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.

 

One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies




Maybe, I'm wasting my time, but, it's worth a try;

You are.


It doesn't say that.

Yes, it does. No matter how much you say it doesn't, doesn't change the fact that it does.


It's talking about false prophets and ministries.

It talking about anyone who's not a Christian. You're not allowed to interpret the bible. Your bible says so. You're supposed to take the bible 100% literally.



God speed is translated from the greek, chairō
1) to rejoice, be glad

2) to rejoice exceedingly

3) to be well, thrive

4) in salutations, hail!

5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute

The one used here is to signify blessing that person.
Don't help a false prophet stay misled.

What does 'god speed' have anything to do with exchanging greetings. It says don't talk, or even say hello or good bye to those of other or no faith.


Jesus told us to LOVE our enemy.

And the OT says to kill and enslave your enemy, and Jesus said not to ignore the OT. All laws of the OT you have to follow. You can't pick and choose.


What's wrong with that?
Except it allows singing praises to the Lord or even prophesying.
Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
BTW, I'm not talking about the FALSE prophesy or CRAZY junk that goes on in some churches.

What's right with that? You feel women should just shut up and keep silent in churches? What century are you from? Christianity; Perpetuating misogyny forever.


Men shouldn't try to look like sweet ladies.

Jesus haid long hair. Many men have long hair because it grows this way. If god doesn't like long hair, why did he make i so that hair grows long on men?


Christians are supposed to take care of disputes with fellow Christians WITHOUT a court.

It doesn't say that. It says if you have a dispute with another. No matter the faith, not just Christians. You are to settle disputes in whatever way you choose, ignoring the courts. Even though the bible says to obey all the laws of man, as they are also the laws of heaven.


Do you have a problem with that one?

You seem to like judging other who do not believe in the same things you do, and do things you consider abnormal. That's judging people. For Christians, only your god is allowed to judge people.


It means that PROPORTIONALLY, your love for God makes your love for your family and own life looks like hate.

Otherwise, you would violate a ten commandment to HONOR your Mother and Father.

Again, you're interpreting the scripture to suit your argument. To explain it otherwise, is against your own scripture. And yes, it would contradict a commandment, which is the point. All the verses where Christians are commanded to kill contradicts the one about no killing, too, doesn't it?



We KNOW the power of prayer to change man, so that we don't use a sword!

Well, no, you think you know of some 'power of prayer'. I suggest you take a gander at Why Won't God Heal Amputees . Besides that, you forget about the inquisition and the crusades. Those are good examples of good 'ol Chrisitna 'convert or die'.

[edit on 5/27/2008 by Epic Wolf]




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 


Fossils don't prove evolution. That's absurd to even think. Don't even get me started on carbon dating. It is so very unreliable. Natural selection is so full of holes it doesn't hold water. Insinuating nature selects animals for extinction is giving deity to nature. The only thing fossils prove is that something died some years ago, they don't prove squat about evolution.
How about this, if we evolved over millions of years from single celled organisms, why did we stop evolving? Man has been upright and moblie and looking like we do for thousands of years. Why did we stop? Are we evolved as far as we can go? What happens now, does the human race just die off and nature selects another `animal to be the pregeniter of the next phase in evolution?


Ever hear of the appendix? Wisdom teeth? Your little toe? All are considered to be vestigial and will be gone in succeeding generations.

Fossils DO prove evolution. It is absurd to think otherwise. Please start on carbon dating. How is it unreliable? Inferring that natural selection implies a sentience in nature is idiotic. It is a term for the fact that entities that are better suited to an environment tend to produce more offspring. Because they have an advantage.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by Epic Wolf
 


Fossils don't prove evolution. That's absurd to even think. Don't even get me started on carbon dating. It is so very unreliable. Natural selection is so full of holes it doesn't hold water. Insinuating nature selects animals for extinction is giving deity to nature. The only thing fossils prove is that something died some years ago, they don't prove squat about evolution.
How about this, if we evolved over millions of years from single celled organisms, why did we stop evolving? Man has been upright and moblie and looking like we do for thousands of years. Why did we stop? Are we evolved as far as we can go? What happens now, does the human race just die off and nature selects another `animal to be the pregeniter of the next phase in evolution?


Ever hear of the appendix? Wisdom teeth? Your little toe? All are considered to be vestigial and will be gone in succeeding generations.

Fossils DO prove evolution. It is absurd to think otherwise. Please start on carbon dating. How is it unreliable? Inferring that natural selection implies a sentience in nature is idiotic. It is a term for the fact that entities that are better suited to an environment tend to produce more offspring. Because they have an advantage. God must hate yor wisdom teeth. Or he effed up. Your choice.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by wytworm]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm
Fossils DO prove evolution. It is absurd to think otherwise. Please start on carbon dating. How is it unreliable? Inferring that natural selection implies a sentience in nature is idiotic. It is a term for the fact that entities that are better suited to an environment tend to produce more offspring. Because they have an advantage. God must hate yor wisdom teeth. Or he effed up. Your choice.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by wytworm]


I don't know . . . my hubby's gramma says God took old dirt from someplace else to form earth . . . and that is why scientists are fooled in thinking the earth is more then 6000 years old.

For real.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Religion has no place in a science lesson. If they must teach creationism it should be in a religious studies class. Educators need to be able to put their own beliefs to one side and teach in a responsible manner and pushing your agenda on a class of children is not acceptable.


Oh is that so Chris? Tell us Chris, what religion are they teaching?

- Con



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Let's break this down. All external quotes are from the OP's article:


The results of the first national survey of teachers about evolution in their classrooms are in. Darwin would quiver in his boots to learn that in this day and age, one in eight American biology teachers teach creationism and intelligent design as a sound alternative to his theory. In fact, 13 percent of the country’s teachers think they can run an excellent biology class without even mentioning Darwin or evolution. A few findings of note:


Shouldn't we place emphasis on 'alternative' and 'theory?'


The surveyed teachers spent an average of 13.7 classroom hours per year on general evolutionary processes in their biology classes.


13.7 hours? Typically classes are 45-50 minutes (at least they were when I was in school). That is also about how often we studied evolution without ever learning about ID or creationism. That seems pretty standard. There is more to biology than evolution. This sounds like sensationalism but really isn't that big of a deal. Looks like the students were taught evolution for about 2-3 weeks as part of the curriculum.


The majority spent no more than five hours a year on human evolution, and 17 percent did not cover it all.


But human evolution in particular is just about the flimsiest part in terms of linking the evidence together so five hours (approximately 1-1/2 weeks) is plenty of time to waste... er I mean focus.... on such a thing. And the 17% who didn't cover it at all? Maybe they're waiting on something more substantial evidence-wise. After all, the outrage in this thread is stemming from teaching children bunk, right?


Only two percent of teachers did not teach about evolution, human or otherwise, at all.


Boo hoo, I guess.


Thirteen percent of teachers thought an excellent biology course could exist without mentioning Darwin or evolutionary theory.


Thought? As in personal opinion? Then sure- they are entitled to that aren't they? And technically you can teach an excellent biology course without mentioning Darwin or TOE. There is more to biology than evolution.


Twenty-five percent of teachers said that they devoted at least one or two classroom hours to creationism or intelligent design. About half of this subset—one in eight biology teachers—taught it not in critique but as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species” and one that “many reputable scientists” endorse.


What's the problem? Again, let's place emphasis on 'alternative' and 1-2 classroom hours sure is a big difference from the 13.7 evolution hours mentioned previously.


Sixteen percent of all teachers surveyed believe personally in the “young earth” story of origins: that human beings were created by God in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. About 48 percent of the general public believes this.


So? Again, personal opinion. I thought people were still entitled to that? I don't agree with a young earth but all this article is saying is that this is their personal belief.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Im back! a few things. Its funny to me that the Voice who is so happy to dictate what a christian is, probably doesnt even know what the terms "christ" or "catholic" even means.
Carrying on though, everyones point is that Science is to be taught in Science class. Why do religious folk constantly confuse "religion" which is a persons relationship with god (well, spirituality is, religion is actually a dogmatic system of control) with Science which is the understanding of quantifiable laws of nature?? Are fundamentalists genetically defective in that they have an inability to reason their way through this distinction?? Religion is not science. And while you Can use science to disprove plenty of superstitious nonsense, you cant use religion to disprove science because while there is a scientific method of experiment, there is no religious method. People trying to disprove truths through the use of good argument have a name, they are called "sophists" and similar to lawyers and other such scum, they are able to lead convincing "arguements" created by their active imagination. Im sure given time i could give you a great arguement for how gravity does not, in fact, exist. But you still wont go floating off the earth upon hearing and believing it. While my child is in school i want him learning english, so he can communicate well with his peers, i want him learning proper math so he can be an accountant or physicist if he so chooses, and i want him learning proper science so he can go on to be a biologist or scientist if he so chooses. I dont want his education hindered by the philosophies and superstitions of the people who happen to be teaching him the class, and possibly crippling his ability to progress in his chosen field. Show me one creationist who has gone on to become a great evolutionary biologist or quantum physicist. I dont mind my children learning ABOUT different theologies in schools, but ill be damned if i sit there and let them be indoctrinated into one, and have the teachers pressing their own ideas of right and wrong onto them.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
When "they" start teaching the science of evolution in church - let me know.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that each has a place to be taught.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel

Originally posted by bigbert81
At the very least, the students should get a full, all around education instead of a biased one.


I can agree with this statement.

I believe there are truths to be found in both theories, and they should be taught in conjunction rather than constantly being at odds with each other. By themselves both theories are incomplete. Together, they hold the key.

Not side by side as if two sides of the same coin. One is based on observation, measurement etc. The other is based simply on faith. The two are completely different subjects i.e. science and theology.

In my opinion religion should be kept out of schools altogether and be part of an out of school additional teaching. And whose to say that the "christian" version of creation is correct? Isn't this to deny all others forms of creation from other religions. So let's have them all taught to be fair. You would then convert all your modern thinking science classes into backward thinking myths and legends classes.

How ironic that the US that purports to be the great leader of the modern western world has beliefs that would sit slap bang right in the middle of the more archaic middle eastern beliefs.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Oh is that so Chris? Tell us Chris, what religion are they teaching?


Well, since it's in the US I would assume they're teaching the Christian version of creationism although if, as some posters in this thread have mentioned, it's just an alternative theory they should also be teaching every other theory for the origin of life aswell (that includes the one about my cat).

I have no problem with children being taught about religion, that's what religious studies classes are for along with whatever out of school activities (sunday school, bible schools, etc etc) the parents see fit. Christian Voice made a point earlier in the thread about girls wanting to join the boy scouts, this is a similar thing. Creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class because it isn't science.

Many posters seem to be quite disdainful of science as a whole so why would you want to associate part of your religious beliefs with it anyway? The answer is that teaching it in a science class gives it some validation and credibility that it does not have if taught just as part of a religious belief.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Hey - I vote we teach the Hopi version of Creation in public schools.

Way back in time all men emerged from a single hole in the earth. There was a mockingbird there at the entrance to the hole. He gave each a name and a language. To one he would say, "You shall be a Hopi and speak that tongue." To another, "You shall be an Apache and speak that language." And so it went for all who came from the hole, including the White People.

The earth was still covered in darkness in those days so the peoples came together and decided to change things. They made the sun and the moon and placed them in the sky. With light and warmth things got easier for the people so the chiefs of all the races and tribes got together and decided to break up and go to different places. They decided to go eastward to where the sun rises and that whoever got there first was to cause a shower of stars to fall from the sky, and then everyone would see this and stop where they were. The Whites, always impatient, soon grew tired. Their women rubbed flakes of skin from their bodies and molded them into horses. Thus, mounted on these speedy animals, the Whites were first to arrive in the east. Thereupon a shower of stars fell to the ground and all remained where they were at the time.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm
reply to post by chise61
 


Its not 'just' an unproven theory, its the best one with the most weight of evidence supporting it. Thats the important part.



True it may be the one with the most sceintific wieght supporting it, however it is still an UNPROVEN THEORY. That is the most important part.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   
i dont think you can say its an unproven theory as a whole. Evolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, well thats certainly proven. Mutation is proven. Passing on of genes is proven. Survival of the fittest (that stronger more aggressive and healther specimens go on to mate more often) is proven, at least in nature. As humans we have eradicated survival of the fittest, but anyhow....
So....which part is not proven??



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   
you know.....many parts of the bible have been proven false, and yet we dont go around telling christians that their whole bible is flawed and shouldnt be taught in religion unless true history is taught next to it as an "alternative".
Not to imply that any of us know true history, of course, but just to make a point!



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
hey! i just thought of something off topic! The christians fundamentalists claim the world is only 10000 years old. Well, the Hindu's have a history in their samarangana sutradhara that goes back over 20000 years! maybe the hindu's gods came here earlier, and created them, but the christians god didnt come till later. Poor johny come lately's!!! Of course, if people were living 500 years back then, then in 30 generations or so we sure have lost a lot of longevity!!



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Ok i'm really tired so please excuse if i sound witchy. I was replying to his reply to my reply to someone else (too tired to go find it now) anyway i didn't say that the whole theory was unproven, i said that the part pertaining to the origin of man was unproven. I stated that i was referring to the missing link in a previous post. Sorry that's just my opinion i need that missing link before i can believe the theory that's all.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
you know.....many parts of the bible have been proven false, and yet we dont go around telling christians that their whole bible is flawed and shouldnt be taught in religion unless true history is taught next to it as an "alternative".


You know you're comparing apples and oranges here. Please don't say we, because i'm not speakig to anyone here as a member of a group, rather as an individual and i really don't know what "we" you are a part of. And your post seems to be implying that i am speaking as a Christian, i have not brought my spiritual beliefs into this topic.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
yeeesh, dont be so witchy!!!
anyhow, my point is that so many people point at one little bit of incomplete info in a theory and use that to discredit the whole point of the issue. Just like in people who point at the holes in the global warming theory as proving that humans arent the main cause of it, and therefore, tis ok for them to continue polluting and destroying the environment all they want. Its pretty obvious to all that we closely resemble simians. We eat the same, we poop the same. Heck if you ever watched their kids youd know we even play the same. Its just peoples quickness to disgust at anything different from themselves that makes people reject the whole evolution thing. Most religious people look down upon other species as less than us, despite the fact that we are all "gods creations" and i doubt if any god loves any person more than that god loves...say...a dandelion. It is our ego and pride that makes us think that gods concern circles around us, and that all animals are merely there to play backup roles to our main character. indeed, most religious persons i have met also look on many other humans in the same way, with derision and condescencion. As if god loves that person more than any others.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   
chise, i dont think i mentioned your name, and am not really speaking to you specifically, just saying my thoughts in generally. perhaps im really just thinking out loud (our out type, or however you would call it)



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Well i don't happen to be one of those people. I'm not trying to discredit the whole theory. As a matter of fact i'm not one of those "religious people" that you speak of.

I happen to be a person that loves animals and no i do not think them below me. I am in fact one of those people that does not believe that humans have a right to use animals for research and to make fur coats just because they think that they are somehow above the animals.


I wouldn't really mind too much having an animal as an ancestor, i'd just like to have come from something other than an ape. So just let me think i came from a horse, polar bear, dog, or dolphin ok ?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join