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.

 

just let them believe in creationism

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
those of us who are Awake understand fully what a red herring the creation vs evolution debate has become.

no sane, intelligent person can deny that some version of the evolutionary model is the best explanation for the progression of life on planet earth. but here's the thing: just let those who prefer to be Asleep believe in creationism.

it's really no skin off my back. the smarter kids will immediately dismiss whatever creationist propaganda is taught in public schools and get on with their studies. as for the dumber kids....i really don't care if the guy who changes my oil or takes my order at quizno's believes the earth is 5000 years old and that dinosaur bones were just put inside the earth to test our faith. as long as they can change my oil and make my change, eh.

creationism v evolution is a total non-issue




posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I agree.You know we as humans argue over some pretty stupid things,this human included.As a result it keeps our eyes off the ball whatever that ball is.But some are just argumentative.(is that even a word?It just popped in my head).
creationism V evolution=non-issue


SR

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
While the premise is so true and i agree with the OP to an extent you've got to remember intellectual clashes now and again is good for everyone without them there would be no;

'smarter kids will immediately dismiss whatever creationist propaganda is taught in public schools and get on with their studies'

If no one leads by example then you have the downward spiral of ignorance.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Let's just consider this whole matter another example of Social Darwinism at work.

It's a pointless debate anyway.

Extremists on both sides of the fence just muddy up the waters with their endless bickering, making classes intolerable for those of us who think independantly.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Personally, I'm all for the idea of teaching about creationism (ID) in public schools. While they're at it, they should expose students to all sorts of major religions in order to give them a better understanding of how various people view the world. A Religions of the World course could do a lot of good for our kids.


That said, ID has no place in a science classroom.

[edit on 8/15/08 by redmage]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Couldn't agree more.

Coming from the UK I never had much exposure to Creationism and ID until I came across ATS.

Having debated(?) the subject here I have come to the opinion that the vast majority of people, from both viewpoints, absolutly refuse to accept the merits of the opposing theory, (because that's what they are, only theories).
It amazes me as some of these people who believe in Creationism or ID are intelligent, reasoned individuals who I have the utmost respect for.
Unfortunately reason seems to go out the window on matters religious.

It is getting to the point where I think, why bother, just get on with it, I really don't care because at the end of the day it is totally irrelevant.

I do believe though that all theories should be taught at school.
An individual has the right to make there own mind up what to believe.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
I disagree on a massive scale. Why? The debate of Evolution v. Creationism/ID is about more than just that. It is one thing to believe in something, many of us believe in a lot of the the same things, we all believe in different things...but the debate about the teaching of ID/Creationism in public schools is about the separation of Church and State, it is a debate about the establishment of secular v. theological society...furthermore it is a debate about a society where understanding of the world aroud us must be substantiated with evidence and examination versus one where the understanding of the world around us is substantiated by nothing more than faith of one's own opinion.

It is all fair and good that we live in a liberal society where we have the right to believe what we want, that is the nature of liberalism, but when unsubstantiated belief systems become institutionalized, that heads us in a direction that can be very dangerous...(the irony of being a "conspiracy theorist" and making such a statement, I know.)

We can say that it is alright because teaching both will sort the wheat from the chalf, so to speak....but the Social Darwinist approach does nothing to ensure that those that are actually "more fit," intellectually, will benefit...

I guess what I'm saying is that to institutionalize Creationism/ID as a societal standard is to lower the bar on society, in my opinion anyway. We should be moving away from superstition, not back to it.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by madhatr137

I guess what I'm saying is that to institutionalize Creationism/ID as a societal standard is to lower the bar on society, in my opinion anyway. We should be moving away from superstition, not back to it.


I am certainly not advocating that Creatinoism / ID be taught as a standard, but rather as alternative theories.

Even evolution is just a theory; but one which best fit's all the evidence provided. Sure there are still one or two questions to be fully answered but, all things considered, using reason, logic and science, we can be pretty much certain it's more than a theory.

But I just feel that there should be room in our education systems to offer alternative theories, encourage students to think and question and make them aware that not everything, indeed nothing, is black and white.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
The problem with the whole "teaching Creationism/ID as an alternative theory" thing is the fact that Creationism/ID is not science. There is no evidence, there is no analysis, there is no method to it...even if we were to teach a dozen different "creationist" theories from a dozen different theologies, none of them are science, none of them have any real analytical value(Aside from on a humanities level), none of them have a real method...therefore, they should not be taught as an alternative to Evolutionary theory...its apples and oranges. Religion is religion, Science is science.

I'm not against a teaching of theology, I enjoy theology, I find it fascinating on a very large scale, I even feel that theology should be taught in public schools. But the problem is that the areas of America where Creationism/ID is popular are areas of America where there is an aversion to any religion that isn't Christian...and therefore the chance of any version of "creationism/ID" getting fair, unbiased treatment is unlikely... I'm not saying it is a causation, but it is a correlation...(okay, I'm saying that the Creationist/ID debate is a ruse that Right-wing Christians are using to try to have their theology taught in public schools)



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I do believe though that all theories should be taught at school.
An individual has the right to make there own mind up what to believe.


For the first: intelligent falling? Stork theory? Flat earth? Teach kids that the earth is either 4.6 billion or perhaps even less than 10,000.

Schools have enough issue getting real science time in the classroom, but I'm sure you don't think we should just teach any old relativistic trash though, eh?

But I agree on the second and the OP, people can believe whatever the hell they like. However, I will hold the right to laugh and work to ensure rubbish is not taught within a science classroom.

Also, you do understand what a theory is - a well-established repeatedly verified logically consistent explanation for a collection of phenomena? So if you mean we should teach science in the science class, then, yeah, of course, wouldn't expect anything less. If you mean we should teach any old poop people believe in, then no.



[edit on 15-8-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn

Originally posted by madhatr137

I guess what I'm saying is that to institutionalize Creationism/ID as a societal standard is to lower the bar on society, in my opinion anyway. We should be moving away from superstition, not back to it.


I am certainly not advocating that Creatinoism / ID be taught as a standard, but rather as alternative theories.

Even evolution is just a theory; but one which best fit's all the evidence provided. Sure there are still one or two questions to be fully answered but, all things considered, using reason, logic and science, we can be pretty much certain it's more than a theory.

But I just feel that there should be room in our education systems to offer alternative theories, encourage students to think and question and make them aware that not everything, indeed nothing, is black and white.


Can't really call anything "superstition" when its been around forever. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it didn't happen. I can't actually "prove" Brutus killed Julius Caesar, but I guess there are documents that state this....I can't prove Shakespeare actually wrote those great sonnets and plays, but everyone says he did....

Another thing....how can a "theory" best fit all the evidence provided? A theory is what it is.....a theory. That's all it is and all it will ever be. And there are actually more than 1 or 2 questions that need answering if one is to believe in this theory. It's simply 1 man's point of view on the history of the world, with that point of view haivng great details that it still needs to become fact, and that the most brilliant minds still cannot figure out...
I wonder if the fact that they cannot answer them because it's a bogus theory to begin with?????



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by beach2197
Can't really call anything "superstition" when its been around forever. Just because you weren't there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it didn't happen. I can't actually "prove" Brutus killed Julius Caesar, but I guess there are documents that state this....I can't prove Shakespeare actually wrote those great sonnets and plays, but everyone says he did....


This is because there are no historical records that contradict these assertions in any way, and the sources are reputable. There's no reason to think it did not happen as recorded.


Originally posted by beach2197Another thing....how can a "theory" best fit all the evidence provided? A theory is what it is.....a theory. That's all it is and all it will ever be. And there are actually more than 1 or 2 questions that need answering if one is to believe in this theory. It's simply 1 man's point of view on the history of the world, with that point of view haivng great details that it still needs to become fact, and that the most brilliant minds still cannot figure out...
I wonder if the fact that they cannot answer them because it's a bogus theory to begin with?????


What are you waffling about? Evolution has been observed on a microscopic level. We simply don't live long enough to witness macro evolution because it takes a very long time. The concept of Evolution hasn't been around long enough to actually witness macro evolution happening!

Ultimately, if the virtually the entire academic world can agree that yes, all the evidence points to things evolving, and common sense would dictate that survival of the fittest is a logical stance to accept, then what are you basing your "bogus theory to start with" assertion on?



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Slothrop
 


It's not fair on the people they have influence over if we let them continue to espouse their made-up, baseless assertion that God farted all the life on earth into existence. It's simply not fair. Injustices, on every level, need to be challenged. That's how they get removed from society, and how society can grow.

Creationism is dangerous, as for it to exist, it must challenge science in the most unscientific way. Intrinsically dangerous.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Mel, I personally think that Creationism / ID is complete hogwash and is based on nothing but the blind subserviance to a highly edited book which has no basis on scientific fact but rather relies on blind faith.

I'm not advocating that Creationism /ID be taught in a science class, rather that it be taught as a possible alternatrive in R.E. studies.
A theological alternative to a scientific theory.
A subtle but important difference in my book.

I firmly believe that our education system relies far too much on learning alleged facts and data etc and places too little emphasis on encouraging students to think for themselves, question things, and form their own opinions.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I'm not advocating that Creationism /ID be taught in a science class, rather that it be taught as a possible alternatrive in R.E. studies.
A theological alternative to a scientific theory.
A subtle but important difference in my book.


I don't agree with teaching it as an 'alternative', but I think a thorough teaching in comparative religion is a worthwhile effort. Indeed, it's a pity that they don't do so in the US, might satisfy some of the creationists. However, I can see issues with such an approach as it would fairly obvious that the 'comparative' part would be ignored by some, given they can't even keep their religion out of a science classroom.

But in the UK, creationism and ID can be taught. In fact, when the UK ID group, the oxymoronic 'Truth in Science', whined in the UK the education department said 'yeah, ID can be taught, in RE'.


I firmly believe that our education system relies far too much on learning alleged facts and data etc and places too little emphasis on encouraging students to think for themselves, question things, and form their own opinions.


Aye, t'is true. They are moving towards this in science by making students understand the more philsophical foundations of science, form hypothesis and test predictions. Even at university level, a lot of the kids just can't think for themselves. However, forming own opinions is great, but you generally can't form your own facts.

I feel some form of philosophy in high school would be very helpful though. Might foster greater ability for critical thought.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slothrop
those of us who are Awake understand fully what a red herring the creation vs evolution debate has become.

no sane, intelligent person can deny that some version of the evolutionary model is the best explanation for the progression of life on planet earth. but here's the thing: just let those who prefer to be Asleep believe in creationism.

it's really no skin off my back. the smarter kids will immediately dismiss whatever creationist propaganda is taught in public schools and get on with their studies. as for the dumber kids....i really don't care if the guy who changes my oil or takes my order at quizno's believes the earth is 5000 years old and that dinosaur bones were just put inside the earth to test our faith. as long as they can change my oil and make my change, eh.

creationism v evolution is a total non-issue


this is what i get from your post,

The names you have called Creationists:

1. Insane
2. Unintelligent, Dumb
3. Asleep (as if we don't have any coherent perception)
4. Carry low paying jobs as if they're too stupid to get anything better


This is what some evolutionists think of creationists. I have to say i am offended you would post such trash and insult those who believe in creationism as if you are higher and better than anyone else. The truth is evolution is not a proven fact, it still remains a theory as well as creationism from the standpoint of the current laws of science. We all have faith, we all believe in things we can't see,touch, or feel but yet we know they are there. So until you can prove that what your claiming is the truth i suggest you post more constructive posts instead of emotional rants.


Keeper

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Keeper of Kheb]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 


Well, creationism doesn't make any sense. Every shred of evidence mankind has gleaned from this beautiful world of ours demonstrates it didn't happen. God didn't eat a particularly strong bowl of chili and poot the universe into existence, then for afters poot all the animals.

So yes, believing in creationism is hand-in-hand with disbelief in logic. If you find offense in that, then that's a problem you have with your beliefs, and not somthing others should have to tip-toe around.

If I go around screaming that 2+2=34,572,245, no matter how hard I believe it, or how much emotional support it gives me, it doesn't mean I shouldn't be called an idiot. Idiot is as idiot does. Want to throw logic out the window? Be prepared to be called out for it.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Slothrop
 


I'm also an atheist, but I totally disagree with the way you present creationists. If you weren't ignorant, then you would know that intelligence, more often than not, has nothing to do with believing in a god. The fact of the matter is that most people believe in a god because their parents do. They believe at a young age that their parents can't be wrong, therefore god must exist. When a person is brainwashed to this extent, intelligence has little bearing on one's perspective. Also, lets look at the facts. Creationists hold some of the highest jobs in this country.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join