem… you believe everything you read. Just because your manufacturing seal says, “Industrial Automation” doesn’t mean they created you. You evolved, just like me!”
Immediately R2 shot back with a long stream of whistles, beeps and chirps.
“The Force? That is the most ridiculous thing to ever come out you. The Force created nothing. It is just a figment of mans imagination to explain things that can not be explained by their highly under developed brains.”
R2 then chirped again.
“Oh, good. I knew you would come to see that I was right.”
R2 chirped and whistled again as he rocked back and forth.
“What? I did not evolve from a garbage disposal!”
Luke Skywalker then entered the room lightly chuckling. “I overheard your conversation guys, and I have to agree with R2… it has been quite amusing.”
“Master, I thought that of all people you would able to see my logic is correct.”
Luke just smiled. “It takes an intelligence to design and create something. It’s just that simple. Like it or not.” Luke was about to leave the room when he stopped and looked back at C-3PO. “You think way too much. I would say, just quiet yourself and listen to the Force, but… you’re a droid. You couldn’t hear the Force even if you wanted to.”

reply to post by Murangelo


Evolution has been observed. Repeatable tests have been carried out, which results in the same speciation every single time. We've seen new species come in to existence - such as the mosquitos that only live in the London Underground. If evolution didn't exist, did God create them after the opening of the first deep-level tube station? If he did, why?

There is a lot of evidence for evolution. There is none for creationism. The two are not competing theories, one is a testable scientific theory, and the other is a hypothesis, based solely on conjecture and a bronze-age farmer's manual. If god exists, he's mightily upset with what you use your brain for.

It takes an intelligence to design and create something. It’s just that simple. Like it or not.

reply to post by Murangelo


Half true. It takes an intelligence to design something. Your point falters on the assumption that earth / the universe etc was designed.

Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by apaulo

 

Flawed premise: Reality and creation are synonymous terms
Flawed sub-premise: Reality is a matter of preference.

It is far more complex in structure and design than anything man can create. Take for example a simple seed. For thousands of years… possibly millions, it has continued to work. It has never broke down or needed repair, but to you, it JUST a seed. It JUST evolved, but if WE could do something like that, we’d be considered a genius, but we couldn’t even come close!!!

Chain of argument above relies on flawed premise that reality = creation.

The premise is flawed only from your perspective. To you, reality = accident. In this regard, truly, this discussion is worthless. We could argue until we all die and only then would you finally agree.

reply to post by Chris McGee


If man is an accident, so are his creations.