Creationism in schools?

[Noaidi]

So you would keep the curriculum just as it is, with no mention of creationism or ID, and with the current level of education regarding the Theory of Evolution.
So...
What are you creationists whining about then if you don't want to change anything?

Exactly. What is it that these people want? Do they want creationism being taught alongside established scientific theories or not?

So, rusra, you don't actually want creationism being taught in schools - is that correct? Again, I'll repeat the question that several of us here have put to you: if you do want creationism to be taught, what would a lesson entail (note: what would be taught would be creationism, not a rebuttal of evolution)?

Either way, please state your position if you can.

 

[averageJOE]

What the heck is the "evolutionists agenda"???

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What the heck is the "evolutionists agenda"???

To send everyone to hell through manipulation of evidence, presumably.

 

[Falvlun]

I am not deflecting the question. I answered the question but you apparently did not read it or did not like the answer. I repost it here for your convenience:

"Some scientists believe in evolution. Other scientists believe that living things give evidence of intelligent design.

Yes, scientists are free to believe, in their personal lives, whatever they want. The vast majority of biologists believe that evolution is true; a minority believe evolution with intelligent design; and I would think there's only a handful that might believe in literal 7 day creationism. However, no reputable scientist would argue for teaching intelligent design or creationism as science. While they may believe in intelligent design themselves, they know that it is a unfalsifiable, unscientifically supported belief that has no place in a science class.

A "fair and balanced" review of the evidence for (and against) both sides of this issue would seem to be a starting point for a science class.

Fair and balanced has no place in science. Science isn't about opinion; it is not a democracy. There's only the evidence, and the theories developed that best fit the available evidence. To date, there is no other theory that even begins to explain the evidence half as well as the theory of evolution does. There is no contender; there is no "other side" to even warrant a page in a textbook.

Do you, perchance, advocate teaching kids that the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth, that aliens built the pyramids, that atoms are conscious, or that constellations influence personalities in a physical science, history, chemistry, or astronomy class? That's precisely what you are arguing for in your "fair and balanced" approach.

However, I am not advocating for changes to educational curriculum. Rather, I am sharing my beliefs that evolutionists are trying to push their agenda upon the classrooms and woe betide any scientist or teacher who fails to toe the evolution line."

They are only "pushing an agenda" in so much as meteorologists are pushing an agenda when they explain that the sun evaporates water to form clouds that ultimately release condensed moisture in the form of rain. How dare those meteorologists refuse to allow people to teach in a science class that praying to god(s) produces rain!

 

[otokage007]

What the heck is the "evolutionists agenda"???

Me. *evil laugh*

 

[Noaidi]

I am not deflecting the question. I answered the question but you apparently did not read it or did not like the answer. I repost it here for your convenience:

"Some scientists believe in evolution. Other scientists believe that living things give evidence of intelligent design. A "fair and balanced" review of the evidence for (and against) both sides of this issue would seem to be a starting point for a science class. However, I am not advocating for changes to educational curriculum. Rather, I am sharing my beliefs that evolutionists are trying to push their agenda upon the classrooms and woe betide any scientist or teacher who fails to toe the evolution line."

OK, so you are not seeking changes to the curriculum. That's fine. I'm interested, though, in the evidence for creationism you mentioned above that would be appropriate for a science class should it ever be allowed into the domain of education. I had asked for this before, but perhaps you missed it. (post#106)

(remember - no arguing against evolution, here. In fact don't even mention evolution. It's the fair and balanced review of creationism evidence we want. We can discuss how it fares against evolution later.)

 

[rusra02]

So you would keep the curriculum just as it is, with no mention of creationism or ID, and with the current level of education regarding the Theory of Evolution.
So...
What are you creationists whining about then if you don't want to change anything?

Oh, and just for the record; there is no 'evolutionist agenda'.
Whatever would be the purpose of that?
Also; scientists follow the evidence, which overwhelmingly supports ToE, and as for us teachers, we don't get to determine the curriculum.
As a teacher I have to follow the curriculum of the schoolsystem that the department of education has put in place.
I do have some say in how I teach it, but the main content is decided by someone else.

Just an FYI.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that I " would keep the curriculum just as it is, with no mention of creationism or ID, and with the current level of education regarding the Theory of Evolution. " YOU said that.
I said "I am not advocating for changes to educational curriculum. Rather, I am sharing my beliefs that evolutionists are trying to push their agenda upon the classrooms."

 

[jarofthoughts]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that I " would keep the curriculum just as it is, with no mention of creationism or ID, and with the current level of education regarding the Theory of Evolution. " YOU said that.
I said "I am not advocating for changes to educational curriculum.

Let's see...
You're not advocating any changes in the educational curriculum, which includes the curriculum for the subject of science.
Which means that you are silently agreeing that it should be kept as it is...
Which means that since it currently has no mention of creationism or ID, that is what you are silently agreeing with...
Which means that since you are also silently agreeing that we keep the education level on the subject of the Theory of Evolution just as it is...

Sorry, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
Either you are advocating change or you are agreeing that it should stay as it is.
It's one or the other.

Rather, I am sharing my beliefs that evolutionists are trying to push their agenda upon the classrooms."

Yeah...
About that...
What is the evolutionist agenda again, and does it differ from the gravitationalist agenda?

 

[Draka]

I just LOVE that term, "evolutionist". lol

Let's define that shall we? Just what IS an "evolutionist"?

Should it be multiple choice? What are people imagining when they see that word? When they use it?

A. A person who accepts the well-documented and peer-reviewed evidence and facts which supports the Scientific Theory known as the Theory of Evolution.

B. A person which holds to the god-hating conspiracy known as "evilution" which is out to destroy all good god-fearing and loving people by promoting this absurd idea that we are hairless monkey-nephews which want nothing more than to push their evil agenda into schools and indoctrinate young impressionable children into their godless ways. HAHAHAHAHA :devil:

 

[Noaidi]

I just LOVE that term, "evolutionist". lol

Let's define that shall we? Just what IS an "evolutionist"?

Should it be multiple choice? What are people imagining when they see that word? When they use it?

A. A person who accepts the well-documented and peer-reviewed evidence and facts which supports the Scientific Theory known as the Theory of Evolution.

B. A person which holds to the god-hating conspiracy known as "evilution" which is out to destroy all good god-fearing and loving people by promoting this absurd idea that we are hairless monkey-nephews which want nothing more than to push their evil agenda into schools and indoctrinate young impressionable children into their godless ways. HAHAHAHAHA :devil:

Unfortunately, some will opt for B.
What they fail to realise is that the teaching of evolution says nothing about a god - that is beyond the remit of ToE - leaving that particular belief (or lack of) up to the individual. Like any aspect of science, ToE an explanatory tool - nothing more, nothing less. It's perfectly possible to accept ToE and be a theist. At least two of the professors at my old Uni taught evolution and were Christians. What evil agenda do these particular people have, I wonder?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Unfortunately, some will opt for B.
What they fail to realise is that the teaching of evolution says nothing about a god - that is beyond the remit of ToE - leaving that particular belief (or lack of) up to the individual. Like any aspect of science, ToE an explanatory tool - nothing more, nothing less. It's perfectly possible to accept ToE and be a theist. At least two of the professors at my old Uni taught evolution and were Christians. What evil agenda do these particular people have, I wonder?

Ken Miller.
Nuff said.

[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]
Ken Miller on Human Evolution - YouTube

Hint: He's a Roman Catholic.

 

[Noaidi]

Ken Miller.
Nuff said.

[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]
Ken Miller on Human Evolution - YouTube

Hint: He's a Roman Catholic.

Yes, a good example.

 

[Skwim]

[Evolutionists] are only "pushing an agenda" in so much as meteorologists are pushing an agenda when they explain that the sun evaporates water to form clouds that ultimately release condensed moisture in the form of rain. How dare those meteorologists refuse to allow people to teach in a science class that praying to god(s) produces rain!

Au contraire.

"And here we have the real agenda for the our kids that the evolutionists-atheist are promoting. And it goes together with the picture before this as well.

​

Burn in hell kids, hell was only made for you (evolutionists agenda). Because make a child lose their faith in God, then what is said above becomes true.
source
_________________________________________________________________________________

So do evolutionary humanists have an agenda about marriage and family? Apparently, they do, and their agenda is that they are against it. For evolutionists, it is time for society to evolve away from marriage and the family.

Do evolutionists have an agenda for politics? Apparently, they do, and it entails a one-world government and global disarmament.

So do evolutionists have an agenda for morality? Apparently, they do. Namely, moral relativism — allowing for sexual promiscuity and abortion, among other things.
source
____________________________________________________________

DAHLONEGA, GA – Scientists in rural Georgia have created a zedonk, an unnatural cross between a zebra and a donkey. This renegade to natural breeding is being housed at the Chestatee Wildlife Preserve down in Dahlonega, all after being born at the same place over a week ago.

This animal has been created by evolutionists, in efforts to convince people that inter-species mating and production of animals is very natural and fine. They are trying to convince humans that we descend from monkeys, that a primative man took a primative chimpazee hominid female for a mate, which lead to modern humans and our similar genetic coding to chimpazees and lemurs.

So the agenda once more is clear and as usual, short-sighted evolutionists will stop at no ends to get their ridiculous school of thought accepted as mainstream. Remember to reject these teachings and know that all we need to know about our origins is presented as fact in the Bible. All we need to know about science is point-forward, testable now and not bound to random asinine theories that cannot ever be tangibly tested and therefore not scientifically proven.
source

______________________________________________________________

Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. The evolutionists' ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability. Intuition suggests a series of questions to the human mind when we contemplate our origin: Who is in control of the universe? Is there Someone who is sovereign—a Lawgiver? Is there a universal Judge? Is there a transcendent moral standard to live by? Is there Someone to whom we will be accountable? Will there be a final assessment of how we live our lives? Will there be any final judgment?

Those are the very questions evolution was invented to avoid.
It's important to remember that evolutionary theories (e.g., favorable mutation, millions of years) did not arise from honest scientific inquiry—evolution is science with an agenda. Evolution began and continues in rebellion against the Creator, ignoring the Lawgiver and dethroning the Judge. Even its science is afloat on a sea of irrationality, supported only by the murky depths of contradiction and speculation.
source
_______________________________________________________________

Further teachings of evolutionist include that the earth was formed after the galaxies, while the Bible states that the heavens were formed after the earth. Evolutionists claim that man is made in the image of a primate, an ape. The Bible teaches that man is made in the image of God. When taking the time to study the points of evolution, a Christian can begin to discern an agenda, one that seems to mock the Creator of the universe. What the Christian community and church must recognize (with alertness) is that false teachings may not always come in the form of church doctrine; it may come in the form of science. We've been fair warned. The New Testament writers explained on numerous occasions that false teachings would abound. To learn more about the evidence against evolution and what Scriptures repute it, take the quiz linked above.
source
__________________________________________________________________

The reason for the evolutionists' agenda is to eliminate God from our schools and country. If we are so easily swayed to believe a lie, how can we believe anything?
source
___________________________________________________________________

Evolution education in the United States figures among the most cleverly masterminded deceptions in the nation. Its true agenda is not to educate Americans about a theory but to discredit the Bible's scientifically sound teachings about the Creation, which, in turn, bears witness of the existence of the all-wise Creator.
source
___________________________________________________________________

Do Evolutionists Have an Agenda?
Knowingly or unknowingly, there is an agenda: Keep telling people God doesn’t exist AND build up rubbish unscientific theories that erroneously conclude God doesn’t exist AND use the media to make it all seem “fact”.
source

​

 

[otokage007]

So do evolutionists have an agenda for morality? Apparently, they do. Namely, moral relativism — allowing for sexual promiscuity and abortion, among other things.

I loved that one.

We are so evil.

 

[rusra02]

Yes, scientists are free to believe, in their personal lives, whatever they want. The vast majority of biologists believe that evolution is true; a minority believe evolution with intelligent design; and I would think there's only a handful that might believe in literal 7 day creationism. However, no reputable scientist would argue for teaching intelligent design or creationism as science. While they may believe in intelligent design themselves, they know that it is a unfalsifiable, unscientifically supported belief that has no place in a science class.


Fair and balanced has no place in science. Science isn't about opinion; it is not a democracy. There's only the evidence, and the theories developed that best fit the available evidence. To date, there is no other theory that even begins to explain the evidence half as well as the theory of evolution does. There is no contender; there is no "other side" to even warrant a page in a textbook.

Do you, perchance, advocate teaching kids that the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth, that aliens built the pyramids, that atoms are conscious, or that constellations influence personalities in a physical science, history, chemistry, or astronomy class? That's precisely what you are arguing for in your "fair and balanced" approach.


They are only "pushing an agenda" in so much as meteorologists are pushing an agenda when they explain that the sun evaporates water to form clouds that ultimately release condensed moisture in the form of rain. How dare those meteorologists refuse to allow people to teach in a science class that praying to god(s) produces rain!

You declare your opinions as if they were unassailable facts, such as: "no other theory that even begins to explain the evidence half as well as the theory of evolution does. There is no contender; there is no "other side" to even warrant a page in a textbook." That is nonsense, in my opinion.

Further, you claim to know the thinking of scientists who believe the evidence supports ID. "While they may believe in intelligent design themselves, they know that it is a unfalsifiable, unscientifically supported belief that has no place in a science class." That is an amazing feat of reading these scientists minds.

Further, a "fair and balanced" review of the evidence is what is needed. Comparing the evidence for ID to discredited theories of the past is simply a feeble and unfair attempt to discredit ID.

Finally, I believe evolutionists are pushing an agenda and the evidence is there to support this. Richard Lewontin, an evolutionist, wrote that many evolutionists "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism...we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Thus they refuse to even consider the possibility of ID. (Quote from
The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, 1/ 9/1997, pp. 28-32.) This agenda would account for the heated vitriole so common in evolutionists responses to those who challenge their theory.

 

[Noaidi]

Further, a "fair and balanced" review of the evidence is what is needed. Comparing the evidence for ID to discredited theories of the past is simply a feeble and unfair attempt to discredit ID.

Is it worth asking again for the evidence for creationism that would merit inclusion in a science class?
I really feel that you are avoiding this.

 

[rusra02]

Unfortunately, some will opt for B.
What they fail to realise is that the teaching of evolution says nothing about a god - that is beyond the remit of ToE - leaving that particular belief (or lack of) up to the individual. Like any aspect of science, ToE an explanatory tool - nothing more, nothing less. It's perfectly possible to accept ToE and be a theist. At least two of the professors at my old Uni taught evolution and were Christians. What evil agenda do these particular people have, I wonder?

I can claim to be a Christian (which I do) and an evolutionist (which I am not.) That would be a lie, of course. I believe it also can be a lie to claim to be an evolutionist (which one may be) and a Christian (which one may not be). Simply claiming to be a Christian does not make one a Christian. In fact, Jesus Christ said: "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matthew 7:21-23) Remember it was largely professed "Christians" that bloodied the world with not one, but two world wars, and many smaller but deadly conflicts, in direct contravention of Christ's teachings.

​

​

 

[rusra02]

Is it worth asking again for the evidence for creationism that would merit inclusion in a science class?
I really feel that you are avoiding this.

The evidence for ID is freely available to those with a web browser.

 

[Noaidi]

Finally, I believe evolutionists are pushing an agenda and the evidence is there to support this. Richard Lewontin, an evolutionist, wrote that many evolutionists "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism...we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Thus they refuse to even consider the possibility of ID. (Quote from
The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, 1/ 9/1997, pp. 28-32.) This agenda would account for the heated vitriole so common in evolutionists responses to those who challenge their theory.

A commitment to materialism is vital in explaining natural phenomena. What do you think our level of understanding would be if we tried to explain germ theory with reference to Odin? Cosmology with reference to the Aboriginal Dreamtime? Gravity with reference to Freya? Are you in favour of this approach, rusra?

 

[Noaidi]

The evidence for ID is freely available to those with a web browser.

Actually, there is no evidence beyond creationists claiming "it looks designed" or "evolution can't explain it". Have you read Behe's books? It's basically that argument repeated over and over. Is this what you are advocating for a science class?