• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science standards under threat in Arizona

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I've never met a Creationist who was a science denier. I've seen only presentations where they interpret the data in ways that you are uncomfortable with, but no worries, you will go on pressing for the inquisition to return. Good job! Not.
Then you have either never met a creationist, your are terribly ignorant, or you are being dishonest. The creationist interpretation of the data has been shown to be wrong, or worse it has been shown to be not even wrong. You see in the sciences claims can be shown to be false, such as the claims of creationists. If one insists on continuing to use a failed interpretation then one is being a science denier. And if you follow something that is not even wrong then it is even worse, you are a science denier by doing that.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I think creationism is worth taking a bit more seriously than that, actually.

As a phenomenon, by which people are willing to resist rational evidence when it appears to conflict with pre-existing beliefs, it is definitely worthy of study. (We see this in politics and public policy all the time, cf. Trump, Brexit, climate change, etc.) Also, the danger of creationism perverting science is greater if students are not equipped to recognise it for what it is, i.e. a strand of religious belief, rather than evidence-based science. That is why I am all for covering the topic in school, in religious studies. But a 6th form topic I think - one needs a certain maturity to grasp the implications.

You make a very good case, and I cannot fault your logic or reasoning.

Sun Tsu did warn it's better to Know Your Enemy. :)
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I've never met a Creationist who was a science denier. I've seen only presentations where they interpret the data in ways that you are uncomfortable with, but no worries, you will go on pressing for the inquisition to return. Good job! Not.
I've never met a creationist who understands what science is.

Actually, that's not strictly true: I have met one, a YEC astronomer - if you can imagine such a thing.:confused:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I've never met a creationist who understands what science is.

Actually, that's not strictly true: I have met one, a YEC astronomer - if you can imagine such a thing.:confused:

Any chance it was Jason Lisle? He is an astronomer that has a YEC belief. At any rate here is a physicist that explains why he is a liar, it gets a little technical here and there, part 1 out of 4:

 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I understand. Per your line of argumentation, the school is NO place to debate, only to indoctrinate. Welcome to the Inquisition, Torquemada!
Then provide a standard by which creationism does get included in science curricula, but the KKK's views on race don't.

And btw, pay closer attention to the issue in the OP. No one is proposing to teach creationism. The federal courts ruled that to be unconstitutional a long time ago. The issue here is that creationists are trying to weaken how evolution and climate change are taught. So if your complaint is about stifling what students hear, then you should be opposing the creationists.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Any chance it was Jason Lisle? He is an astronomer that has a YEC belief. At any rate here is a physicist that explains why he is a liar, it gets a little technical here and there, part 1 out of 4:

Don't think so. This guy was on a forum that no longer exists called Christians in Science, and I only knew him by his forum handle. However I do know he was a classical singer and had had to sing Christus in the passion - one of the Bach ones, I think, in which case he must be pretty good. It struck a chord (haha) as I used to sing the narrator in the passion on Good Friday at our local church (only Gregorian chant, but still 16 pages of solo unaccompanied singing, so it took a lot out of me), which is why it sticks in the mind. As far as I can see this Lisle fellow does not seem to be a singer. But if he is, then it has to be the same guy.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
What despicable thing is that? Daring to question evolution?

Yes.

It is like questioning embryology because of some weirdo who believe in storks carrying children, on account of some so-called holy book and other beliefs in imaginary beings.

Would you send your kid to a school that teaches the stork theory of birth? Same thing really.

Ciao

- viole
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Don't think so. This guy was on a forum that no longer exists called Christians in Science, and I only knew him by his forum handle. However I do know he was a classical singer and had had to sing Christus in the passion - one of the Bach ones, I think, in which case he must be pretty good. It struck a chord (haha) as I used to sing the narrator in the passion on Good Friday at our local church (only Gregorian chant, but still 16 pages of solo unaccompanied singing, so it took a lot out of me), which is why it sticks in the mind. As far as I can see this Lisle fellow does not seem to be a singer. But if he is, then it has to be the same guy.

Then probably not, a Google search with "singer" attached to his name turns up nothing and the person that you described would have been public with that talent. Still it is a worthwhile series. It shows the arguments of a creationist astronomer with a real PhD in the subject and how another physicist can show that he is a liar since he makes claims that he would know were false due to his training.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Arizona has replaced California as the Land of Fruits & Nuts, although Texas is gaining fast.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Of all the silliness, this takes the cake. Evolution takes up waaaay too much curriculum time. The subject can be covered in like three class sessions, tops. But how much time is spent on it? A lot more than that! It is almost like it is some kind of brainwashing cult with some “educators”. Students get literally hour after hour after hour of evolution harangues. Meanwhile whole fields of science are given short shrift. The education students need to face our technological world goes undone. Electronics, important in life? You bet! Don’t look for anything more than basics to be covered. How about Computer Science? Not even part of the required curriculum. Imagine sending our children into the world without understanding computers! Yet, that’s what we are doing. But every student needs, needs, needs to know about Darwin? Why?! Will evolution be invalidated if every student isn’t exposed to it? Funny, the validity of Maxwell, Newton, Freud and Einstein survive without their work being inculcated into every public school child. But little Johnny and Suzy can be sent out into the world without understanding how a transistor works, basic principles of hydraulics, nor how to balance a spreadsheet. “Nice”. As a teacher I see it all day long. Dozens of special interests all pushing their agendas, and the students get the raw end of the deal.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Of all the silliness, this takes the cake. Evolution takes up waaaay too much curriculum time. The subject can be covered in like three class sessions, tops.
You do realize that most high school students don't just take class called "science", right? The vast majority of them take a class specific to biology. And since evolution is the underlying framework of the biological sciences, it's pretty darned important.

But how much time is spent on it? A lot more than that! It is almost like it is some kind of brainwashing cult with some “educators”. Students get literally hour after hour after hour of evolution harangues.
Yeah, I hear the same sort of thing goes on in physics, where they keep going on and on and on about relativity. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile whole fields of science are given short shrift. The education students need to face our technological world goes undone. Electronics, important in life? You bet! Don’t look for anything more than basics to be covered. How about Computer Science? Not even part of the required curriculum. Imagine sending our children into the world without understanding computers! Yet, that’s what we are doing.
Do you have kids in school and/or are in high school yourself? If so, how is it that you're unaware that computer science is a completely different course than biology?

But every student needs, needs, needs to know about Darwin? Why?! Will evolution be invalidated if every student isn’t exposed to it? Funny, the validity of Maxwell, Newton, Freud and Einstein survive without their work being inculcated into every public school child. But little Johnny and Suzy can be sent out into the world without understanding how a transistor works, basic principles of hydraulics, nor how to balance a spreadsheet. “Nice”. As a teacher I see it all day long. Dozens of special interests all pushing their agendas, and the students get the raw end of the deal.
Wait.....you're a friggin' teacher and you were under the impression that there's just one course called "science" that's supposed to cover all of biology, physics, geology, computer science, etc.? Where the heck do you teach?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Please, just because a school will not teach that the Earth is flat does not mean that it indoctrinates. You need to learn a bit more before you can make such a claim.

I wasn't talking to you, but not only do you get my statements wrong, you get others' statements wrong. I was responding to the other poster's "the schoolroom is NOT where science is DEBATED" indoctrination post.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
If there were to be objective, reproducible evidence of such "revelation", it would in due time appear in the school science curriculum.

However creationists know too little about science to realise that there cannot be such evidence in living things or the regular natural world. One would need something grossly unnatural, like the Second Coming.

P.S. Or perhaps biologists discovering the words "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin" written in some protein sequence somewhere. :D

You have some intriguing notions about codes, and what proof could be constituted of. I suggest you do as I did and ask God for extraordinary proof--then respond.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
For the second time, a teacher will not permit an off-topic debate in class.

Creationism and ID are religion, not science. This was settled in the Kitzmiller trial. Ergo it cannot be legitimately debated in a biology lesson. Torquemada, Schmorquemada.

In my classes, even at the younger/lower levels, discussion included opposing viewpoints. Save this for North Korea, please. :)
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
In my classes, even at the younger/lower levels, discussion included opposing viewpoints. Save this for North Korea, please. :)
Nope. There is an obligation on science teachers to teach science, not anti-science.
You might hate maths and think it a tool of class oppression, but don't expect to get a maths teacher to listen politely to you, when you interrupt a class on the binomial theorem to air your views. If somebody wants to make an argument against science, don't expect to get a hearing in a science class for that.

Religion and anti-science ideas such as "intelligent [sic] design" can be useful to discuss, certainly. But in a religion, philosophy or politics class, not in a biology class. That should be obvious.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I wasn't talking to you, but not only do you get my statements wrong, you get others' statements wrong. I was responding to the other poster's "the schoolroom is NOT where science is DEBATED" indoctrination post.
I wasn't talking to you, but not only do you get my statements wrong, you get others' statements wrong. I was responding to the other poster's "the schoolroom is NOT where science is DEBATED" indoctrination post.
Now please, let's be honest. Though I am not perfect the score is running roughly 10 to 1 in my favor.
 
Top