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.

 

Creationism/ID in the science classroom is the worst idea for science education

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I'm really surprised that none of the people who support the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design in the classroom are speaking up in favor of it. I know there are plenty on here....but where are they?




posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I'm really surprised that none of the people who support the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design in the classroom are speaking up in favor of it. I know there are plenty on here....but where are they?

Perhaps there aren't any creationists or I.D.ers on ATS any more.

They might have all listened and come round to the idea of looking at science with an open mind.


Or they might just be hiding in the gaps.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 





Or they might just be hiding in the gaps.


When you can hide an entire God in the gaps, I think theres enough place for a few creationists..



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Oh, please don't tempt me with the idea that they've all realized reason...it's just too painful to realize that there is that possibility...

But I guess they are hiding in the gaps. I hope they get my Frisbee out from those gaps, I think I threw it in there last summer.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I don't really think there's that many. Like me, I'm a Christian in that I follow the teachings of Jesus, but that doesn't mean I believe in creationism or their timeline the creationists thought up later. The timeline is not even literally in the Bible.

It says In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. In the beginning he created it, but NOW. Well how much time was between the beginning and NOW? It doesn't say. The Bible actually starts up at the "creation" of man after the earth had become "formless and empty". Does this imply some mass extinction event that the Bible isn't telling us about? It implies that the planet had already been created prior, at the same time the heavens were. Well when were the heavens created? A lot more than 6,000 -10,000 years ago.

Sometimes I think Jesus was an atheist himself and just used his position to subvert the Old Testament teachings like kill everything that moves. Maybe it was just easier for him to say, oh yeah I'm God. Sure, I'm God. hey don't do that stuff. Be nice to each other. Yada Yada. I don't know.

I just don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis because you can't really read Genesis literally. Like, it's impossible to do so. Like when it says Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. What's a tree of knowledge? I've never seen one. Is it a real tree? Is it a metaphor? How does it work? Do you have to water it?

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but I couldn't tell you cause I don't understand what it says. If you ask ten different preachers what a tree of knowledge is you'll get ten different answers. Nobody understands it. So how can they say they understand Genesis? They can't.

But in the Bible it says, "And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” It says he let the land produce the living creatures. To me that implies evolution. Not creationism. One line later it says God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures. Okay so which is it? Did God let the land produce the living creatures or did God just do it himself? It doesn't say.

It's just a big vocal minority that makes a lot of noise. After all, you said there's more evolutionists named Steve than there are that support ID. Just because they're loud doesn't mean there's that many people that believe it. Most people don't care one way or another because they don't even understand it.

That's what a wedge issue is. Something that's not really important but someone makes a big fuss about it because they don't want to talk about real issues. Like what did the gov do with all our money? Oh that's not important, let's talk about intelligent design! Uh,....No. Let's not lol.

And intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. All it does is ask questions. Like look how complex this cell is. How could it have just evolved? Someone must have created it!

Well I don't know how it could have evolved, I'm not a biologist, but that's not really evidence. Just asking a question, how would that be possible doesn't really answer anything. I don't know how, let's get out the microscope and study it and maybe we'll figure it out. Just because the IDers don't know how something evolved they can't just jump to the conclusion that it's impossible and say, SEE THIS IS PROOF! Science doesn't work that way.

If they want to be taken seriously they need to start producing real evidence.
edit on 30-11-2010 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I'm really surprised that none of the people who support the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design in the classroom are speaking up in favor of it. I know there are plenty on here....but where are they?


Well, if you are looking for religious bigots check over those in this thread that believe in global warming, you'll have lots of fun trying to debate reasonably with them.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Well, and this is just a personal view. The two CAN work together, depending on how you interpret the creationism story.

I in no way whatsoevery think the world was made in 7 days and ended up in its current state, that is utter nonsense. However, I can read the story of genesis and hypothetical terms and see 7 stages of development. The 7th day of rest being the current period where evolution seems to have reached a standstill at the moment.

Sure, it isn't perfect, but it was written a hell of a long time ago and wasn't exactly a scientific study
just a brief introduction into how everything came about.

The earth comes before the animals, sea animals come before land animals, land animals come before humans...there is a rough timeline of evolution in there. Now if teaching the theory of creationism AS PART OF evolution to younger children will help them to remember the stages, then I'm all for it.

But as I said, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by StevenDye
 


Actually, if you read the timeline, it's grossly inaccurate.

Plants come before the sun and moon (this is the biggest problem)
Plants on land come before sea life
Birds come before land animals


Those are damning evidence of a weird and messed up timeline. And the fact is that it's really not a scientific document. Sure, it has literary value, but it's not science.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by seedofchucky
 



you been doctrinated people who agree with mainstream?


You mean "taught science by professionals."?


global warming is one example of how "professionals" are not on the same page


Professionals are on the same page about global warming.


-No you are talking out of your ass. Scientists are NOT on the same page about global warming. They agree on some of the VERY BASIC principles, such as is the planet warming, yes. And is some portion due to human activity, yes. To what degree? Well that's where they are all split.
edit on 1-12-2010 by Ewok_Boba because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Ewok_Boba
 


Well, that's not really the issue here. The issue is that evolution, climate change, string theory, etc all follow the same process, the scientific method.

In the case of evolution, the method has progressed to the point where there are only 600 people rejecting the theory.

...there are over 1000 people named Steve (or some variation of) in the scientific community that have absolutely no problem with it. That's staggeringly in favor of evolution. If you work out the number of "Steves" in the scientific community it comes out to 1 Steve being representative of over 600 people.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
SOoooooooooo I guess we're settled? Teaching creationism/ID in a science class would be really bad?

...ok, I guess this thread is adjourned



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join