Vote for Creationism or Evolutionism or Both for Schools to Teach?

[zookeeper4321]

Your post is self-contradictory. Intelligent design *is* religion... Despite that, though, you think it should be presented and taught in schools? That doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]



Well, I'm old and ID was not around when I was in school. My main point is none of it belongs. I happen to know that they will not quit teaching it though. Being that it will be taught I believe nothing should be presented as the only possibility. I didn't mean to imply that these theories should be explained or explored in detail. My science teacher simply said there are four major theories as to how the world began. 1. Evolution- started at cellular level and became human. 2. Creation- God made world and man. 3. Big bang theory- World was formed in space by external forces. I honestly don't remember what 4 was. I just don't want someone to contradict in school what parents are teaching at home. In my day if you believed in evolution you did not believe that God existed. I have chosen for very personal reasons not to believe in God anymore. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't. I don't believe religion hurts anything. Children who are brought up in church are more likely to have good morals. I just believe that the bible contradicts itself. (see Age of Reason-Thomas Paine)

 

[Teresh]

It's from the dictionary online. Check it out.

What dictionary? Our dictionaries seem to conflict in this regard. Link?

God exists. So these kids deserve to know Him more and learn both ways and decide it for themselves. Is that simple?

How do you know God exists? I know your religion teaches you that God exists, but have you met God? Has/have he/she/it/they spoken to you personally? If not, you can't be sure God exists. Religion exists to explain what science and experimentation can't. That's what religion is, it is what religion has always been and will always be.

Saying that God exists is an assumption. It may be correct, it may be incorrect. I think it is correct, but there are people who disagree with that. And while I think they are wrong, that doesn't give me the right to impose my beliefs on them, force them to either accept my beliefs or fail out of school. Regardless, it's an assuption. Scientific experimentation requires making no assumptions. Assuming that God exists is therefore not a basis on which to structure a scientific curriculum.

You and I have no control in what they can teach or not in schools. You and I know that. It's up to all of these americans to decide.

Um, yes we do have some measure of control. It's called voting.

accepted? These scientists just accepted the evolution theory as a fact. Still they have NO irrefutable evidence with them. If they did, it would be all well-known fact that would be a big headline .. so why didn't we all get that already (??) BECAUSE it's still declared a theory by all of us non-scientists, however. Rather they have to say it to cover up it up because they have to save their red faces. Comprende?

You once again misdefine "theory"... You are right. There is no irrefutable evidence supporting evolution, but that is because the law of science is that no evidence is irrefutable. So refute it. Perform an experiment and present your procedure and results. If you can't do that, then you can't refute a theory.

That evolution has and continues to occur is an accepted scientific fact - NOT a theory.

You've obviously not read a single thing I've posted in this thread, and yet you deride me as if you know better than I do.

You're not going to get your argument respected if you don't read what your opponents post, and you're certainly not going to get your argument respected when you attack people that agree with you. I've posted no objection to anything you've said, and yet you've attacked me. Excuse me, but no one is going to agree with you if you assault those in your own camp.

Not all Protestants are biased against Catholics--some of us just have issues with the Vatican.

You'll have trouble finding American Catholics who like the Vatican... :roll: Seriously, I just observe that many Protestants seem to think Catholicism isn't really Christianity or doesn't read the Bible or whatever, neither of which are true. (Heh, it's funny when Anglicans and Episcopals say it, when they're almost exactly the same!)

 

[Rose Immortal]

You'll have trouble finding American Catholics who like the Vatican... :roll: Seriously, I just observe that many Protestants seem to think Catholicism isn't really Christianity or doesn't read the Bible or whatever, neither of which are true. (Heh, it's funny when Anglicans and Episcopals say it, when they're almost exactly the same!)

And the Left Behind series hasn't helped with the misconceptions, some of which could potentially get dangerous if taken far enough.

You're right about American Catholics not liking the Vatican. The ones I've known seem to let half of what the Vatican says go in one ear and out the other. That sometimes includes American priests.

 

[MorriganTait]

There is no irrefutable evidence supporting evolution

Actually, there is. When scientists first started to discuss evolution, there may not have been, and many of us may base what we know on science of over a century ago, but since we have now observed evolution of organisms in the lab, uncontrovertible evidence now exists.

 

[Teresh]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp

One of the weakest essays ever written and I've had the displeasure of reading. My thoughts below:

In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”

Dr. Menton's statements rather clearly show that he is not a scientist.

But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

Cell biology. Genetic engineering. Gene therapy. DNA-based microprocessors (see below). Mass-production of organic chemicals. Pesticides. I can list more if you'd like.

Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

Actually, evolution is very important in understanding how plants and animals function. Evolution is how we understand the differences between different organisms and why some are better at some things than others. Evolution is necessary in understanding how some experimental computers work. An IBM subsidiary in Japan a few years ago demoed a computer they had developed which used a microprocessor which was essentially a genetically-engineered organism, which is something that only understanding evolution would have allowed us to make.

How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?

This has what, exactly, to do with the topic? The two things are unrelated.

Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.

Interesting that one would cite Kepler and Newton as if they were opposed to Darwin. It just so happens that they both died many years before Darwin was even born. (Kepler died over a century before Darwin was born, Newton died 82 years before Darwin was born). As for Maxwell, read this.

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists.

There was nothing in the essay supporting this statement. Being able to list people who claim to be scientists (but are not, due to not following the scientific method) is not evidence of anything.

And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.

Point being? What does this have to do with anything?

On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver?

If the universe had no order, it would not exist. The fact that it does exist is evidence enough that there is order. Asking why there is order is not a part of science. Science is asking what that order is, what are the laws that guide the universe. Asking why is a matter of religion.

If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate?

Because we have implemented the controls that are within our power and performed experiments within the confines of those controls. Stating that humans aren't capable of being logical or intelligent without the providence of a deity is just hatred of humanity and a belief that humans are fundamentally helpless.

This statement essentially confirms the basis of the entire essay, which is inherently flawed and has no basis in Scripture: Human life has no value and humans are inherently stupid and incapable of learning.

 

[RedFox]

accepted? These scientists just accepted the evolution theory as a fact. Still they have NO irrefutable evidence with them. If they did, it would be all well-known fact that would be a big headline .. so why didn't we all get that already (??) BECAUSE it's still declared a theory by all of us non-scientists, however. Rather they have to say it to cover up it up because they have to save their red faces. Comprende?

Who said that they just accepted it? They accepted that evolution happened based on the tons of evidence for it. What they talk about is which theories of evolution fit well with the evidence found so far.

There is no such thing as evidence that can be considered positively inrefutable. We never know when we could find something that would make us change what theories we use to explain evolution.

Non-scientists saying that evolution is just a theory to dismiss it are not using the same meaning of the word theory as the scientists who have scientific theories of evolution. The different meanings had been explained in other posts.

If evolution is dismissed like this by some non-scientists because of them thinking that theories are mere guesses, then why not dismiss theories of gravity? There are more than one theories of gravity, such as Newton's theory and general relativity.

If evolution is discarded from biology classes, why not discard relativity and quantum theory from physics classes too? If people didn't learn about relativity, they won't know why black holes are black and why they must correct for relativistic effects with GPS. If they didn't learn about quantum mechanics, they won't know about the basic building blocks of the universe and would not know about how those interact to enable things like electronic components in their computers to work, why the sun is able to fuse hydrogen despite their cores being too cool for classic physics to allow it and the nature of the electrons in atoms allowing for interesting chemistry.

If kids didn't learn about evolution, they would not know what scientists had learned, from the tons of evidence, about how life had developed and adapted. Evolution is what ties together biology because it involves genetics, study of phenotypes and relationships between species, past and present, and how those had developed. A theory that can tie together all of biology is very powerful. Creationism doesn't even begin to do that.

Evolution also gets involved with how species and ecosystems had been influenced by the environment over geological time. So it ties in with geology, paleoclimatology, paleogeography as well as paleontology. There are also connections to other areas of science such as chemistry, physics and astronomy because genetic materials are chemical compounds that can be affected by chemical and physical processes leading to mutations and because things from up there like asteroids can influence the course of evolution. Chemical and physical processes are also used as tools to gather evidence that supports evolution, with chemsitry being used for genetics and physics being used for radioactive dating. Many observations and measurements from many fields of science point to the same thing, evolution has happened. Does creationism even try to make connections with other areas of science? Does it have evidence from many sources converge to the same conclusion about creation? I'm sure that some creationists already tried, so I'd like to see what claims they make.

The sciences are all connected in some way or another. I don't see religion doing that unless there is a study *of* religions, something that anthropologists could do, althrough it won't be the religions themselves making the connections. Biology a field of science, so teach biology, not religion. Save the religions for social studies classes. In social studies classes, religions can be studied, compared and constrasted, but none can be taught as the One and Only Truth.

 

[MorriganTait]

You've obviously not read a single thing I've posted in this thread, and yet you deride me as if you know better than I do.

I have neither derided you, nor attacked you, simply corrected what I feel is a fallacy in your argument in support of evolution, and I have provided reference to support this. This is not meant in anyway as a personal affront to you, simply a clarification. When those of us who support evolution agree to use the terminology "theory" we have already lost part of the battle, so-to-speak. That evolution is an accepted scientific fact, frankly, isn't even debatable. That certain modes of evolution still remain the matter of theory is certainly worth discussing. None of this, however, negates the fact that evolutionism is an accpeted premise of most related scientific study, and Creationism, and ID have yet to meet any criteria to be considered a science.

 

[Teresh]

When those of us who support evolution agree to use the terminology "theory" we have already lost part of the battle, so-to-speak. That evolution is an accepted scientific fact, frankly, isn't even debatable.

The failure of people who do not understand the meaning of "theory" (or worse, try to change the definition to suit their agenda) is not the fault of the people who do understand it. As people who do understand what the term means, given that there are people who do not understand it, it is our responsibility to use it properly in contrast to whose who use it improperly, so as to educate them on the correct definition of the term. It is not our fault if they neglect to comprehend this, as they probably do not understand reason or logic either.

 

[MorriganTait]

The failure of people who do not understand the meaning of "theory" (or worse, try to change the definition to suit their agenda) is not the fault of the people who do understand it. As people who do understand what the term means, given that there are people who do not understand it, it is our responsibility to use it properly in contrast to whose who use it improperly, so as to educate them on the correct definition of the term. It is not our fault if they neglect to comprehend this, as they probably do not understand reason or logic either.

I agree - it's important for us to point out when the term is being misused or misdefined. That's all I did.

 

[MorriganTait]

Just For Laughs

New emblem for the car?

 

[Endymion]

I am struck at the despair of validating our own existence through mere words. There are people who can attain awareness and they are to be envied, I guess, since they feel something akin to ultimate orgasms in experiencing it. THEY do not have any doubts or questions about it. Awesome.

If I may ask, who are they?

 

[Rose Immortal]

...why they must correct for relativistic effects with GPS...

Gonna venture...

:topic:...

Whoa, seriously? I woulda thought the Earth was too small of a scale for that!

If you want, PM me so as not to clog this thread up further...

 

[Beowulf]

If I may ask, who are they?

Dang, Endymion, I am floored.
Thought you knew about Samadhi.
Goodness knows I did not expect you to have EXPERIENCED it, just know about it at least.
No one knows what I am talking about.
NOW what do I do?

 

[Endymion]

Dang, Endymion, I am floored.
Thought you knew about Samadhi.

Sadly I don't know everything. In fact, I got outsmarted by a rock yesterday. I went up to it and it said, "Word up, homeboy. Got the stash?"

I told the rock I had absolutely no idea what it was talking about. Confounded thing knew more than me.

Then I ate the rock. It tasted delicious, albeit somewhat calcified.

 

[Beowulf]

Sadly I don't know everything. In fact, I got outsmarted by a rock yesterday. I went up to it and it said, "Word up, homeboy, got the stash?"

I told the rock I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. Confounded thing knew more than me.

Then I ate the rock. It tasted delicious, albeit somewhat calcified.

Lol, careful with your thoughts. They are true somewhere.

 

[ayala920]

Sadly I don't know everything. In fact, I got outsmarted by a rock yesterday. I went up to it and it said, "Word up, homeboy. Got the stash?"

I told the rock I had absolutely no idea what it was talking about. Confounded thing knew more than me.

Then I ate the rock. It tasted delicious, albeit somewhat calcified.

Wow, Endy. Just, wow.

 

[me_punctured]

Sadly I don't know everything. In fact, I got outsmarted by a rock yesterday. I went up to it and it said, "Word up, homeboy. Got the stash?"

I told the rock I had absolutely no idea what it was talking about. Confounded thing knew more than me.

Then I ate the rock. It tasted delicious, albeit somewhat calcified.

You have poor hygiene skills, Endymion. Did you not bother to stop and wash the rock before you ate it? Many animals wipe their feet off rocks and even urinate on them. What kind of rock did you eat? Do you still have all of your teeth?

 

[Endymion]

You have poor hygiene skills, Endymion. Did you not bother to stop and wash the rock before you ate it? Many animals wipe their feet off rocks and even urinate on them. What kind of rock did you eat? Do you still have all of your teeth?

You forget. I'm not human in the traditional sense. I'm a member of Endymionius Megalomaniacus. We are meticulously crazy, we have super-solid bones, and we think rocks are as nutritious as fish. Plenty of Omega-3 and Docosahexaenoic Acid.

Crunch. Crunch.

Oh darn. I have metamorphic rock breath! Now I should apply my sedimentary mouthwash. Gargle. Gargle. Ahhh.

 

[Cousin Vinny]

You forget. I'm not human in the traditional sense. I'm a member of Endymionius Megalomaniacus. We are meticulously crazy, we have super-solid bones, and we think rocks are as nutritious as fish. Plenty of Omega-3 and Docosahexaenoic Acid.

Do you like kryptonite? Care to be a 'reverse' Johnny Appleseed and eat up all the kryptonite gunk all over terra firma?

If you can do it and with my super speed powers, we could get rid of the earth of this scourge. Oh, just a friendly note; by the time you're ready to 'excrete' your intestinal possessions, be sure to do so in a lead-lined Port-O-Let strategically positioned over the waters above the Marinas Trench. And no, I will not be waiting outside.

Sincerely,
Your New Best Friend,
Superman!

 

[Teresh]

I'm a member of Endymionius Megalomaniacus.

For you Zelda fans out there, in Hyrule and Termina Endymionius Megalomaniacus roughly translates to Darunius Goronocus. True story.