"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[Pegg]

Fair enough. Though I, again, am not saying science itself = love. I am only suggesting that it can be used as a tool that can and often does bring about joy. Though I guess that that wouldn't be widely disputed in the first place.

Science can do a lot of harm too. Hitler used the science of eugenics (imported from America) to kill many innocent people simply to elimination them from the chain of heredity. He sterilized over 400,000 and killed 70,000 people because they were born with some deformity or malfunction.

The Rockerfella institute funded the Nazi's eugenics programs.

Oh the joy of what science can achieve. :sarcastic

 

[Me Myself]

Science can do a lot of harm too. Hitler used the science of eugenics (imported from America) to kill many innocent people simply to elimination them from the chain of heredity. He sterilized over 400,000 and killed 70,000 people because they were born with some deformity or malfunction.

The Rockerfella institute funded the Nazi's eugenics programs.

Oh the joy of what science can achieve. :sarcastic

Science is pretty mich a knife. You can use it to put butter on your toast or shut someone up the bad way.

In any case, I thi it's ridiculous to start debating wheter science is good or not. Science is knowledge. It is good if you use it for good, but in general, it is just good. KnOwledge opens your eyes. It s better than willfull denial. Closing the eyes of a yung one to science and its advances certainly is a terrible habit to give him/her.

 

[Skwim]

Science can do a lot of harm too. Hitler used the science of eugenics (imported from America) to kill many innocent people simply to elimination them from the chain of heredity. He sterilized over 400,000 and killed 70,000 people because they were born with some deformity or malfunction.

The Rockerfella institute funded the Nazi's eugenics programs.

Oh the joy of what science can achieve. :sarcastic

Not unlike the Christian religion and its list of "achievements."

 

[Pegg]

Science is pretty mich a knife. You can use it to put butter on your toast or shut someone up the bad way.

In any case, I thi it's ridiculous to start debating wheter science is good or not. Science is knowledge. It is good if you use it for good, but in general, it is just good. KnOwledge opens your eyes. It s better than willfull denial. Closing the eyes of a yung one to science and its advances certainly is a terrible habit to give him/her.

if the science is true and good, yes, i agree.

but if the science is biased and motivated by greed, power, politics, racism...then no, its not good.

Unfortunately, knowledge in the wrong hands leads to big trouble.

 

[Me Myself]

if the science is true and good, yes, i agree.

but if the science is biased and motivated by greed, power, politics, racism...then no, its not good.

Unfortunately, knowledge in the wrong hands leads to big trouble.

Well thats prettyuch what we are talking about. We are talking about aan undisputed fact of biology that has already helped medicine to save lifes thanks to it's discovery and continious better understanding.

 

[Pegg]

Well thats prettyuch what we are talking about. We are talking about aan undisputed fact of biology that has already helped medicine to save lifes thanks to it's discovery and continious better understanding.

still not worth putting our faith in

Science is not going to heal the world.... this ship is still sinking.

 

[Me Myself]

still not worth putting our faith in

Science is not going to heal the world.... this ship is still sinking.

Good, because I am not talking abut faith. i am talking about confirmed, not "just believe without evidence" but tons and tons of evidence.

There is no biologist that disputes this while not having a religious agenda. Doesnt this tell you anything? Because it should.

 

[Pegg]

Good, because I am not talking abut faith. i am talking about confirmed, not "just believe without evidence" but tons and tons of evidence.

There is no biologist that disputes this while not having a religious agenda. Doesnt this tell you anything? Because it should.

i think you are wrong on that point... some biologists do believe in creation and they believe in it because of the science. We publish many articles from scientists who have become believers...and they state their reasons for belief in a creator.

 

[Me Myself]

i think you are wrong on that point... some biologists do believe in creation and they believe in it because of the science. We publish many articles from scientists who have become believers...and they state their reasons for belief in a creator.

Could you give me names of people that started of as non belevers and then because of the biology became believers?

BTW you do must notice, that it is unlikely that there is no atheist biologist that can back up the claim. For startes it is imrtant to notice that science does not currently know how species came to be or how life came to be. They have acknowledged this. Evolution is not at all in oppositin of creationism per se. A lot of peoe elieve in both.

So there is really no reason why an atheist biologist shodnt be able to back up the claim thatacro evolution has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. One in all the world at least. Do you hae one single name for that?

(Forgive the terrible spelling, I blame my I pad)

 

[Pegg]

Could you give me names of people that started of as non belevers and then because of the biology became believers?

BTW you do must notice, that it is unlikely that there is no atheist biologist that can back up the claim. For startes it is imrtant to notice that science does not currently know how species came to be or how life came to be. They have acknowledged this. Evolution is not at all in oppositin of creationism per se. A lot of peoe elieve in both.

So there is really no reason why an atheist biologist shodnt be able to back up the claim thatacro evolution has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. One in all the world at least. Do you hae one single name for that?

(Forgive the terrible spelling, I blame my I pad)

here is a recent interview with a biochemist in last months awake magazine.

She went from being a non-believer to a believer and explains why.

 

[Me Myself]

here is a recent interview with a biochemist in last months awake magazine.

She went from being a non-believer to a believer and explains why.

While I appreciate the link ) ) she is not talking at all about macro evolution.

Have you found a single atheist biologist who talks about macro evolution not having been correctly evidenced yet? Like in e while world? A single name?

Because that shuld newsflash around the internet

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What I personally appreciate about science is that it has no ego. It doesn't seek to be right. It looks for what is, what works, and how. It does so by testing, by obersvation, by review over and over and over again, and by convening with other people looking at the same thing you are. And because of that, we are able to compile all from our sensory experiences into tools, medicine, transportation, and communication. We're able to be like trackers, who look at tracks in the mud left by an animal, and begin to tell a story based on information left behind. We're able to solve crimes and establish justice based on evidence and the scientific method, and not on superstition.

This method has allowed us to evolve from using pencils to write to the computers everybody in this thread is using today. This method has given us medicine for infectious diseases, including immunizations against diseases like measles and polio. This method has given us prosthetics for amputees, cars and planes for travel, hearing aids for people losing their hearing, and eyeglasses for people with bad eyesight.

Without science utilized in the public sector, we'd still be blaming evil spirits for sickness instead of the knowledge we've gained through evolutionary theory. Galileo would still be a heretic. The Earth would still be flat. The sun would go around the Earth. Women who dared have warts on them would be burned at the stake for witchcraft.

But the problem lies in the ego-grasping some religious thought impose on the debate. Meaning, "If science is ever right about some they say contrary to my religious book, then it means my religious book is wrong. My religion can't ever be wrong, because then I'd be wrong, and then all is lost!"

This is what I most appreciate about science....it teaches us that it really really really is okay to be wrong, and that we can learn from our mistakes. It shows us in very concrete ways that we can grow and learn, especially from our mistakes.

 

[LuisDantas]

It must be reminded that evolutionism is not at all atheistic, nor is it particularly associated with atheism except in that atheists have little reason to attempt to deny it.

To the extent that Creationism or Evolutionism have any relationship to belief in God, it is only by Creationism's side.

 

[Father Heathen]

still not worth putting our faith in

Science is not going to heal the world.... this ship is still sinking.

So in conclusion willful ignorance is preferable to a desire to gain knowledge?

Yes, the savagery of ancient primitives will heal the world, never mind the damage that it has caused and inflicted over many millennia.

Also, science is not something that requires faith, anyways, since it is something that can confirmed by testing and observation. Take the computer sitting right in front of you, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_scientific_method

 

[dust1n]

Well, if science can't heal the world, at least it healed my mom. That's more than some mystical creatures in the sky claim to be able to do.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well, if science can't heal the world, at least it healed my mom. That's more than some mystical creatures in the sky claim to be able to do.

Exactly. If it came to a medical emergency, most of these people denouncing science would rush to a hospital at the drop of the hat rather than rely upon their faith and prayer alone (and those that do, well, it never really ends well for them, now does it?)

 

[Koldo]

Personal opinions aside, to the extent that the consent of the governed and the laws created through that process allow for interference. In other words, if there are no legal grounds for claiming abuse, how parents raise their children is none of our business. By and large, American forms of governance do not interfere with how parents raise their children, except in cases of obvious and clear abuse.

And what is being debated over is exactly whether teaching creationism counts as child abuse. So if it is child abuse, it is their ( our ) business.

Violation of personal freedoms and liberties is a no-no in this country. Additionally, I'm fairly sure organizations like the ACLU would call foul on anyone trying to claim that bringing a child up in a religious tradition is "abuse" and that therefore, the child should be taken from their parents. That kind of religious favoritism is a no-no in a secular nation. That's not to say it doesn't happen anyway, but it's not supposed to.

Not simply bringing up a child on a religious tradition. That's a misrepresentation of the situation.

"Oh, you're going to teach your children Bible-based literalistic creationism? Well, we're going to take your kids from you now, because you're abusing them."

That won't fly in this country. The day it does will be the same day we've tossed the Constitution out the window.

I agree that won't fly, but for a different reason. Simply because it would be impractical.

 

[Walkntune]

What I personally appreciate about science is that it has no ego. It doesn't seek to be right. It looks for what is, what works, and how. It does so by testing, by obersvation, by review over and over and over again, and by convening with other people looking at the same thing you are. And because of that, we are able to compile all from our sensory experiences into tools, medicine, transportation, and communication. We're able to be like trackers, who look at tracks in the mud left by an animal, and begin to tell a story based on information left behind. We're able to solve crimes and establish justice based on evidence and the scientific method, and not on superstition

Its at least as guilty as the Gun, or the Bible.They don't have egos either.More people have been killed in wars from the advancement of science than from any other means. Evil comes from the heart of man.

 

[dust1n]

Exactly. If it came to a medical emergency, most of these people denouncing science would rush to a hospital at the drop of the hat rather than rely upon their faith and prayer alone (and those that do, well, it never really ends well for them, now does it?)

Oh well, at least we still have this to look forward to...

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Planck

 

[Father Heathen]

Its at least as guilty as the Gun, or the Bible.They don't have egos either.More people have been killed in wars from the advancement of science than from any other means. Evil comes from the heart of man.

Science is an objective tool for gathering and examining data, wheres the bible conveys the dark hearts of those who pinned it, negatively influencing the susceptible.