One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

reply to post by Murangelo

---

To me reality = the state of things as they actually exist. What you are trying to say is that complex systems have to be created that they cannot otherwise occur.



You again proceed as if there were some consensus that reality is a creation. The above statement is true. It is not however germane to the point as within the framework of the discussion it is not settled law that existence/reality is a creation. Ergo, while it is true to say that intelligence is a prerequisite to design something, that has no bearing on a universe that was not provably created.


[edit on 9-6-2008 by wytworm]

Ok ... I have been gone from this debate for a while

So here is some more evidence to support evolution being a very testable theory of science.

Even though many of the pro-evolutionists have asked for reasons why creationism should be taught as a valid scientific theory ... unless I missed it ... I still see no clear argument of why creationism has a place in a science classroom.

Let me make clear that I believe that Creationism and I.D. should be taught in philosophy and religious classrooms.

Here is an EXCELLENT list of arguments that evolution is a science, just like biology and chemistry.

A whole list of evidence

Here is documentation that evolution has been observed in the wild ... Funny, I couldn't find any reference or rebuttal to this in Answers in Genesis ...

Evolution documented in wild

[edit on 9/6/08 by Horza]

I believe that outside of our ability, or senses, to see, taste, feel, smell, and hear, there are possibly millions of other dimensions. We are limited to only five senses to contact 3. If someone was born blind, that doesn’t mean a rainbow doesn’t exist… even though it really doesn’t in his “universe.” We ant brains can not even begin to fathom the greatness of the universe simply because we lack the ability to contact it.

Evolution is a wild goose chase that will lead a person farther and farther away from the answer to the mystery of the universe, and the reason that is because of the very logic I have encountered here; reality, though impossibly complex beyond comprehension, has no intelligence behind it. Its glory is a mere accident. This logic makes me deeply sorrowful. I feel like I have been speaking to someone about a rainbow, but I’m just now discovering that they are blind.

There is a sixth sense, and I suppose it is the one that you lack in order to contact God. So, in your universe, I guess He does not exist.

Sir, your post is unfair. Your sorrow is nothing compared with ours. Everyone tried hard to show you otherwise, you deny every attempt to open your mind. You chose to be the frog in a well. You have a surrounding wall which does not allow you to see beyond the tiny opening on top.

You have seen the rainbow above, but beyond your well, people already know how a rainbow is formed. You accept and insist the rainbow is the work of God and nothing else. Fine, you are entitled to your beliefs, but given your myopic views you have no right to say the rest of us are blind.

Perhaps you are confused, many people here can tell you that your views are not based on science but faith. Science is knowledge attained through study or practice, knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws. There are believers and non believers of God who can accept science, that doe not make us blind. Those who cannot accept science and persist to argue based on faith alone are blind.

Sir, you and your likes only stand in awe of God's works but make no attempt to be closer to God by understanding his work. You cannot be closer if you don't understand or refuse to accept the inevitable truth. Along with all other senses, God also gave you the ability to understand and free will to realise the truth, not hold on to old church faith where Earth is flat and everything revolved round the Earth. God has given me clear abilities to see evidence for both sides and led me to evolution as the right interpreter of how life begins.

I am not going to debate creation and evolution. Some has missed totally the point of this thread and had gone far off topic on many occasions. The point here is how some teachers are not respecting laws that have keep America as leader of freedom and free will. Separation of church (religion) and state must not be trivialized and/or misinterpreted.

All you ATS members are critical thinkers, are you not? Is it right for creation beliefs to be taught in a public school made up of different races and beliefs? If teaching of creation belief is allowed, how about other theories of life from other religions? Don't thump your chest and chant "USA" "USA" if you can't uphold your freedom, this is what makes America great and envy of the world. And let's look at being fair. If creation belief is to be taught in public schools for the sake of fairness and to give children choices, how about evolution being taught in church, Christian schools and Sunday schools? No matter how blind you are, I am sure people can see how wrong this path is. Sad thing is creationists themselves don't know they are opening a Pandora's Box. It's up to the rest of you guys to protect America.

Bigbert81, good post. I understand the purpose of your post. I can see a true American when I see one. Salute to you!!

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]

reply to post by Gigantopithecus

---

My friend, I have seen much more than you could ever imagine.

Yes but if you start to teach BS next to science what next?

Do we start teaching the Holocaust didn't happen?

Do we start teaching nucelar radiation will give you super powers?

Do we start teaching gravity is really God's love holding you down?

Do we start teaching stars are really dead people's spirits?(Have to include other religions not just the Christian one)

When does it stop?

And before you say that's ridiculous remember the Christian arguement against gay marriage is "What's next humans marrying animals?" which is just as ridiculous.

What I'd like to know is when did Creationism become a science?
I wasn't offered that Major when I enrolled in Uni.

Why the hell is it considered a scientific field of study, it's pure spiritual pseudo-science, there is no proof or evidence for it other than a compilation of ramblings written 2,000 years ago by a man whom nobody can prove actually existed.

As I recall the scientific method requires reproducible results and verifiable evidence to become a widely accepted theory; so remind me, when has God produced more men and women from mud?
And how come we haven't found the "Garden of Eden" where all this miraculous creationism took place?

We have found however archaeological evidence; such as bones, skulls and DNA from around 5 million years ago that offer proof of an ancient Human ancestor that is genetically linked to us whom likely descended from a prototypical primate ancestor.
We can also document how every species, even humans are still evolving to this day, through observation.

Creationism should not be "banned" so to speak, but why is it taught AS SCIENCE? It's NOT scientific in the least, it requires people to suspend their disbelief and accept some kind of fantastical, magical materialisation theory that can only be explained with unscientific reasoning.

I had a Christian physics & human biology teacher in high school and he had no problem explaining to kids the scientific hypothesises regarding human evolution while maintaining his own beliefs.

SEPARATION of Church & State; the line needs to be clearer.

It's a disgusting trend.

The last thing the world needs is more religion-inspired misinformation.

reply to post by bigbert81

---

No faith has any place in a classroom of compulsory education. Be it faith in God or faith in Man and Science. Neither teaching can be proven, both have large flaws, and so neither have a place. And Darwin would shake in his boots? You do realize that all the major points of Darwin's theory have all been proven wrong and supplanted by new theories?

Even though Einstein was an agnostic, at least he believed in a supreme power and intelligence that created the universe.

Open your eyes for crying out loud.

Where you have a painting, you have a painter; a building, a builder; a book, an author… all creation is a million times more complex than anything man can create, and you think it was an accident? Good grief! I don’t care how long a palette full of paint sits in front of a blank canvas, it will never produce the Mona Lisa by itself.

“Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds.”

To teach anything concerning the origins of man should NOT be taught in public schools.

Lets explore the word "Theory"

Example A
In the context of creationism theory means
"In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them."
en.wikipedia.org...

Example B
Now lets see what it means when taking into a verifiable way.. IE Science

"According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

It is quite understandable that many people just do not understand that the word "Theory" has multiple meanings. It is also understandable for these same people to get them confused with each other.

Both Creationism and Evolution are "Theories" The difference is that creationism is based on nothing but a 2000 year old book (Example A).. and Evolution is based on verifiable scientific fact. (Example B)

Just a note..... It wasn't that long ago that the world KNEW the world was flat and earth was the centre of the universe and everything rotated around the earth.. All because that 2000 year old book said so. Erm.. im sorry .. When was the last time the Bible was rewritten? How many different permutations of that book are out there? Greatest work of fiction ever created if you ask me. (I know.. no one asked..)

If you "Believe" in creationism .. Please tell me that you also still believe the world is flat etc........ Its in the bible Right? The bible isn't wrong is it? Well ?

Keep religious idiocy out of government and schools. You can believe what you want but don't be forcing that garbage onto other people.

reply to post by wolfmanjack

---

Keep religious idiocy out of government and schools. You can believe what you want but don't be forcing that garbage onto other people.

Really? I believe you are mistaken

“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.

"“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43."

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

“Why do you write to me ‘God should punish the English’? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”

Albert Einstein, letter to Edgar Meyer, a Swiss colleague, January 2, 1915; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 201.

“It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished.”

Albert Einstein; quoted in W. I. Hermanns, "A Talk with Einstein," October 1943, Einstein Archive 55-285; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 215.

There are plenty more here
www.stephenjaygould.org...

Seems to me your claim that Albert Einstein believed in god etc is quite wrong.

reply to post by wolfmanjack

---

I think what you fail to see is the way in which your own beliefs also constitute a religion. You can use either definition of a theory, it doesn't matter; what does matter is that both creationism and evolution theory are based on CONJECTURE. One is the conjecture of men in ancient times, the other conjecture of men in modern times. Religion holds up the accounts of certain types of events as proof; science holds up other types of events as proof. The problem is, neither constitute proof. They constitute the BASIS OF CONJECTURE.
You might feel that one side is more soundly based conjecture than the other; someone else will disagree. What you need to realize, accept, and what needs to be realized and acted on when it comes to the education system, is that no faith based system built on conjecture belongs in a classroom of compulsory education. That is the same as a state-sponsored religion, for it is force-feeding a belief system about the world around us that is unproven. It doesn't matter if you feel that it is more valid. It doesn't matter if you have unshakable faith in it. IT IS STILL A FAITH BASED SYSTEM. Why is that so hard to admit?

Oh my... how many times does it need to be said?!

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact, we can observe it happening.

The theory is in HOW it does it, not if.


The theory of evolution is a theory of how we think species evolve... not if. We KNOW they evolve, we just haven't completely figured out HOW.

... for some reason the religious still can't understand the difference.

reply to post by johnsky

---

and precisely HOW do we KNOW they evolve? Just because you believe we know? I'm not a religious opponent of evolution; I oppose it on the grounds that it is largely scientifically bankrupt.

reply to post by wolfmanjack

---

I think YOU need a jab about reading comprehension...as my point was that the argument about the definition of theory is moot, because that has nothing to do with the fact that it is still a system based on faith in scientists, not on hard science.

I see you did not read my post but only scanned it.. If you take the time to actually read it your entire argument is proved wrong.

My little comment about reading comprehension was meant as a joke but it would seem to .. As they say... fit the bill.

If you wish to continue this debate please go back and read my post.. otherwise good day and good luck.

edit.... In regard to the word "Theory"
"I suggest that it is hopeless to try to convince much of the public that this common word has a different meaning to scientists from any they have heard before -- a meaning that is not only different, but actually opposed to the normal usage of this word. Even if we succeed, we will have spent much of our time and effort on definitions rather than on the arguments for evolution."

Near the bottom of the link i provided..
www.csicop.org...

[edit on 13-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]

[edit on 13-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]