Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

reply to post by Kandinsky

Ya I am a asshole for not wanting the bible in schools because it is bull#.

Science is not believing in something even with "no supporting evidence". This would be the farthest thing from science.

When someone believe in god they are denying what science tells us on pretty much everything in the universe.

Yes I truly believe anyone that thinks there is any god in any form cannot be taken serious when it come to anything science.

Yes I am a asshole, No I will not change, yes I still want you to explain God the non-creator,[SNIP][edit on 1-2-2010 by nophun]



Edited personal attack

[edit on 1/2/10 by masqua]

There's no beating these guys, because they were most likely raised to believe this way, so was I and most of you.

Some guy wrote; "Because god wants to...".

They claim to know heir god's intentions, but in reality, never even spoken to or seen him.

I know we want them to know the truth but you cant make a horse drink. It's up to them to find the truth, one can only lead.

Beware the things men write, because man knows the ways of greed and corruption.

reply to post by nophun

When someone believe in god they are denying what science tells us on pretty much everything in the universe.

Yes I truly believe anyone that thinks there is any god in any form cannot be taken serious when it come to anything science.

And THAT my friend, is the PROBLEM.


If you think that Science actually SAYS anything about god, then you are completely mistaken.

Yes, Evolution is True, it HAPPENS, we have observed this.


However, to go from "Evolution is True" to "Science has Dis-proven God" is the height of arrogance, and UNSCIENTIFIC thought.

Science is AGNOSTIC.... PERIOD.


We don't teach Religion in Science class because we CANNOT PROVE the existence of God.

We do not teach Atheism in Science class because we CANNOT PROVE the NON existence of god.

Science does not take a stance on religion... PERIOD.


To claim that the belief in a deity precludes scientific thought is not only WHOLLY WRONG, but profoundly arrogant.

STOP IT.

-Edrick

reply to post by nophun

Yes I am a asshole, No I will not change, yes I still want you to explain God the non-creator,

You choose to characterise all believers in God as believing in a '6-day creation.' It's not the case. You claim a scientific perspective and use ill-formed opinion, jump to conclusions and use appeals to ridicule....none of which is scientific, objective or critical. By definition, it's closer to trolling.

Now you've set your stall out, I'll decline any more chit-chat

Bad, bad pupils.

Don't they know that the education system is not designed to have room for questioning. Only regurgitation of the information you are provided.

Originally posted by nophun
reply to post by Berserker01

 

You are what is wrong in the world.
NO there is no place to teach the bible in school, because it is bull#.
If you deny the facts that show this, there is nothing I can ever do to change your mind, but stop trying to spreed your lies in public schools.

EVOLUTION IS FACT !! ffs!

www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
wiki.answers.com...

This is the stupidest BS ever.
Creationists do not know anything about science, god damn it !

[edit on 1-2-2010 by nophun]

Explain in your own words how something can be a fact and a theory and try and not use wikipedia as a source.

Like I said if hard headed, ignorant, scared people such as yourself could somehow grasp the concept that they do not know everything. They would see that exploring more then one avenue to find an answer would be more beneficial then trying to say that Evolution is a theory and a fact (I needed that laugh).

But I don't know why I am wasting time on somebody who most likely never went to college or has ever been accused of being creative. No you are a person that most likely graduated HS, got a job and read a few books. You now have a PH.D from the University of Google and think your way is always the right one.

Good day to you Dr. know it all.

Edit to add-

"Science is not believing in something even with "no supporting evidence". This would be the farthest thing from science"

I had to take a crack at this little gem.

How do you think alot of off the wall crap happens in a lab? A scientist says I believe this is true(without supporting evidence) and sets out to gather his evidence.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Berserker01]

imo... (for what it's worth), there should be a seperation between the natural sciences (as taught in 'public' schools, colleges and universities) and spiritual matters (as taught in seminary schools).

The reason I say that is the various beliefs of all those who either are going to public schools or paying a high price to attend higher education.

There is also the choice to go to a variety of schools which have a priority towards particular faiths, like Catholic schools.

The parents of young children are the ones who should be in control of their spiritual development by bringing them into congregations.

sp

[edit on 1/2/10 by masqua]

reply to post by masqua


This isn't just about spirituality thought.

They want equal time in the science department. Which really isn't that much to ask for. Those hard headed scientist will just have to learn to share. I did growing up, my sister wanted to watch the Smurfs and I wanted to watch Transformers. I got to watch Transformers every other day and she watched smurfs every other day.

See how easy it is.

Originally posted by Berserker01
They want equal time in the science department. Which really isn't that much to ask for.

That system will only serve the creation (pun intended) of controversy within every class.

If you want creationism in a class, either go to a perochial school or attend classes focussed on theology. Forcing creationism in a science class will do nothing but cause problems.

reply to post by masqua


there is the possibility, however, that what we are calling spiritual or religious, as regards ancient texts, may in fact be historical. that they include things like dietary laws, sanitary laws, sexual reproduction laws, social conduct laws, and so on, that we don't necessarily agree with today, doesn't disqualify the historical aspects. now i'm not saying that the current interpretation of the text is accurate, cause i have nothing to compare it to other than even older texts from sumer and so on, but even those texts tell basically the same story.

therefore, it's my belief that isolating out the ancient texts of the world as unreliable myths simply because we don't approve of the laws in them or don't agree with some of the more esoteric material, is a travesty of monumental proportions. we could be missing a great deal of science, couched in terminology we don't recognize or refuse to recognize, due to separation in time and space. even the archaeology of the old texts is proving itself out, so they at least have historical basis.

perhaps they made assumptions themselves, when they wrote down the data. perhaps later translators made the assumptions, but for certain today, we make so many assumptions on it without having ever really read it ourselves. not to say that some haven't read or study it, but i mean really study it, cross culturally, wherever it leads. connect the dots. it's telling us something.

and here's the clincher: what if the something that it's telling us, is already known at the top of the food chain, and they aren't releasing the info because lack of information on the subject, keeps us from realizing the extent of everything else, including what's going on out in space, what's up in the solar system and the universe that we might find extremely helpful in making decisions for our lives but which might put a cramp in the style of the folks who run things in the vacuum of said knowledge.

i'm concerned that this diametric stance being taken on these subjects, is part and parcel of what keeps the entire thing in the dark.

reply to post by Berserker01

They want equal time in the science department. Which really isn't that much to ask for.

That is a HUGE problem when what they want taught in Science class, is *NOT* Science.

Creation "Science" is nothing of the sort.

It is pure conjecture, it disagrees with all observations; it's "Predictions" have been consistently proven False; it's conclusions are based upon the stories of an ancient book, as opposed to real world observations.

Creationism is *NOT* Science.

Not in any Sense of the word.


Attempting to get "Creationism" taught in Science class is the same as teaching Astrology in Math Class.


It *IS* alot to ask for... they want to teach *NOT SCIENCE* in a SCIENCE CLASS.

That is the DEFINITION of Absurdity.


Absurdity: (Noun) The quality of being absurd or inconsistent with obvious truth, reason, or sound judgment; That which is absurd; an absurd action; a logical contradiction.


Science is about KNOWLEDGE.


Science derives from the Latin: "scientia", meaning "knowledge"

(Science) "is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."


Religion is not based upon observing natural principles... it is about ascribing natural principles to a "Supernatural" source.

Religion is not about measurements... it is about deferring to an Unmeasurable "Super Power"

Religion is not about Evidence, it is about Dogma.


Nothing about religion belongs in a Science class.... PERIOD.


Religion does not quest for new knowledge, attempt to understand underlying principles of observable phenomenon, or add to human understanding of natural processes.


Creationism *IS NOT SCIENCE*

-Edrick

Creationists of this type commit the greatest form of heresy.

They believe they know and understand the mind and methods of God.

Shameful.

God put it all around you to look at. Wrote it large. And yet you deny creation all around you, and presume to understand God's mind and methods completely.

Foolish. Heretical. Full of hubris.

[edit on 2010/2/1 by Aeons]

reply to post by undo


As someone who believes that every particle in the universe(s)
has 'awareness' and 'spirit', I can certainly relate to an ultimate intelligence behind it all. Theology, natural sciences and philosophy are my bread and butter and I believe that every word ever written, every work of art and every man-made construction has a tie to those three subjects.

In the natural sciences, we learn the laws by which nature is ruled. This is a first step in education. Mysteries abound here as well when we consider how the Golden Section is a law found throughout nature. It helps us build better structures, both in practical and subjective ways. Math, the ability to read and write and learning how to collate information are the proper focus for public schools.

In philosophy, we also explore the natural world with an eye towards how we fit into it. The meaning and purpose of our place in the universe as determined by logic, critical thinking and debate is researched and these are the underpinnings of the foundations upon which the various schools are built. Philosophy never got 'old', not even after 2500 years of continuous writings which we have available today. Plato , Kant, Leibniz or Locke are as relevant today as they ever were. They were wrong here and there, but the nuggets of pure gold which they have given us are the basis for a rainbow of sciences which sprang from their studies.

Theology is the combination of natural sciences and philosophy and the proof of that is in the study of the philosophers themselves. Anyone familiar with the writings of Plato will recognise how intrinsic his beliefs were to Christian beliefs. But Plato is only one in a long line of people stretching back into prehistory who ponder the laws by which we would be able to better our lives. The first of those were no doubt shamans who searched for visions in the quest for guidance by beings hidden in another dimension.

You mention what I suspect is the Christian bible as a source for knowledge and inspiration towards what only can be called 'individual and collective constructive and peaceful civilization'. Religions set into common law that which allows co-existence... villages, towns and cities. The shamans of prehistory did the same. They were the ones who talked to their 'gods' and became spokespersons for the rest. They caused 'unity' and a 'common purpose' much like moden religions do today.

None of that is lost to anyone... never has been and never will be.

The natural sciences and philosophy, joined together to make youth both understand the world they live in and find their place by questioning everything in it composes our educational systems.

Theology provides the moral restraint in that it alows us to safely live together.

Creationism comes in many forms, tied to more than a thousand cultures among billions of people. To find one which is common to all will be difficult to say the least and forcing one in particular on the rest is both divisive and dismissive. I don't for one second buy into the allegorical sequence of 'six days of creation' and would dismiss as disingenious any who would challenge me on that. THEY don't know any more than I do.

It is 'belief' and the word stems from the German 'to love'. I 'love' my vision and you 'love' yours just as much, no doubt, but that does not give anyone the right to force their 'loving ways' upon my person.

That is the reason I don't see any form of creationism as a fitting topic in the science departments of public schools, colleges or universities.

Seminary and parochial schools, yes... no problem. That is what they were created for and attending them is anyone's right.

reply to post by masqua


would be more useful to approach the topic of creationism as intelligent design, and in that way, it would not give lip service to any particular group, but cover those aspects of life on the planet that appear to contradict the mainstream perspective. i realize the mainstream will never admit there are contradictions large enough to require any theory but their own but this is clearly part of the issue. if we weren't there, the best we can hope for is an approximation. at least in the case of old texts, someone was there and reported the events.

now this isn't to say that evolution absolutely isn't correct at some level, but that perhaps we are writing in data because it appears to fit, when in fact, it isn't about us at all. you know from reading my big thread, that i'm of the opinion that bipedal sentient life on the planet, prior to about 4000 BC wasn't homo sapian or our direct genetic forerunners. that homo sapians were not on the planet at all before then--not because we didn't have some kind of evolutionary process somewhere else, but because the fossils prior to 4000 BC, on THIS PLANET, are not us. they are different, albeit genetically similar, species.

evolutionary science handles that difference by suggesting we simply evolved from them, but i don't think that's the case. we may have evolved to some small degree (micro evolution) somewhere else in the universe, but i don't think we evolved from the life forms on this planet. they are similar but they are not us.

one of the problems i have with the current attempt to fill the missing link, is that it was like a craps shoot. you have a random number generator running numbers from a set of preselected data, and give it free reign to break those numbers down into whatever configuration will fit. that's making the data fit with extreme prejudice.

and my theories are just one example in hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples, that don't all fit the standard mold on either side of the fence. they suggest evolution may be possible to a limit. that intelligent design may be possible to a limit. and that all of what we consider to be our past history ON THIS PLANET, prior to 4000 BC, is false.

Originally posted by undo
... my theories are just one example in hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples, that don't all fit the standard mold on either side of the fence. they suggest evolution may be possible to a limit. that intelligent design may be possible to a limit. and that all of what we consider to be our past history ON THIS PLANET, prior to 4000 BC, is false.

On intelligent design, I find the closest science related to the theory is Quantum Physics. In many ways, the more we delve into natural science, the closer we get to the divine.

On 4000BC, you and I part ways simply because artifacts have been found predating it. Not only that, but they are articles with religious meaning, indicating modern man. It is my understanding that we, as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, have been around in excess of 200,000 years.

But, that is another topic entirely, so let's relate it to the classroom where we are studying Anthropology. You and I are sitting beside each other listening to David Lewis-Williams, Professor Emeritus from Wittwaterstrand University in S Africa where he has spent his life studying artifacts from 50k+ years ago.

You sit beside me, squirming in your seat, snorting in derision and explicitly denouncing the good professor under your breath. I, on the other hand, am rapt with attention to his every word.

Can you see this being a problem? I sure can.

Originally posted by nophun
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

Ya I am a asshole for not wanting the bible in schools because it is bull#.

Science is not believing in something even with "no supporting evidence". This would be the farthest thing from science.

When someone believe in god they are denying what science tells us on pretty much everything in the universe.

Yes I truly believe anyone that thinks there is any god in any form cannot be taken serious when it come to anything science.

Yes I am a asshole, No I will not change, yes I still want you to explain God the non-creator,[SNIP][edit on 1-2-2010 by nophun]

 

Edited personal attack

[edit on 1/2/10 by masqua]

Well you know,if life is just chemical based, lets create some life in the science labs out of chemicals.Shall we try some living grass? Get some hydrogen,carbon and oxygen and other nescessary elements and combine them to make a grass seed, and then make it grow. Can't see it working somehow. What about something really simple like bacteria.You won't be able to do that either because your missing the driving force; spirit, which animates everything. Science needs to prove it's theory by physically demonstrating that life is just matter. This they cannot do, they simply observe then speak some nonsense.

reply to post by Kandinsky


You are right, I assumed we were talking about creationist. you are obviously talking about weak minded people that use god to explain things without following a organized region.

At least that is what I think you are saying. What can I say to "I believe in god because .." there is no history there is nothing. Just I believe.
You cannot give me details about these people because when they are questioned they say nothing more then "I am spiritual". They also are not the ones trying to put the bible in schools, or killing people in the name of there god. So you are the one trolling off topic.

For the record I understand people that just believe there is something more, because it helps them sleep at night. I have no issue with these people, most times.

These people often use a God (without really following a religion) when it come to questions like "Why". You're right most time they use it in a nonscientific subject. God, why did my brother die. God, Why am I so hungover, Etc.

I think these people are silly, but they do not anger me like someone trying to tell me God is as much fact as Darwin's theory.

I came off abrasive to you, more from what other members were saying when I was replying to you fwiw.

PS
Why Are you allowed to call me a Ahole but I got in trouble for calling you a Db**? j/k
(more latter)

[edit on 1-2-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by Edrick


However, to go from "Evolution is True" to "Science has Dis-proven God" is the height of arrogance, and UNSCIENTIFIC thought.

When I say this ? Science disproves religion, at least 90% of its stories can and have been dis-proven by science.

I know science does not disprove "god". The same way science cannot prove/disprove a Flying Spaghetti Monster deity this does not make it real or science.

Remember we are talking about (Neo)Creationism here not GOD.
These people are trying to pawn "God" off as science and this is where science does take a stance on religion.

See my last post, I cannot argue "There is a god because ..."
It is when people start trying to pawn complete BS as science I can debate. These people have a book full of lies that is easy to rip apart.

reply to post by Berserker01


You think you are on to something here lets play a game.

We get to PM each other 1 question at a time.
We must answer those questions in this thread.
First person to have a answer like "god did it" or cannot give a legitimate answer that cannot be debunked with simple science get the loss.


I will even let you veto 3 question, I will not have this option.

Wiki cannot be used as a source.
If a point is challenged, the challenger must use 3 unbiased sources.

You think the bible should be in school so you you must accept it in full. no weaseling out of questions because the word of the bible is crazy.


[edit on 1-2-2010 by nophun]