Creationism in schools?

[jarofthoughts]

Further, "Creationism" means different things to different people. Intelligent Design is not equal "Creationism", in my opinion.

Again, that just means that your opinion is wrong.
And just so you know, when it comes to science personal opinions are worth exactly zilch.

Finally, millions would argue that the ToE is not scientific at all, but an implausible, unproven theory full of gaping holes and assumptions.

Which means that they would be ignorant, or possibly, have an agenda and lie.
Even Michael Behe, the ID poster boy, had to admit during the Dover trial that under his definition of science, astrology would have to be considered science.
He also proved to be ignorant about the subjects he himself had used as examples of 'irreducible complexity'.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Are you including in those that "just haven't been competently educated on evolution" scientists, including biologists, who reject the ToE?

See Project Steve for the utter and complete destruction of that line of reasoning: Project Steve | NCSE
Now stop using it or forever look silly.

Your dismissive "obviously these poor people have been uninformed" is condescending, to say the least.

Uninformed or misinformed... the end result is still ignorance.

I think a large part of the appeal of the ToE to so many, is that it frees a person to do what he wants, without being answerable to God for their conduct.

Are you claiming that those who do not believe in god are immoral?
Cause, I'd be happy to compare morals with you any time you like. :sarcastic

ID is a competing theory.

It's not even a hypothesis.

I disagree with you that evolution is not a religion. I think it is a religion, with it's scientific high priests and prophets, its dogmas and articles of faith. The zeal with which any questions against it are attacked bespeak the religious fervor of some of it's adherents.

Trust me; I'd argue just as hard if you were doing this with, say, Germ Theory or the Atomic Theory.
This is about science.
Just science.
And religion has no place in it.

 

[Storm]

>sigh< I should have known better than to even post in a thread that mentioned evolution.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Your dismissal of those who reject the ToE as "Millions of uneducated riff-raff " is typical of the responses of evolutionists.

Yeah, well, we get tired of refuting the same old nonsensical arguments over and over again to people who can't be bothered to educate themselves.
Also, I'm no more an 'evolutionist' than I am a 'gravitationalist' or a 'germist'.

And if "science can explain everything in my life", I must have missed the answer to this question: How did life on earth begin?

When did anyone claim that science can explain everything?
Also, Abiogenesis is not the Theory of Evolution and they are, in fact, not codependent, even if you really really would like them to be.
Even if the first life-forms had been seeded by aliens or created by some god, Evolution would still be true.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think a large part of the appeal of the ToE to so many, is that it frees a person to do what he wants, without being answerable to God for their conduct.

What a bizarre, unintelligible non sequitur.

As has been explained to you innumerable times before, the theory of evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive, and belief in a deity isn't a prerequisite for being moral or ethical.

Your garbage doesn't become less so with each time that it's regurgitated.

 

[otokage007]

Less than 300 years ago, "science" said the best treatment for a variety of ills was to bleed people. About 120 year ago, Lord Kelvin, renowned British scientist declared "Heaver-than-air flying machines are impossible." Ten years ago evolutionist scientists said that 98% of DNA is junk from "natures experiments which failed." None of those ideas are science, but the delusional thinking of supposedly learned men. True science is based on facts, not speculation and sleight of hand.
Interestingly, the Bible does not support the misconceptions prevalent during the time it was written. To the contrary, the Bible is accurate when dealing with scientific matters.
Finally, posting a link doesn't answer the question: Where did life on earth come from? Science may not have the answer, but the Bible does. (Psalm 36:9)

​

​

Science is a methodology, it can be used wrong or right. Your ad hominen arguments against science are simply laughable. So: :biglaugh:

However, we could discuss about what "The Bible support". For example, you believe in a religion in which God, in the Old Testament alone, killed more people than Hitler, Satan, Stalin, and all them multiplied by a hundred.

And just to let u know. The Bible is a tool a greedy roman emperor ordered construct to trick and control society. His name was Constantine.

True Christians and Jews who believe the Torah do believe that "God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) That verse is in the Hebrew Scriptures, penned by Moses, a Hebrew.

Sorry but Moses is just a myth, like Santa Claus.

Finally, millions would argue that the ToE is not scientific at all, but an implausible, unproven theory full of gaping holes and assumptions.

Millions also don't know to write, read, or even speak. So?

 

[Levite]

True Christians and Jews who believe the Torah do believe that "God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) That verse is in the Hebrew Scriptures, penned by Moses, a Hebrew. I simply cited a verse from the Christian Greek Scriptures because it made the point that all things have a maker, from a house to the universe, except for the Source of all things, God.
Further, "Creationism" means different things to different people. Intelligent Design is not equal "Creationism", in my opinion. Finally, millions would argue that the ToE is not scientific at all, but an implausible, unproven theory full of gaping holes and assumptions.

I know many "true" Jews-- myself included-- who absolutely believe that God created the universe: He did so with cosmological physics, evolution, and all the ways that science tells us the universe and life in it came to be. And we "true" Jews also know that the Bible is not a science textbook-- and treating it that way just diminishes it.

However my point remains that whether one used Christian scripture, or Jewish scripture, or Muslim scripture, or any other single religion's sources-- or even if you used numerous religions' sources-- you would still be shutting some religions out and creating an atmosphere of intolerance, and what is more, none of it would be science. Science classrooms are for science, not religion.

 

[jazzymom]

Why are evolutionists so afraid of competing theories? Is it because you are insecure? I think many people (who haven't been taught to ignore facts) understand that things, living or non-living, don't build themselves. (Hebrews 3:4)

I grew up with Christianity taught and Christian prayers said in public schools. I am adamant that religion should not have a place in schools unless it is a comparative religion class.

Creationism is Christian theology and to teach it as science in school is unacceptable.

Not all people who believe in evolution discount G-d.

 

[Draka]

Not all people who believe in evolution discount G-d.

As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people who accept evolution are theists. Sheer statistics alone speak to this. Doesn't appear to hurt any of us at all.

 

[Father Heathen]

As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people who accept evolution are theists. Sheer statistics alone speak to this. Doesn't appear to hurt any of us at all.

Some people can't wrap their mind around the suggestion that god might be a little bigger than some book written by primitive mortals.

 

[rusra02]

Yeah, well, we get tired of refuting the same old nonsensical arguments over and over again to people who can't be bothered to educate themselves.
Also, I'm no more an 'evolutionist' than I am a 'gravitationalist' or a 'germist'.

Yet, evolutionists label people who believe in creation as creationists. Let's be fair about this. And calling someone who disagrees with you riff-raff and claiming they are uneducated or stupid is rude, demeaning, and arrogant; traits often displayed by evolutionists.

When did anyone claim that science can explain everything?
Also, Abiogenesis is not the Theory of Evolution and they are, in fact, not codependent, even if you really really would like them to be.
Even if the first life-forms had been seeded by aliens or created by some god, Evolution would still be true.

I was directly quoting the poster who claimed that. Evolution cannot explain how life began, and so tries to hide this question as irrelevant to how evolution supposedly occurred. On the other hand, the Bible answers both questions of how life began and how we have the diversity of life we see. I find the Bible's answer far more compelling than aliens or 'natural selection with mutations.' If you don't, so be it.

 

[Storm]

Evolution cannot explain how life began, and so tries to hide this question as irrelevant to how evolution supposedly occurred.

There is a huge difference between inability and lack of attempt.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yet, evolutionists label people who believe in creation as creationists. Let's be fair about this. And calling someone who disagrees with you riff-raff and claiming they are uneducated or stupid is rude, demeaning, and arrogant; traits often displayed by evolutionists.

It is also, on the whole, correct.
At least in the case of creationists.

Evolution cannot explain how life began, and so tries to hide this question as irrelevant to how evolution supposedly occurred.

And once again, you have completely missed the point.
That's not what the Theory of Evolution is FOR.
It doesn't concern itself with how life began, ONLY what happened after it did.
I meant it when I said that as far as ToE goes, it DOESN'T MATTER HOW LIFE BEGAN.
Seeded by aliens, created by a god, self-replicating molecules, the fairy godmother wished upon a star...
It doesn't matter to the Theory of Evolution AT ALL.

Get it now?

 

[kylixguru]

'Science Guy' Bill Nye condemns teaching creationism - Technology & Science - CBC News

I noticed in this article it mentions States where it's considered acceptable to teach creationism. If a teacher started spouting that stuff to my kid I'd lose it. Do you think this is appropriate?

PS Don't you wish you were as cool as Bill Nye?

It lost me when people decided everyone should be taught uniformly.
Institutionalize education was a non-start from the get-go.
I expect to see creativity itself on the decline as a result.

 

[Valjean]

I was directly quoting the poster who claimed that. Evolution cannot explain how life began, and so tries to hide this question as irrelevant to how evolution supposedly occurred. On the other hand, the Bible answers both questions of how life began and how we have the diversity of life we see. I find the Bible's answer far more compelling than aliens or 'natural selection with mutations.' If you don't, so be it.

Science is not neglecting the origin of life. It's simply a separate study at this point. There's been a great deal of research done, as a simple Google search would reveal.
Recently two of RNA's four nucleotides "created themselves" in an experiment, for example.

The Bible answers nothing, It posits an agent-- God -- but no mechanism, ergo: it's proposing magic.
Science studies mechanism and ignores agency. Religion declares agency but ignores mechanism.
"Non overlapping magisteria", as Steven Jay Gould would put it.

 

[Storm]

It lost me when people decided everyone should be taught uniformly.
Institutionalize education was a non-start from the get-go.
I expect to see creativity itself on the decline as a result.

And the alternative is what, precisely?

 

[kylixguru]

And the alternative is what, precisely?

We home school.
I realize that's not for everyone, but it works for us.

 

[rusra02]

It is also, on the whole, correct.
At least in the case of creationists.

Thank you for confirming what I said.

And once again, you have completely missed the point.
That's not what the Theory of Evolution is FOR.
It doesn't concern itself with how life began, ONLY what happened after it did.
I meant it when I said that as far as ToE goes, it DOESN'T MATTER HOW LIFE BEGAN.
Seeded by aliens, created by a god, self-replicating molecules, the fairy godmother wished upon a star...
It doesn't matter to the Theory of Evolution AT ALL.

Get it now?

Oh, I got it. Evolutionists have no answers for how life began, the very foundation of their theory is missing, so they claim: "It doesn't matter how life began." The mythical evolutionary tree has no rootstock. How different is the Bible's clear, unambiguous answer: "For with you [Jehovah] is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9)

 

[mycorrhiza]

Oh, I got it. Evolutionists have no answers for how life began, the very foundation of their theory is missing, so they claim: "It doesn't matter how life began." The mythical evolutionary tree has no rootstock. How different is the Bible's clear, unambiguous answer: "For with you [Jehovah] is the source of life; by light from you we can see light." (Psalm 36:9)

The theory of evolution explains the process of life evolving. Would it matter if the very first life-form on Earth was created, put here by aliens, beamed in through a higher level of being or arose through natural processes? How would that affect evolution?

It's not about replacing God or providing a theory about how life first arose on Earth. Evolution deals with life after it began to exist. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life. Two different fields. The theory of evolution is not evolution, abiogenesis, the forming of astronomical objects and the big bang in one despite what pro-ID preachers might say.

The Bible's answer has no scientific basis, though.

 

[Secret Chief]

rusra,

You erroneously ascribe a missing foundation to evolution, simply because you are ignorant of what Darwin addressed. Evolution also fails to explain the early career of the Rolling Stones for just the same reason; evolution is not meant to address either the origin of life nor 60s rock n roll.

And just because you think something is clear and unambiguous does not make it true. But then no creationist is interested in the truth, they gave up their inquisitiveness when they signed up to a non-sensical fantasy.