Yes, I finally made sense to someone. I am not a idiot after all. J/k.



Well not only the rich people argue for creationism, the average joe does it too and as you know, average joe isn't that rich.

Think of it this way, you are from another country you mediate this debate.

One side is arguing for their proportion to be taught along with the other and the other side is arguing that its side should be the only one in existence. So who wins?

I am not arguing for creationism, in fact I am arguing for evolution in a way. If you get my drift.

Surf

They do have the right to chose. They can go to a catholic school or a church school. Religion is not supposed to be taught in schools, correct? Creationism/creation science is not science, it's religion, plain and simple. If creationism were a science then a choice may be given, but it's not. Why would you teach belief in a science classroom?



There's nothing forcing people into public schools, there are other options, whether it be catholic/church schools or even home schooling. For one, why should non-science be taught in a science class? Secondly, why should religion be taught in public school under the guise of science? Talk about freedom all you want, but appeasing religious people's belief in creationism by teaching it in the classroom gets you nowhere; it has no place there. It is a belief lacking any empirical basis.

As I said before, some claim that the best way to combat creationism is to falsify it, but aren't falsified theories also considered scientific? My issue here is labelling creationism science when it clearly isn't because in doing so creationism can make it into our science classes.l



Of course, but should we go so far as affirming this deception by giving the theory credibility by teaching it as science in a science class?

I say no.

People are free to believe whatever they wish, but these beliefs have no place in our classrooms when the beliefs are clearly not scientific theory.

Well that is where many people disagree. They think creationism is science too.



As I said before, it is all matter of perception, we perceive creationism as junk, but those religious, let us say guys so that I won't offend anyone, think it as being absolute truth.

I'd love to hear their definition of science and their theory of demarcation, especially those who actually take everything written in genesis and the bible as a literal account of history.



The fact that they believe this is absolute truth, without any scientific, empircal basis, and are not willing to change their mind given evidence indicating otherwise just boggles my mind. How can anyone claim that as science?



Our theory is right, at least more right than theirs.

People are allowed their opinion, I'm not saying they're not, or shouldn't be, but I don't believe opinion should be TAUGHT as science. Bring your opinion into it when discussing evolution, but don't teach OPINION.

I don't know how they do it, they just do it.



Lol, can't agree more.



Say by an act of miracle, we get some evidence that is somewhat ambigious, but supports that creationism isn't actually that far from truth.

I am not saying that the evidence supports creationism, but that it can be percieved as supporting creationism, by a long shot. Can creationism be taught in school then?

Surf

[edit on 11/7/2004 by surfup]

I'll say this:

I think creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools if scientific evidence is found that supports their claims, and the emphasis is on scientific evidence, as that is what is completely lacking from arguments in support of creationism at present, and personally, I don't consider the bible as evidence. It should also be allowed to be taught in schools if those schools teaching it are catholic/church schools.

I think what you're kind of describing above is theistic evolution. And to be honest, I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of evidence we could find that could somehow support creationism.

Damn you parrhesia, you made me lose my stance and come to your side. I am assimiliated, I guess.

Surf

At least you're assimilated on the side with theory that is more right

Just a thought or two on the matter.

Personally, I am a creationist. I believe the world was created in six days. However, your interpretation of days may be different than mine. I also have encountered serious mathematical and archeological flaws in the theory of evolution, which, I assume, would be the underlying reason it is still referred to officially as the 'Theory' of evolution.

I do not think creation should be taught in public school for the specific reason of offering a different opinion or option for students on the origin of life an dsubsequent diversity of our biosphere. However, I do believe that creationism should be taught in school under the subject, or topic, whatever, of preparing students for the different theories and topics they will encounter. Isn't the point of an education system to educate?

If we simply ignore the theory of creation, as well as other 'origin' myths and legends, and cling solely to the theory of evolution as the only viable explanation for our origin and existence, aren't we actually practicing indoctrination by ignoring mention of other theories?

I never have subscribed to taking any of the other theories seriously in a public school system, however I likewise denounce neglecting to mention other theories, as it promotes a blind allegiance without presenting dissenting view.

Science evolution may be, but even science allows dissent, that's how we progress. Not allowing dissent , or even the introduction of it, promotes ignorance, and doesn't allow freedom of thought and expression.

I intice the Goverment, vehemently, to embark in a mission to better educate our children on the merits of religion; theology should be taught of the world religions at a very younge age, esp in a time where religious hatred is becoming an everyday circumstance.

Deep

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be mentioned and that students should be stifled if they bring creationism into a discussion of evolution; what I'm saying is that creationism has no place being taught in a science classroom because it is not science but religion, plain and simple.

you're right, the point of an education system is to educate - but is the point to educate on a religious groups belief (based on nothing but the word of the bible) of the origins and history of humanity?

Evolution is the only viable explanation regarding our origins that has empircal support; if creationism were to gain some form of empircal evidence supporting it (not the bible), as surfup suggested, go on, teach it! At present, however, creationism is not a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution because it is not scientific.

I suppose it is indoctrination, but when evolution is really the only viable scientific theory that explains our origins, and the only other alternative is completely faith based - there is no other option. Religion must not be taught in science class.

Could you explain those flaws to us? Yeah it is called theory, not because it can't be proven right, but it can't be proven wrong.

It is a way of not being arrogant and saying that evolution is absolutely right, like some, not all, of the religious people are saying it.

I like your argument on why creationism should be taught in school, which is what I was try to say myself some time ago.

I am not saying creationism is right, but rather saying that it should be taught to keep an open mind.

Surf

Yup, and defining it as a theory and not absolute truth displays a characteristic deemed key in many demarcation of science theories. That of tentativeness - which creationism lacks.

alright then, in keeping with your mathematical objections to evolution, explain how a "day" is not a "day". Is there a date in history when a day became a shorter span of time to what we know today? Is the Bible to be taken literally or not? I'm confused.
As for the archeological flaws, I am unfamiliar with that angle; could you explain it or offer a link?


Respectfully,
BG

The 'day' as interpreted by me and those of my religious persuasion would be a literal 24 hour period. What I was doing was relenting that since creationism has no empiracal proof that I am yet prepared properly to argue in defense of, I was simply giving the benefit of the doubt to the theory that the 'day' referenced in the Bible was open to interpretation.

Being a literal creationist, I do believe that '6 days' referred to 6 24 hour periods. Does that make me ignorant? Or insightful? Only time eternal will tell.

Ignorant, no. You are simply standing by your beliefs and there is nothing wrong with that.

Although we disagree on this topic, I still respect your beliefs.


Peace,
BG

This is ludicrous.
I'm an Aussie so I am unfamiliar with the workings of the American education system so I am hoping someone can clarify this for me.

Is it legal for them to teach religion in public schools?

If it is this is unconstitutional. 'Creation science' [oxymoron] is not science.. if it is expected to be considered as such then they would have to teach other creational mythologies like the aboriginal dreamtime, hindu etc.. if they didn't it would be grounds for discrimination.

Sounds like a loophole to try force conversion on the young ones.. I hope this trend doesn't spread to Australia. I like living in a free country.

I guess I'll be the first one to let into evolutionary theory. Don't fret, I'm not here on a mission to convert the heathen because my theological views are uncertain and I have not practiced any religion in years. I just believe that the theory just barely has enough evidence to differentiate it from idle speculation and that as a result the theory is incomplete at best and completely off base at worst.

Evolution implies self organization; somehow complex chemical compounds which formed DNA would have to understand environmental conditions they had no way of sensing. For example to develop an eye the organism must know there is such a thing as light, despite having no way to sense light. Evolution makes a very strange assumption about sexuality as well, because it suggests that the male and female sexes spontaneous evolved, not just once, but once for every sexually reproduced species, and that the new animals somehow inherently knew how their new forms worked.

To make this theory "work" we have to look at additional assumptions, such as a self-aware universe, a non-mental consciousness of molecules, and a thorough subliminal understanding of and possibly control over everything about one's body. Some of the assumptions necessary would probably get under the science crowd's skin as badly as creationism of course. The assumptions I suggest would extend consciousness to plants and simple organisms and would fuel speculation about the nature of the soul from the religious crowd no doubt.

Of course there could be other assumptions that would make evolution work that I have overlooked, nor can we ignore the fact that evolution might be entirely wrong. We can't just replace one speculation with another though, nor can we teach a million and one different speculations side by side. Fortunately very little of what children are taught in school rests on evolution. You can ace a biology class and come away with a good understanding of life without that couple of sentences about evolution. If there's any textbook that would really be incomplete without evolution, its a history book. Evolution is most significant because it represents science ceasing to be hindred by religious dogma.

Despite my feelings on evolution I really don't believe it is a public policy matter. You don't hear astrophysicists going to court and lobbying the government to get this or that theory taught or excluded. Economists don't lobby for parity in teaching of socialism and capitalism. Nobody cares that our history books are so incredibly inaccurate about the discovery of America. What is so dang special about evolution that we have to expend all this time and money debating one paragraph in a textbook?

The creationist crowd needs to take all that time and money that they use on lawyers and lobbying and such and they need to go open a shelter for the homeless. It never ceases to amaze how religious people pick and choose issues and behave so much like everyone else. Did anybody see Jerry Falwell on Fox News a few days ago? Same principle in action.

So in so many words, I don't take evolution for gospel, but I don't want the gospel taught in school either.

Why is the Christian creation theory viewed as the only alternative to evolution?

It is the theory of a religion. If the Christian creation theory is to be considered another possibility then so must the creation theories of the rest of the world’s religions. The version from the Hindu Puranas for example? The repeating cycles of Buddhism? Or the pagans Great mother? Why stop at religions? What about the many versions from ancient cultures? Surely being closer to the creation the stories should have all the more significance? Aboriginal Dreamtime? Native Americans emergence from the underworld? Ancient Chinas Phan Ku and the cosmic egg?

Would the Christian creationists advocate joint teaching of all these beliefs and theories that in terms of possibility are on a par with their own? I doubt it. The reason Christian creationists would most likely give for the teaching of their particular belief above the others is that their culture, history and laws are based on Jeudo/Christian beliefs. Realising that, they must also realise that therefore the teaching of creationism has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with pushing their own religious dogma.

Christianity contains a "stupidity clause" to protect them against the assaults of anyone smarter than them. Something along the lines of "the wisdom of men is as foolishness to god" or the like. Basically no matter how heavily a christian is intellectually outgunned, they have this trump card that says your human wisdom is inherently flawed while their "devine" wisdom is so far beyond comprehension that you could never see it for what it is, but will only prove your own foolishness by scoffing.

In other words, a passage which I believe is meant to say "don't think you know everything" has turned into "It doesn't matter how ignorant I am because my faith makes me incredibly wise".