# Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes



## Rich Parsons

Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes


----------



## RandomPhantom700

> The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.



Yes, because creationism in any way, shape, or form qualifies as a scientific theory.  

I was comforted by the fact that 68% of respondants on the poll to the side said no--then I realized it's the CNN webpage, and online polls mean nothing anyway.


----------



## Rich Parsons

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Yes, because creationism in any way, shape, or form qualifies as a scientific theory.
> 
> I was comforted by the fact that 68% of respondants on the poll to the side said no--then I realized it's the CNN webpage, and online polls mean nothing anyway.




Just another step towards the Christian Fundamentalist Country many of our populace and leaders think we need. You think the issues are bad about Gun and Abortion, just wait until we are debating which form of Christianity will be the model for the governmental recognized religion.

Talk about revolution. Religious wars are the some of the most bloodiest, in our history, and I for one think it would be a sad day. Yet, many beleive there should be more Morals in our society. Many believe that we should have better laws or more control over people or things. What about personal responsibility, and taking it once in a while. What about allowing techers the right to punish children with out loosing their jobs. We are raising genreations fo children who know no one can touch them. Who know that Mom and Dad will be there to take care of them always. Until they turn 18 and then do something, and now, the law will not allow them to go home, or for it to be sweeped under the rug.  How about teaching our children there are re-actions for their actions. That every cause has an effect.  If I am forced to bow my head to some other religion, then I believe this country will have failed. If my children were/are forced to follow the religion of others than that I just as bad if not worse. 

I do not think it is bad to have religion in your life if you choose to have it. Yet, my opinion is that if I am forced then, there will be a problem.

My opinions on this subject

 :asian:


----------



## heretic888

Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin are turning in their graves as we speak...


----------



## Rich Parsons

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin are turning in their graves as we speak...



Give me Liberty (* for religion and other important issues *) or give me Death!


----------



## Darksoul

-If it ever comes down to some group in power forcing religion, or religious view or morals on the United States, there will be a war, maybe not physical, but conflict is certain. And I for one, will not tolerate anyone forcing his or her view on me. You do have to fight for what you believe in. At the same time, realize the world won't be the same, and may even be worse. Kind of sad...


A---)


----------



## hardheadjarhead

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Yes, because creationism in any way, shape, or form qualifies as a scientific theory.




Are you sure you meant that?  If so, how do you justify it as a scientific theory?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888

> Are you sure you meant that? If so, how do you justify it as a scientific theory?



I think you misread Random's intentions, HHJH.


----------



## heretic888

> -If it ever comes down to some group in power forcing religion, or religious view or morals on the United States, there will be a war, maybe not physical, but conflict is certain. And I for one, will not tolerate anyone forcing his or her view on me. You do have to fight for what you believe in. At the same time, realize the world won't be the same, and may even be worse. Kind of sad...



As this little incident in Wisconsin is demonstrating, all of that is already happening now...


----------



## AaronLucia

Creationism is just as important as Science, they are both held on faith.


----------



## heretic888

> Creationism is just as important as Science, they are both held on faith.



The difference is that creationism has nothing _but_ faith to back it up. Scientific theories like evolution have lots of empirical evidence to give grounding to their faith.

This is what in the common vernacular is referred to as "blind faith" --- i.e., faith without evidence or reason.

In any event, creationism has no place in a biology classroom. Not anymore than cultural relativism should be discussed in a geometry class.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Oh, well. 

Looking forward to:

1. Teaching that homosexuals will all get AIDS, die, and burn in hell for their opposition to Leviticus in sex ed classes;

2. Revisionists teaching history classes that a) the Indians deserved what they got, what with being primitives and all; b) the Holocaust never happened; c) the world will end soon, these being the End Times;

3) Forced home ec classes for girls, who need to be taught how to grow up and please their men;

4) The removal of subversive literature like, "Huckleberry Finn," and everything Judy Blume ever wrote from English classes;

5) Beginning every class in American Government or Civics with a revised Pledge, that will go like this: "I pledge my blood and honor to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Empire for which it stands, Ein Volk, under the First Fundamentalist Protestant Church of the One True Jehovah, with liberty and justice of a certain carefully selected group of wealthy white men."

After all, it's all just viewpoints based on faith.


----------



## Darksoul

-Tell us how you really feel. I couldn't help but notice your sarcasm. Education is such a cluter#!%* in this country anyways. Its hard to teach students about all the possiblities out there in the world, simply because of all the viewpoints that exist on all topics. Too much, too fast, the human freight train is out of control.


A---)


----------



## Rich Parsons

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Revisionists teaching history classes that a) the Indians deserved what they got, what with being primitives and all; b) the Holocaust never happened; c) the world will end soon, these being the End Times;



As to 2 a) I say Go Home White Man and give me back my land. I was here first.

2 b) That is already being taught be select groups in Germany. They point out to their kids that what is being taught in school is all wrong and forced on them by others. ** Read UN and USA **, Nothing to quote for sources, only I remember reading mutliple articles on this topic. 

2 c) This is the End, My one and only Friend the End.  ** The End by the Doors **


----------



## RandomPhantom700

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Are you sure you meant that? If so, how do you justify it as a scientific theory?


The inability to employ inflection over the internet does get annoying at times.  For clarification, my comment was sarcastic.  

Creationism is, in no way, shape, or form, a scientific theory.  Those who say that it is think that something is a "scientific theory" if all it does is explain stuff.  Science does that, but to qualify as a scientific theory, you need a hell of a lot more: a hypothesis, refutability, verification, all that stuff.


----------



## Rynocerous

I personally am a religious person.... er, um, but I don't go to church, I drink, I cuss, I use the Lord's name in vain, maybe I'm more spiritual. I personally don't like the fact that schools are trying to force this on children. Like posted earlier, creationism cannot be proven in any way shape or form. It hurts to say it because I am a firm believer in God, and christianity but I don't think it is right to "preach" that in school. It is soley based on faith. Some people rely on faith others on fact. School is for teaching fact, so I am opposed to this. Once again this is only my opinion.


Amen! LOL

Ryan


----------



## parmandjack

For all you who so vehemently voice your bias's couched as fact with regards to the creation of the world through evolution rather than by God, and who then state that "creationism" - is not real science, while evolution is.. I say this...

...lets make you you actaully understand what is being discussed... Science is either Operational, or Origin.... Evolutionary "science" is Origins, and has NOT been proven, and is based on a belief system by proponents of the faith. Creationism is also Origins based science, and as such, ahas as much "right" as a "theory" as the "theory" of evolution to be discussed in a classroom, where the Origins of life are being discussed... I have also provided excerpts from an article below.

Anti-creationists, such as atheists _by definition,_ commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a good scientific theory. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of prediction of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of science, it is therefore religion, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.
However, 

Many attempts to define science are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as what scientists do! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if contemporary scientists accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence. But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if its untestable.

The definition of science has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward: 

observation &#8594; induction &#8594; hypothesis &#8594; test hypothesis by experiment &#8594; proof/disproof &#8594; knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by blind faith (Bertrand Russells words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they dont even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as science. Its part of their own worldview, so they dont even notice. Creationists are up front about their acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, they recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

The important question is not Is it science? We can just define science to exclude everything that we dont like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

We take the side of science _in spite_ of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite _of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.1
​Now thats open-minded isnt it? Isnt science about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective scientific method, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.2
​So the fundamentally important question is, which worldview (bias) is correct?, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.

Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant. This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of coherency of truth. See The Religious Nature of Evolution. In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as science and creation as religion, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation. 

However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in todays Creationrepeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the pastunique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a time machine to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although Im sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly dont teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences. Organometallic chemist Dr Stephen Grocott, although having been through at least seven years of university training, later remarked [see The Creation Couple]:

Though Id been working as a scientist for 10 years, I really only learnt what science was through _Answers in Genesis_. Some of the things people call science are really outside the realms of science; theyre not observable, testable, repeatable. The areas of conflict are beliefs about the past, not open to experimental testing.
​Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past. 

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so.

Do you believe in Hot Water? 

Creationists have absolutely no problem with operational science, because the evidence drives operational science. It does not matter if you are a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, or an Atheist, pure water still boils at 100°C at sea level. However, the true Hindu might still think it is all an illusion, and some atheists embracing postmodernism espouse that truth is an illusion. However, origins science is driven by philosophy. Ones belief system is fundamental to what stories you accept as plausible. Now if the majority of practitioners of origins / historical science have the wrong belief system (materialism), then the stories they find acceptable will also be wrong. So a majority vote of contemporary scientists is hardly a good way to determine the validity of the respective stories. And origins science, or historical science, is essentially an exercise in story tellingLewontin alluded to this story telling in the quote above. See also Is it science?

*Define terms consistently!*

It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Lets be clear that we are discussing the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.3 Many, perhaps inadvertently, perform this switching definitions trick in alluding to mutations in bacteria as corroborating evolution. This has little to do with the belief that hydrogen changed into humans over billions of years. The key difference is that the GTE requires not just change, but change that _increases the information content of the biosphere_. See also this discussion.

Many evolutionists proffer mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (operational science) as being some sort of prediction of evolution (origins science). In fact, genetics (operational science) was an embarrassment to evolution, which is probably the major reason that Mendels pioneering genetics research went unrecognized for so many years (Mendels discovery of discrete genes did not fit Darwins idea of continuous unlimited variation). When mutations were discovered, these were seen as a way of reconciling Darwinism with the observations of operational sciencehence the neo-Darwinian synthesis of Mayr, Haldane, Fisher, etc. 

So, Darwinism never _predicted_ anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense. 

What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. See How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationistssee How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For a clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Poppers notion that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory is underlined by the many predictions of evolutionary theory that have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be likesee, for example, Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla. The evolutionist Gould has written at length on this conundrum.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Time and chance cant explain lifes amazing designget your answers here!*[/font]



*Not By Chance!* 
_Dr Lee Spetner_

Dr Spetner, an Israeli biophysicist and expert information theorist, has dealt a death-blow at the heart of the neo- Darwinian story. The crucial battle- ground has always been the origin of new genetic _information_. Spetner shows that random mutations plus natural selection are an inadequate explanation of the encyclopedic information content in living organisms. This book is a must for everyone who desires to defend the Bible in this increasingly educated society.See also the review by Dr Carl Wieland. MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE​
Contrary to evolutionists expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved _de novo_ origin of new complex genetic information (see the book _Not By Chance_ (right). In fact, evolution never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprisesee Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches exactly what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called chemical evolution. See Q&A Origin of Life for papers outlining the profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

*Falsified but not abandoned*

So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many its because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists its the only game in townthe only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialists creation myth. Its a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrichs worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

*Light in the darkness!*

Jesus Christ came as the light of the world (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature. He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just re-arranged pond-scum, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountableall of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness. See Heres the Good News.


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. The enemy of the Christian right-wing, as has often been pointed out, is the development of capitalism in the modern era. "Evolution," is merely the fall guy.

2. As a general rule, it is unwise to confuse a discourse larded with adjectives for actual analysis.

3. It is always extraordinary to see someone like Bertrand Russell used to support Protestant fundamentalist know-nothingism. (See? Adjectives. Shaky grounds.) It is always easier to call names ("the athetist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould,") than it is to look at reality.

4. A genuine intellectual response would involve something more than endless quotes which do not appear to be well understood by the quoter.

5. One continues to wonder what the Big Fear is, beyond the appropriate fear of modernity and social change. Is it the bit about the human race's origins in Africa, which means...that we're all...? Is it the continuation of the old Manichean hatred of material reality, which as Augustine pointed out long ago expresses a hatred of God's works? Is it an expression of a long-standing anti-intellectualism in American society, that used to be tied to a declaration of intellectual independance from Europe but has now shriveled into this sort of stuff?


----------



## hardheadjarhead

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> The inability to employ inflection over the internet does get annoying at times.  For clarification, my comment was sarcastic.




Sorry for the misunderstanding.  That didn't seem right when I read it.  I should have known better  Spank me with a splintery wooden spoon.  Please.


Aaron...given that you think that science is based on faith, can you please explain to us in 500 words or less the idea of the scientific method?  Or did you skip school that day?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MGM

Parmandjack,

That is the longest post I have ever seen, took me 8 "page Down" keys to get through it, impressive.

The reason why Christian creationism should not be allowed in public schools? Because fanatical psycho Christians can not under stand and except that the world will and has survived and thrived without their belief's. Your last paragraph shows that perfectly, we must all accept your view only, must read your selected biblical passages and realize that our life is worthless without your god. 
The majority of Americans are Christian but the rest of the world is not but the majority of them had their ancestors forced to be. If a religion needs to spread by force it must be missing something fundamental or people would simply see it as a good choice and convert. If a religion that is very new in the scheme of world religions is incapable of acknowledging that other religions have existed before it and still do now how can it claim to have any gimlet of reality pertaining to it's theories of creation?

If Christian creationism is to be taught in schools than in fairness we need to add a few more, since you have proved that creationism is a science than others are also. I would like to see Roman, Greek, Norse and since we are dealing with a US school several of the Native American stories of creation should be added also maybe we can organize them by region North New England states learn the Mi'kmaq the Dakotas learn the Lakota myth and so on. There are hundreds more that could be taught but we will have to limit ourselves somehow other wise kids would have to go to school until they are 30 just to learn them all.


----------



## Flatlander

> I would like to see Roman, Greek, Norse and since we are dealing with a US school several of the Native American stories of creation should be added also maybe we can organize them by region North New England states learn the Mi'kmaq the Dakotas learn the Lakota myth and so on. There are hundreds more that could be taught but we will have to limit ourselves somehow other wise kids would have to go to school until they are 30 just to learn them all.


 You know what?  That's not a half bad idea.  That may provide an interesting context for students to approach their own spirituality.  I like it.


----------



## MisterMike

So if it is not science, it shouldn't be taught in schools? Guess we can lop off history and literature too then.

Learning about Creationism does not create believers. And here I thought schools were about learning yet the secularists want to keep stuff out. Interesting.

I don't see how offering such a class as an elective is harmful to our youth.

What next, ban it from college too?


----------



## Feisty Mouse

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So if it is not science, it shouldn't be taught in schools? Guess we can lop off history and literature too then.
> 
> Learning about Creationism does not create believers. And here I thought schools were about learning yet the secularists want to keep stuff out. Interesting.
> 
> I don't see how offering such a class as an elective is harmful to our youth.
> 
> What next, ban it from college too?


It is being offered as science when it is not. That is the problem. There is a difference between a college person taking an elective class - on relgious studies, which I think is fascinating - rather than teaching a child who believes much of what he or she is told (from authority figures in school, for example) that creationism is science, when it is not. 

Telling kids who don't know enough to question authority that creationism is science is bunk - it is a lie. Does that mean I think religion is "bad"? Certainly not. But it is being "sold" as science in this case.  That devalues both.


----------



## rmcrobertson

What was described was not an, "elective," and nobody said anything--nor do they ever, it is worth noting--about banning religious ideas and even practices from schools.

What was described was imposing a right-wing, conservative Christian and ideological belief upon biology classes, where beliefs appear legitimately only as part of the process of their debunking.

One wonders why we laugh at Trofim Lysenko, who distorted Soviet biology for decades by forcing schools to teach the loony belief that acquired characteristics resulted in genetic changes, a belief that stemmed directly from Stalinist ideology.


----------



## MisterMike

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What was described was not an, "elective," and *nobody said anything--nor do they ever, it is worth noting--about banning religious ideas and even practices from schools.*



Really, so I guess you missed the part in that same article where it mentions:



> In March, the Ohio Board of Education narrowly approved a lesson plan that some *critics* contended opens the door to teaching creationism.



...or that whole little prayer in school thing. So who would these critics be? Little green men? You really needn't look far to see who's against even mentioning Creationism in the classroom. Try google for starters. Then have a look at your good ol' golden state.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One wonders why we laugh at Trofim Lysenko, who distorted Soviet biology for decades by forcing schools to teach the loony belief that acquired characteristics resulted in genetic changes, a belief that stemmed directly from Stalinist ideology.



Axly, one wonders why we laugh when the lefties distort their own agenda so much they get lost in it themselves. I guess Progressives see the U.S. "progressing" without religion in the classroom. Time to lump this one in with "There's no liberal biased media" and "We don't want your guns".   

UG..on that note, I was watching that putrid distortion of the highest office in the country, "American President" with Sheen, Foxx, Reiner and all the rest of the clowns. The crime prevention bill line had me rolling my eyes to the back of my head. "Yes, I want to get handguns and assault weapons off the streets, and if you don't, you are on the wrong side of crime!" blah blah blah....

I guess I'm on the wrong side of education, what with my trying to open doors and not close them. Funny you mention Stalinist Soviet Union, what with all the "correct" education they wanted everyone to have.

What an agenda - remove religion and all you have left is the State.


----------



## Flatlander

> What an agenda - remove religion and all you have left is the State.


 But it's not really "removing" religion, Mike.  Your fellow citizens would still have the right to choose and follow their own religious path. 

I feel that religious education is the responsibility of the parent, not the state.  I also believe that a human ought to be free to form their own opinion regarding their spirituality.  State endorsement of any particular religion is irresponsible, IMO.


----------



## MisterMike

Right, but it is not an endorsement, any more than they are endorsing Shakespear. It should just be allowed to be taught.

Oh and for "no attacks on creationism"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=4&u=/ap/evolution_debate


----------



## Flatlander

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Right, but it is not an endorsement, any more than they are endorsing Shakespear. It should just be allowed to be taught.


Absolutely, as long as they teach other creation stories besides just the Christian one, to keep things diverse and colorful.  They do teach Shakespeare, but they also teach Chaucer, Longfellow, and Plimpton.  (Well, they did at my school, anyways....)


----------



## PeachMonkey

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Right, but it is not an endorsement, any more than they are endorsing Shakespear. It should just be allowed to be taught.



Shakespeare isn't endorsed in a science class, and nor should creationism.


----------



## MisterMike

Well no kidding.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So if it is not science, it shouldn't be taught in schools? Guess we can lop off history and literature too then.
> 
> Learning about Creationism does not create believers. And here I thought schools were about learning yet the secularists want to keep stuff out. Interesting.
> 
> I don't see how offering such a class as an elective is harmful to our youth.
> 
> What next, ban it from college too?



If it isn't science--which they pass it off as with the phrase "Creation science", then it shouldn't be taught in science classes.  

You want to teach it as an elective when we have P.E. classes cut across the nation and an obesity epidemic among our children?  We lag in the sciences and math among developed nations and you want to teach this?

Those that WANT creationism are teaching it to their children anyway.  They want it offered as a way of cutting the legs out from mainstream scientific theories of development and as a way of evangelizing their fundamentalist beliefs. 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888

Mike, the whole _point_ of our criticisms here is that "creationism" (which would better be called "Fundamentalist Protestant Religious Beliefs on the Origin of Life") has no place in a biology classroom. It is not scientific in the slightest, and has no biological content to back up its claims.

And. c'mon, let's be honest now ---- when these guys are touting "creationism", they aren't talking about a general idea of the myriad variety of creation myths the world over (whether its the Yanomami's idea that we were born when a spear hit the moon, or the Navaho idea that we're on the back of a giant turtle, or the Hindu idea that the world was originally a giant eggshell). Nope, they're talking specifically and exclusively about the creation myth of _their_ religion.

No matter how you attempt to rationalize or justify it, this is just another attempt by the Religious Right to force-feed their religion down everyone else's throats. One could ask why they are so freakishly frightened, so amazingly scared, of competition. Could it actually be that their religious pronouncements are so absurd that you literally have to force people to listen to them??


----------



## heretic888

Sorry. Double-post.


----------



## Makalakumu

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Give me Liberty (* for religion and other important issues *) or give me Death!



In a way, as a teacher of science, I don't have a problem with holding both theories up to the light.  I think the weight of evidence will bury creationism and end the debate by rejecting it as a theory.  Occum's Razor anyone?


----------



## Makalakumu

parmandjack said:
			
		

> Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of prediction of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions.



Well, what does creationism have to say regarding antibiotic resistance?  I agree with you, Jack.  Creationism is a theory.  Lets put both _theories _ to the test and see which one emerges the winner.


----------



## heretic888

Personally, I think its a bit of a stretch to call "creationism" a _theory_.


----------



## Makalakumu

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One continues to wonder what the Big Fear is, beyond the appropriate fear of modernity and social change. Is it the bit about the human race's origins in Africa, which means...that we're all...? Is it the continuation of the old Manichean hatred of material reality, which as Augustine pointed out long ago expresses a hatred of God's works? Is it an expression of a long-standing anti-intellectualism in American society, that used to be tied to a declaration of intellectual independance from Europe but has now shriveled into this sort of stuff?



Robert, you hit the nail on the head with this.  I am only inversing your responses.  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The enemy of the Christian right-wing, as has often been pointed out, is the development of capitalism in the modern era. "Evolution," is merely the fall guy.



The christian right reads the same bible I read.  They have found themselves in a philosophical contradiction that will land them "in hell" so they blame it on evolution.  You know, its evolution that makes our society into the "_every*man* for *him*self_" mess we see today.


----------



## Makalakumu

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So if it is not science, it shouldn't be taught in schools? Guess we can lop off history and literature too then.
> 
> Learning about Creationism does not create believers. And here I thought schools were about learning yet the secularists want to keep stuff out. Interesting.
> 
> I don't see how offering such a class as an elective is harmful to our youth.
> 
> What next, ban it from college too?



I took a class as an undergrad in which a creationism expert and an evolution expert presented their theories side by side.  I'm not sure how appropriate it would be in a high school curriculum considering the develepmental states of teenagers, but I am personally not afraid of this comparison.


----------



## Makalakumu

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I think its a bit of a stretch to call "creationism" a _theory_.



I think we have to.  There is a huge group of people in this country who are begging for debate.  They have political power.  I say give it to em...Ask and you shall receive...but maybe not what you were asking for.


----------



## rmcrobertson

One supposes that it would be perfectly all right to teach "creationism," in any class dealing with mythology, its origins, and its debunking. 

This might include a science class, assuredly, since the proper approach would be to discuss "creationism," as an excellent illustration of a) pre-scientific thought, b) a fundamentally-different approach to reality than the scientific; c) a good key to present opposition to a rational world-view.

However, one doubts that the creationists types would be content with merely including their beliefs in any such fashion, since their point is clearly to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats and save America from godlessness and hell.


----------



## Rich Parsons

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Right, but it is not an endorsement, any more than they are endorsing Shakespear. It should just be allowed to be taught.
> 
> Oh and for "no attacks on creationism"
> 
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=4&u=/ap/evolution_debate




Mike,

Here is the catch. The Catholics I know will not let there children learn about Christianity form someone who is not ordained by their religion. They will not allow them to even go to Young Life which is a non denominational Christian organization, for they might say a prayer or something, or get non approved propaganda oh I mean infomration. 

So, you see all the people are assuming that it will be their version that is being taught. So, now when it is not, we will have people pulled just like sex ed, and people protesting that their child is being corrupted, and this is from Christians. It just will not work logistically. You open the preverbial Pandora's Box and you need to then let everything out to be fair to all, to avoid hurting peoples religious views.

I put this in the same theory/category of when the "Church" denied the world was round and other such heresies of science. 

Would you like your child to also learn about ancestor spirits and totems? How about re-incarnation? It is a door best left closed, yet, open and fail and see the ACLU jump in and represent someones rights being violated. Establish more laws of what cannot be done, when the Bill of Rights does a good job if you just follow it. If you truly want your child to learn about creationism then teach them or send them to a private school.

Peace


----------



## MisterMike

Rich, of course there will be discrepencies, I'm not voting for one version or the other. Maybe an introductory course would teach about all denominations.

Robert, Heretic, I see a lot of fear and anxiety in your supposition that this is all a fundamentalist brainwashing attempt. (Sorta like "them fags want to convert my kid too")

Hardhead, I don't think this is intended to replace gym. Touch football and dodgeball classes will remain in tact. Electives are usually taken by kids with ambition, not the obese potatoe-chip eating video-gamers. I hardly see a threat to the overskilled and underpaid phys. ed. teachers (who are generally more obese then their students).

My, my, how the world would fall apart if our kids learned anything new. YA see, the thing is, it's my tax dollars too and if I and well, 50+% of the rest of the country would like a class on Creationism in public schools well, kinda like the Democrats this election, the opposition has a bit of a problem.


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Rich, of course there will be discrepencies, I'm not voting for one version or the other. Maybe an introductory course would teach about all denominations.
> 
> Robert, Heretic, I see a lot of fear and anxiety in your supposition that this is all a fundamentalist brainwashing attempt. (Sorta like "them fags want to convert my kid too")
> 
> Hardhead, I don't think this is intended to replace gym. Touch football and dodgeball classes will remain in tact. Electives are usually taken by kids with ambition, not the obese potatoe-chip eating video-gamers. I hardly see a threat to the overskilled and underpaid phys. ed. teachers (who are generally more obese then their students).
> 
> My, my, how the world would fall apart if our kids learned anything new. YA see, the thing is, it's my tax dollars too and if I and well, 50+% of the rest of the country would like a class on Creationism in public schools well, kinda like the Democrats this election, the opposition has a bit of a problem.


Which rib do you suppose god created woman from ?


----------



## MisterMike

The spare rib?  :idunno: (nyuk nyuk)


----------



## Makalakumu

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Which rib do you suppose god created woman from ?



The _left _ one, isn't it obvious!  Heck, I learned that after my first year married...


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> The spare rib?  (nyuk nyuk)


Not Good Enough.

If we are going to teach this information, we are going to have to agree upon a curriculum.



> 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And *the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman*, and brought her unto the man.


Further, why is there not a 'space' left over in the human male, from where the LORD God took the rib? Where could it have been? Why doesn't woman have one more rib than man?

Waiting patiently for a serious answer.


----------



## Makalakumu

MisterMike said:
			
		

> My, my, how the world would fall apart if our kids learned anything new. YA see, the thing is, it's my tax dollars too and if I and well, 50+% of the rest of the country would like a class on Creationism in public schools well, kinda like the Democrats this election, the opposition has a bit of a problem.



Here is the deal, Mike.  If this _theory _ was more widely taught, I seriously think it would backfire.  Sure evolution is a theory too, but if you attempt to hold them both side by side, there really is no comparison.  No body would believe in creationism anymore.  

That is why creationism textbooks strive NOT to do this.  They put forth many of the same arguments that Parmandjack posted.  They talk about the philosophy of science and really argue determinedly that creationism _is _ a theory.  Yet, when it comes down to the simple nuts and bolts of observation the books I've seen are pretty threadbare.

Take the example of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.  This example appears in many creationist textbooks and they use it to show a point that microevolution exists, but not macro.  So, I hope you can see that creationism, at the very least, isn't offering much new.

The things that it does offer are as follows...

1.  A catastrophist view of plate tectonics in which the continents _float _ on water.  This water escapes through cracks in the earth, causing the continents to fall and buckle where they strike each other.  Not only is this just a modification of the old defunct geosyncline theory, it also has no real explanation of how the water got underneath the continents.

2.  The great flood was caused by an atmospheric event in which vast quantities of water vapor were absorbed by a warmer earth.  This gas rich primordial atmosphere was the reason that people in the old testament were able to live so long...hundreds of years in fact.  Then, the _Hand of God_ intervened and the earth cooled.  The rains started and hence, the great flood.  They claim that the existence of the grand canyon provides support for this theory.

So, as you can see, I have no doubt who will emerge the victor if both of these theories are held up side by side.  I also have no doubt that many of these same fundamentalists know this too...which is why they want to restrict people talking about evolution rather then teaching them side by side.  

In the end, you get a statist replacement of one _truth _ with _another_.  Reason is not involved in this process.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## heretic888

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Robert, Heretic, I see a lot of fear and anxiety in your supposition that this is all a fundamentalist brainwashing attempt.



And why not?? Religious myths have no place in a biology classroom.

I wonder if you would be so keen on the idea of teaching "creationism" to biology students if it wasn't _your_ religion's particular version?? Which, again, is what this all basically boils down to...


----------



## PeachMonkey

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Robert, Heretic, I see a lot of fear and anxiety in your supposition that this is all a fundamentalist brainwashing attempt. (Sorta like "them fags want to convert my kid too")



Actually, it's more like a couple of educated guys who have seen what happens when fundamentalists are given prevalence in society over science, reason, and freedom.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6749807&src=rss/topNews&section=news

_
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Lawyers for a Georgia school district and a group of parents clashed on Monday over the constitutionality of placing stickers that challenge the theory of evolution on textbooks. _ 


Gee.  Its just a poppin' up all over.

Interesting fact enclosed in the above article.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in public schools alongside evolution. 




Regards,


Steve


----------



## parmandjack

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One supposes that it would be perfectly all right to teach "creationism," in any class dealing with mythology, its origins, and its debunking.
> 
> This might include a science class, assuredly, since the proper approach would be to discuss "creationism," as an excellent illustration of a) pre-scientific thought, b) a fundamentally-different approach to reality than the scientific; c) a good key to present opposition to a rational world-view.
> 
> However, one doubts that the creationists types would be content with merely including their beliefs in any such fashion, since their point is clearly to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats and save America from godlessness and hell.


I'm just wondering whether or not you realize that all the "stuffing-beliefs-down-your-throat" kind of chatter that I'm reading here, is exactly what evolutionists are doing to everyone else?

Scientists the world over recognize evolution as a theory, only those who seem fanatical about it claim it is a fact.. and they are highlighted as wrong by other scientists who recognize that it is only a theory... As for your comments about creationism being -pre-scientific... do you not understand that science flourished in the Christian world? and is "brain-dead" in non-christian cultures? so.. I guess that sort of points you out as being wrong in your claim...

But the most striking thing I seem to have noticed, is not not many (if any) of you, seem to have taken the time to actually read my post in completion.. for it present many "facts", that your simply ignorance of, doesn't mean they are negated...

Take teh time to read the post, then address the points on it.. dont simply side step them... that doesn't seem very... "scientific" of you in your study...

With sincerity, 

Jack.


----------



## parmandjack

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Not Good Enough.
> 
> If we are going to teach this information, we are going to have to agree upon a curriculum.
> 
> 
> Further, why is there not a 'space' left over in the human male, from where the LORD God took the rib? Where could it have been? Why doesn't woman have one more rib than man?
> 
> Waiting patiently for a serious answer.


this is symantics of a sort... you are assuming that God created man with the exact same numebr of ribs that He eventualy gave to women... I can assume then, for the sake of this issue, that God gave Adam 1 extra rib to start with, which in turn hHe used to create women... couldn't I correct in my assumtion?

And since you are jumping to the conclusion that this assumed contradiction disproves Genesis immediately, can you tell me why there are no transitional types of fossils (amonsgt the billions of fossils that have been found), showing once-and-for-all exclusive proof of linkage from one form of life to another... lets say... oh...fish to amphibians... etc.. such as evolutionists claim?

Thanks.. waiting for a serious answer...


----------



## parmandjack

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> ... Interesting fact enclosed in the above article. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in public schools alongside evolution. Steve


...another interesting fact is that the supreme court ruled a number of years ago that it was ok for a women to murder her unborn child... soes that make them correct on that one also?


----------



## Flatlander

The thread Abortion Compromise addressed the abortion issues recently.


----------



## Mark Weiser

Let the seculsion begin Everyone should be home schooled to prevent interaction and when the children come out of the house at age 18 give them a club to bash in the heads of anyone that is not taught or think like they have been taught. 

A good quality education is well rounded and exposes the child to the world around them and to different points of views on myraid of subjects.  Hiding the children from certain ideas I belive stumps his or hers intellecutal devolpement.


----------



## heretic888

parmandjack said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering whether or not you realize that all the "stuffing-beliefs-down-your-throat" kind of chatter that I'm reading here, is exactly what evolutionists are doing to everyone else?



Ok, first off, let's get some terminology straight here: _evolutionism_ is the now-discredited theory of "unilinear" sociocultural evolution that was prevalent in anthropology during the 1800's (not to be confused with more contemporary and dynamic models of sociocultural evolution as seen in Habermas, Whitehead, and Wilber) --- before cultural anthropology as a discipline firmly took root. It in no way refers to proponents of the biological theory of evolution, which consists of pretty much 99% of the scientific community.

Secondly, among the half-dozen biology, chemistry, anatomy/physiology, and neuropsychology classes I have taken in both high school and college, not once have I ever heard the theory of evolution presented as unquestionable "fact" --- unlike the mythic absolutisms I always hear parroted by Protestant fundamentalist leaders. In fact, one of my professors went into quite some detail as to the nature of a "theory" in the scientific method, compared evolution to other existing theories, and suggested how evolution might one day be supplanted by a superior theory. However, "creationism" aint' it.

That same professor was also quite correct, in my opinion, in that the theory of evolution is only presently seriously questioned by religious circles. Not by the scientific community.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> Scientists the world over recognize evolution as a theory, only those who seem fanatical about it claim it is a fact.. and they are highlighted as wrong by other scientists who recognize that it is only a theory



Your qualifier of "only a theory" indicates you don't actually understand the nature of theories within the scientific method. Which, honestly speaking, comes as no big surprise.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> As for your comments about creationism being -pre-scientific... do you not understand that science flourished in the Christian world?



This, in fact, is not true. The stretch of time when the Christian Establishment had exclusive control of the Western world was termed the "Dark Ages". There was a reason for this --- all forms of education and literature were banned, for the most part. Similar, yet again, to what this same establishment is trying now with "creationism" (i.e., stamp out all other forms of intellectual competition).

It was only with the aptly-named Renaissance, and the later, even more auspicious Age of Reason (or Age of Enlightenment), that we see science truly taking hold as a formal institution. It was at this point in history that the Establishment lost its stranglehold on education and literature, that Christic theocracies increasingly gave way to democratic governorships, and that secular/humanistic philosophies along the lines of Rousseau began to see the light of day. It was no coincidence this all happened simultaneously (resulting in the eventual founding of the United States of America). 



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> and is "brain-dead" in non-christian cultures?



Yup. 'Cuz them heathens in India, China, Korea, and Japan have no scientific institutions or technologies whatsoever. Nope, nope, nope. 

Just ignore the fact that Japan in many ways kicks our collective asses in the tech-development department....



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> But the most striking thing I seem to have noticed, is not not many (if any) of you, seem to have taken the time to actually read my post in completion.. for it present many "facts", that your simply ignorance of, doesn't mean they are negated...



Its interesting that those "facts" have not passed the test of any peer-reviewed scientific panel. In fact, the only basis at all for you claiming that they are "facts" is because they happen to be by a scientist that agrees with your religious persuasion.

A note for the wise: just because you agree with an idea, a "fact" it does not make.

Heh. Laterz.


----------



## parmandjack

Flatlander said:
			
		

> The thread Abortion Compromise addressed the abortion issues recently.


my point was not to start talking about abortion... my point was simply to address the fact (as had been given) that simply because the supreme court sez something, doesn't make it right...


----------



## Mark Weiser

How dare you speak so openly aganist our governmental establishments. You maybe branded as a non-combatant by GBW himself. LOL!!!


----------



## parmandjack

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ok, first off, let's get some terminology straight here: _evolutionism_ is the now-discredited theory of "unilinear" sociocultural evolution that was prevalent in anthropology during the 1800's (not to be confused with more contemporary and dynamic models of sociocultural evolution as seen in Habermas, Whitehead, and Wilber) --- before cultural anthropology as a discipline firmly took root. It in no way refers to proponents of the biological theory of evolution, which consists of pretty much 99% of the scientific community.


umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated, they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...

nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Secondly, among the half-dozen biology, chemistry, anatomy/physiology, and neuropsychology classes I have taken in both high school and college, not once have I ever heard the theory of evolution presented as unquestionable "fact" --- unlike the mythic absolutisms I always hear parroted by Protestant fundamentalist leaders. In fact, one of my professors went into quite some detail as to the nature of a "theory" in the scientific method, compared evolution to other existing theories, and suggested how evolution might one day be supplanted by a superior theory. However, "creationism" aint' it.


...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"... while in "fact", quite a large number of people on all these threads stand in their proverbial "pulpits" hammering away that evolution is a fact based on solid science... while "creationism" isn't, or in your wording... "ain't it"... why is that? why is it that a piece of data examined by a scientist who believes in evolution and who reviews that data with his personal bias towards evolution, is given more credence than the results of a scientist who reviews the same piece of data, but determines that evidence contradicts the evolutionary theory and instead supports a "Creation" base?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> That same professor was also quite correct, in my opinion, in that the theory of evolution is only presently seriously questioned by religious circles. Not by the scientific community.


... well, i'm glad to see that you note this as your opinion, but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Your qualifier of "only a theory" indicates you don't actually understand the nature of theories within the scientific method. Which, honestly speaking, comes as no big surprise.


...oh... I see we are back to disparaging comments about the intellectual capacity, cognative abilities and logical skills of those who oppose your opinions and positions, this seems to be your back up plan in most of these strings regarding topics of this nature... what do you do in the dojo or on the street when you're beaten, call them names too?

Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...

Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> This, in fact, is not true. The stretch of time when the Christian Establishment had exclusive control of the Western world was termed the "Dark Ages". There was a reason for this --- all forms of education and literature were banned, for the most part. Similar, yet again, to what this same establishment is trying now with "creationism" (i.e., stamp out all other forms of intellectual competition)......


... well, you are corrert about the dark ages... but my original statement stands, regardless of your denial of it...

As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yup. 'Cuz them heathens in India, China, Korea, and Japan have no scientific institutions or technologies whatsoever. Nope, nope, nope.


...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Just ignore the fact that Japan in many ways kicks our collective asses in the tech-development department....


... who's denying facts (other than you and other evolutionists)... its a fact that soccer was originated in Scotland, its also a fact that golf originated in Scotland... are they the world champs these days? nope... thats also a fact... so what's your point? that was really a rhetorical question.. i'm not interested in your point.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Its interesting that those "facts" have not passed the test of any peer-reviewed scientific panel. In fact, the only basis at all for you claiming that they are "facts" is because they happen to be by a scientist that agrees with your religious persuasion.


.. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews.. however, secular dominated mag's simply refuse to publish opposing views from scientists who don't believe in evolution, I could inundate you with proofs, but you would simply dismiss them as you have all others...

...a note to you here would be to point out, since you dont seem to be aware of this, that not all scientists who disagree or refute evolutionism, believe in or are automatically aligned with creationism, or even consider themselves christian, or for that matter, support the bible... they simply dispute evolution as a workable theory because the facts prove otherwise...

... so with regard to your statement above that simply because facts agree with your position doesnt make them facts... take that lucid comment to heart and apply it to your own position... mirrors are wonderful things you know...



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> A note for the wise: just because you agree with an idea, a "fact" it does not make.


... he's right... but in his narrow minded bias doesnt understand its just as true when applied and used as a filter for his own proposed position.

Why are YOU (read evolutionists) so terrified about letting the theory of creation be taught in classrooms as an alternate to evolution?... if the theory of evolution was so rock solid, then it should be able to stand up to the light of public scrutiny of the supposed facts used to support it, as well as all the facts against it... wouldn't you agree? If however via this public scrutiny it cannot be proven as a valid theory, then obviously there must be some other explanation for our existance... hmmm... seems to me that thats what creationist theory is all about... and if held up to public scrutiny, shouldn't it (creationism) be destroyed as quickly as evolution once all the fact are displayed if it is in fact, "nonsense"?

It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are cramming their personal religious belief in an unproven theory down the throat of everyone else, while at the same time attempting to silence any other competing positions... not the bible believing fundamentalists... we are just trying to get a word in edgewise in a society rife with mini-gods and ACLU and activist judges etc... we can't have a sensible discussion when we're not allowed to present our side publically in the same environment eh?

 

...My two bits...


----------



## MisterMike

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Not Good Enough.
> 
> If we are going to teach this information, we are going to have to agree upon a curriculum.
> 
> 
> Further, why is there not a 'space' left over in the human male, from where the LORD God took the rib? Where could it have been? Why doesn't woman have one more rib than man?
> 
> Waiting patiently for a serious answer.



Well, I honestly didn't think we were going to decide on a curriculum today, but just agree there's no harm in teaching different religions in the school.

Incedentally, if you lost a finger on the job in an accident, and later your wife had a child, would he have only 9 fingers?


----------



## michaeledward

parmandjack said:
			
		

> this is symantics of a sort... you are assuming that God created man with the exact same numebr of ribs that He eventualy gave to women... I can assume then, for the sake of this issue, that God gave Adam 1 extra rib to start with, which in turn hHe used to create women... couldn't I correct in my assumtion?
> 
> And since you are jumping to the conclusion that this assumed contradiction disproves Genesis immediately, can you tell me why there are no transitional types of fossils (amonsgt the billions of fossils that have been found), showing once-and-for-all exclusive proof of linkage from one form of life to another... lets say... oh...fish to amphibians... etc.. such as evolutionists claim?
> 
> Thanks.. waiting for a serious answer...


I am making no assumptions. I am jumping to no conclusions. I am quoting from the 'Literal Word of God', that Woman was created from the 'rib' of man. I am trying to understand how when God took that rib, there was no space or gap left in man's anatomy. Also, I am not asking your assumptions for the sake of the argument. I would like a definative answer. There is a big difference between 'The Literal Word of God' and you 'assumptions'. One of which I can ascribe certainty. It is not a symantic argument. I am simply asking the questions any seven year old may ask. 

I will refrain from addressing the question onf 'linkages' in this thread. There is certainly enough science available for the questioning mind in that regard. Let us stay on the topic of Biblican Curriculum.


----------



## qizmoduis

OOPS, double post.


----------



## qizmoduis

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Absolutely, as long as they teach other creation stories besides just the Christian one, to keep things diverse and colorful.  They do teach Shakespeare, but they also teach Chaucer, Longfellow, and Plimpton.  (Well, they did at my school, anyways....)




Clarify that:  Creationism can be taught alongside other religious creation mythologies in a * comparative religion * (or something similar) class.  Just not in science.  Creationism, egyptian mythology, buddhism, etc., are not science and don't belong there.


----------



## qizmoduis

parmandjack said:
			
		

> my point was not to start talking about abortion... my point was simply to address the fact (as had been given) that simply because the supreme court sez something, doesn't make it right...




And simply because the christian bible or your local religious leader says something, also doesn't make it right.  The job of the supreme court is not to determine morality, but rather to determine whether or not a particular law is in agreement with the letter and principles of our constitution (among other things).


----------



## michaeledward

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, I honestly didn't think we were going to decide on a curriculum today, but just agree there's no harm in teaching different religions in the school.


Warning .... this post may actually border on thoughtful, and I was doing my best to avoid that in this thread.

I guess it would depend on where the 'religion' was being taught and what the goal of teaching 'religion' would be. 
Religion might have a place in a literature class. The Bible is one of the great sources of Western Liturature. We could also look to the 'Tora', 'Koran', 'I Ching' as liturature references.
Religion might have a place in a humanities class. Understand the different cultures of the world through their practices of religion is a powerful way to gain insights into the differences among societies. (See Huston Smith's 'The Religions of Man)
Religion might have a place in a history class. Showing how societies have implemented religion in to culture, and vice-versa.
Religion, however, has no place in the science classroom. Of this subject, there is no debate among even the most religious, such as 'The Pope' and 'The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury'. They believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Incedentally, if you lost a finger on the job in an accident, and later your wife had a child, would he have only 9 fingers?


If having 9 fingers in some way was advantageous for my survival, and if it gives me an advantage over the 10 fingered clods, then yes.


----------



## Makalakumu

parmandjack said:
			
		

> Take teh time to read the post, then address the points on it.. dont simply side step them... that doesn't seem very... "scientific" of you in your study...



I read your post.  The arguments are similar to what I've heard before...philosophical ramblings on the nature of science, for the most part.

For the sake of this discussion, I am willing to consider "creationism" a theory.  Lets try and interject a little more observation into this discussion.  Creationism explains things in its own way and so does evolution.  

Its time to put the money where the mouths are.  Let the proverbial, _you show me yours and I'll show mine_, contest begin.

 :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu

parmandjack said:
			
		

> I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.



Facts please...otherwise its just a philosophical pissing contest.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are cramming their personal religious belief in an unproven theory down the throat of everyone else, while at the same time attempting to silence any other competing positions... not the bible believing fundamentalists... we are just trying to get a word in edgewise in a society rife with mini-gods and ACLU and activist judges etc... we can't have a sensible discussion when we're not allowed to present our side publically in the same environment eh?



No body is banning anything here.  Present some creationist explanations and we'll see where it goes...


----------



## Mark Weiser

I wanted to suggest how about a quick post on the scientific method that way we have a basis in which to start the debate. 

Assumption(Basic) -- Hypothesis -- Test Hypothesis ( at this point you gather facts) -- Conclusion ( Reject, Modify, Accept) if accept you Expand or test further -- New Scientific Model or Theory.

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

This is the proper way we should test all things in life if we as intelligent beings will be intelligent lol!


----------



## michaeledward

This is not presented as Hypothesis. We don't need to trouble with that. We have the Bible. From Genesis chapters 1, 2, 3, & 4.


God Created Adam
God Created Eve from Adam's rib
Adam and Eve parented two sons, Cain and Abel.
Cain Killed Abel because God is more pleased with Abel's gifts.
Then Cain gets married ... but to whom? Who was Cain's wife; his mother or his sister?
And Cain's son Enoch builds a city ... population 4 (or is it 5) ... can you really call it a city? 
Just a few questions.


----------



## loki09789

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Yes, because creationism in any way, shape, or form qualifies as a scientific theory.
> 
> I was comforted by the fact that 68% of respondants on the poll to the side said no--then I realized it's the CNN webpage, and online polls mean nothing anyway.


No it is not, and if it were to be given 'equal time' in an educational model, it should be done in English class because it can be included in a "Diversity" unit on the beliefs/myths/philosophies from other cultures.  

I don't see anything wrong with this 'idea' as long as it isn't being taught in science class because it is not the correct content area for it.

Scientific theories in science class.  Philosophical/mystic views in 'theory' classes.  At the public school grades that really only leaves English/ELA class.  Even there, it should be done as a way of 'surveying' the different ways that people view the world and not a 'one way' view.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

loki09789:

As I told someone else, I meant what I said, at least the first part of that quote, to be sarcastic.  I really don't believe creationism to have any scientific value.  

I now know to make my use of sarcasm much more blatant when talking online.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Hi parmandjack, I'm not surprised to see you back here.

*umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated, they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...*

*nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God*

That is not the theory of evolution and natural selection, but thanks all the same. 

*...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"... while in "fact", quite a large number of people on all these threads stand in their proverbial "pulpits" hammering away that evolution is a fact based on solid science... while "creationism" isn't, or in your wording... "ain't it"... why is that? why is it that a piece of data examined by a scientist who believes in evolution and who reviews that data with his personal bias towards evolution, is given more credence than the results of a scientist who reviews the same piece of data, but determines that evidence contradicts the evolutionary theory and instead supports a "Creation" base?*

Two things:

1) In science, we rarely if ever say something is "proven". That is language that is based on faith. We show evidence which supports or does not support a theory.

2) You are trying to set up an imagined situation where two scientists disagree on where their personal biases lie. Science is a social/group effort, and it changes over time (although, as Mark has stated, the process of inquiry remains the same). If the vast majority of scientists can come to a consensus about evolutionary theory, that is our best bet for a good theory. 

Of course, this all makes people who want to find The One Truth very uneasy, since, of course, "the Truth" has changed over the centuries. 

*... well, i'm glad to see that you note this as your opinion, but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...*

*...oh... I see we are back to disparaging comments about the intellectual capacity, cognative abilities and logical skills of those who oppose your opinions and positions, this seems to be your back up plan in most of these strings regarding topics of this nature... what do you do in the dojo or on the street when you're beaten, call them names too?*

Unnecessary and a nasty belittling tone. If I have an opinion on an issue, and yours differs, that is pretty normal. However, if you insist that a non-scientific concept is Science, then, as a scientist, I am at liberty to tell you why you are incorrect. 

Unless of course you want to get to the point where everyone's opinion is "correct", no matter what they say. In which case I'm sure you'll be all for gay civil unions, right?


*Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...*

"vomiting dictionaries"? Yes, that's very much the "common verbage". I don't see brow-beating so much as calling you on some evidence.

*Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.*

"goo-to-guy"? Come on now. I mean really.

*... well, you are corrert about the dark ages... but my original statement stands, regardless of your denial of it...*

Well, no, I think he pretty much addressed the Christian = science idea you were trying to get away with. Guess we shouldn't thank all those Muslims for preserving texts and science during the Dark Ages, eh? And faggetabowt the Asians - what did they ever do?

*As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.*

I think we're all just waiting to review the evidence you'll put forth to support your theory. My foot remains firmly on the ground at this point.

*...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.*

Hi there. Nice to meet you. I'm a scientist and a Christian - although, as you addressed in other threads, you have dismissed my faith out-of-hand. Way to only see what you want to see.

*... who's denying facts (other than you and other evolutionists)... its a fact that soccer was originated in Scotland, its also a fact that golf originated in Scotland... are they the world champs these days? nope... thats also a fact... so what's your point? that was really a rhetorical question.. i'm not interested in your point.*

Then why argue if not interested in what others have to say? You don't want a conversation, you want a mass conversion. Not likely.

*.. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews.. however, secular dominated mag's simply refuse to publish opposing views from scientists who don't believe in evolution, I could inundate you with proofs, but you would simply dismiss them as you have all others...*

On no - innundate away.

*...a note to you here would be to point out, since you dont seem to be aware of this, that not all scientists who disagree or refute evolutionism, believe in or are automatically aligned with creationism, or even consider themselves christian, or for that matter, support the bible... they simply dispute evolution as a workable theory because the facts prove otherwise...*

Please show.

*... so with regard to your statement above that simply because facts agree with your position doesnt make them facts... take that lucid comment to heart and apply it to your own position... mirrors are wonderful things you know...*

This is disintegrating quickly.

*... he's right... but in his narrow minded bias doesnt understand its just as true when applied and used as a filter for his own proposed position.*

But of course this couldn't apply to you, either.

*Why are YOU (read evolutionists) so terrified about letting the theory of creation be taught in classrooms as an alternate to evolution?...* 

Because...

1) The vast majority of scientists agree creationism is NOT science

2) Because the kids creationists want to target are too young to understand theories and needs for evidence, they are being targeted at ages where they will simply "believe" and not seek more evidence.

*if the theory of evolution was so rock solid, then it should be able to stand up to the light of public scrutiny of the supposed facts used to support it, as well as all the facts against it... wouldn't you agree? If however via this public scrutiny it cannot be proven as a valid theory, then obviously there must be some other explanation for our existance... hmmm... seems to me that thats what creationist theory is all about... and if held up to public scrutiny, shouldn't it (creationism) be destroyed as quickly as evolution once all the fact are displayed if it is in fact, "nonsense"?*

Again, targeting kids is not "public scrutiny". Public scrutiny is asking the scientific community. And they continue to debate and give answers. 

*It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are cramming their personal religious belief in an unproven theory down the throat of everyone else, while at the same time attempting to silence any other competing positions... not the bible believing fundamentalists... we are just trying to get a word in edgewise in a society rife with mini-gods and ACLU and activist judges etc... we can't have a sensible discussion when we're not allowed to present our side publically in the same environment eh?*

I have not crammed my personal religious beliefs down anyone's throat, thank you very much. 

Mini-gods? What?

Present "your side" in the scientific community, and see where it goes.


----------



## loki09789

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> loki09789:
> 
> As I told someone else, I meant what I said, at least the first part of that quote, to be sarcastic. I really don't believe creationism to have any scientific value.
> 
> I now know to make my use of sarcasm much more blatant when talking online.


No innuendo intended.  Just hit quote as I was reading through instead of reply for the sake of speed.  My point dovetailed off of your comment (understood to be sarcastic/ironic) so I used it.  No prob.


----------



## rmcrobertson

It's time to demand that science and evolution be taught as part of every Sunday School curriculum, and that evolutionary biology be given equal time in every church in the country.

After all, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. If religion is science, then science is religion, and we need to step into this erroneous teaching across the nation, so destructive of values and thought.

Incidentally: it remains significant that creationists automatically jump to issues such as abortion at every opportunity, since for them evolution is only one part of the entire godless, "secular humanist," agenda they seek to erase. If they're honest, they'll tell you that a) they want fundamentalist Christian prayer pushed daily in all schools, along with the Pledge; b) paddling reinstated; c) an end to all sex ed; d) the censorship of godless works from libraries; e) girls and women taught about their secondary place in God's Plan; f) homosexuals screened and removed from all classrooms. But don't take one's word for this by any means. Look up what they actually say.

There are nice theorcracies in Iran, this time of year.


----------



## loki09789

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's time to demand that science and evolution be taught as part of every Sunday School curriculum, and that evolutionary biology be given equal time in every church in the country.
> 
> After all, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. If religion is science, then science is religion, and we need to step into this erroneous teaching across the nation, so destructive of values and thought.
> 
> Incidentally: it remains significant that creationists automatically jump to issues such as abortion at every opportunity, since for them evolution is only one part of the entire godless, "secular humanist," agenda they seek to erase. If they're honest, they'll tell you that a) they want fundamentalist Christian prayer pushed daily in all schools, along with the Pledge; b) paddling reinstated; c) an end to all sex ed; d) the censorship of godless works from libraries; e) girls and women taught about their secondary place in God's Plan; f) homosexuals screened and removed from all classrooms. But don't take one's word for this by any means. Look up what they actually say.
> 
> There are nice theorcracies in Iran, this time of year.


Can't do it, different 'institutions' so how/why each is run is different.  They also have different 'bosses' so they don't follow the same rules.

Churches/faith institutions are designed to perpetuate a certain faith way.

Governmental institutions (at least democratic ones) are suppose to offer a fair and equitable representation of the diverse ideals that the make up the citizenry.  If that means finding an appropriate place for 'faith views' then I am fine with that - as long as it is done in the appropriate setting (ELA or GLOBAL but not science class) AND it doesn't become "Creation is superior to Evolution" or some BS like that but is presented 'fair and equitably.'

Doesn't mean that you have to agree with it, just that you have to respect that it deserves to be acknowledged.

Many here respect and admire the ancient cultures that inspired the martial arts, but I don't seem to see that same acknowledgement about a 'homegrown' issue of cultural difference.


----------



## heretic888

parmandjack said:
			
		

> umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated...



If you were actually "initiated" or had any inkling of what you were talking about, you would know the term _evolutionism_ refers to a philosophical position popular in mid-to-late 19th century anthropology and sociology (including its cruder manifestations as Social Darwinism, from which we get the term "survival of the fittest" --- a term that Darwin himself never used). It has nothing to do with biology per se, and cannot be reasonably applied to the broad range of individuals that you are attempting to label. 

Evolutionism was later supplanted by structuralism (a la Levi-Strauss), which itself was supplanted by poststructuralism (a la Derrida). Ironically enough, poststructuralism is increasingly giving way to a more dynamic, non-unilinear model of sociocultural evolution as outlined by thinkers such as Jurgen Habermas, North Alfred Whitehead, and Ken Wilber.

The modern use of "evolutionism" by so-called "creationists" is a fantasy devised by fundamentalist scientists and philosophers that have a desire to try and "even the playing field" by portraying the biological theory of evolution as some type of metaphysical ideology --- which, as any sane scientist will tell you, it is not. Most of these individuals have no idea as to the content of evolutionism's original meaning, as a form of unilinear sociocultural progress.

I did note the use of the dreaded "L-word" to denigrate one's detractor, however. Always a surefire sign that the speaker is more concerned with ideology than statistical evidence.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> ...they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...
> 
> nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God



This position is typical of many "creationists", and evinces a fair degree of transference on the part of the critic. It is, in essence, an attempt to collapse "evolution" and "atheism" into some sort of bastard child that science most definately does not espouse.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but in the 8 or so natural science courses I've taken (between two high schools and two colleges), not once was I ever presented with the notion that the theory of evolution "negates" God --- although God is not "required" for evolutionary theory to work --- nor, does it negate anything necessarily religious or supernatural in nature. 

In fact, there is no philosophical or metaphysical content to evolution whatsoever. It neither supports nor refutes the existence of God.

You also seem to be collapsing Big Bang Theory (the province of physics) and the Theory of Evolution (the province of biology). Again, no big surprise here.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> ...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"... while in "fact", quite a large number of people on all these threads stand in their proverbial "pulpits" hammering away that evolution is a fact based on solid science



Before you go around calling me a liar --- which, by the way, is considering _sniping_ and very much against MartialTalk's code of conduct --- I would suggest you get your facts straight.

First off, all theories are "unproven". But, the point you seem to be missing, is that a theory is a really big deal in science. Our knowledge of cells is also an "unproven theory". We refer to it as the Cell Theory. A theory is simply a time-tested hypothesis. In no way are they unquestionable "facts", but they also are far more than speculative ideas devoid of scientific evidence (which is the common argument that "creationists" like to call upon).

Secondly, your notion that evolutionary theory is presented as "fact" is not something that agrees with my personal experiences in science. Even in my philosophy class (which was very sympathetic to theism), evolution was always presented as fluid theory that may be supplanted in the future.

Perhaps you could draw some citations from reputable journals or institutions that have presented the theory as such?? While you're at it, why don't you draw specific quotations as to who on this board has presented evolutionary theory as "fact"??



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> why is that? why is it that a piece of data examined by a scientist who believes in evolution and who reviews that data with his personal bias towards evolution, is given more credence than the results of a scientist who reviews the same piece of data, but determines that evidence contradicts the evolutionary theory and instead supports a "Creation" base?



Communal confirmation (or rejection), a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Karl Popper called it falsifiability.

So-called "creation science" has been overwhelmingly rejected by peer-reviewed scientific panels and journals. Conspiracist speculations concerning the great "atheist agenda" can be called upon, but these have no supporting evidence --- and, in fact, fly in the face that the vast majority of scientists in the world are Christians.

Of course, as with your speculations on "unproven theories", all this simply indicates you don't have a very solid grasp of the scientific method. I would suggest reading a little Thomas Kuhn before arguing specific theories.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> ... well, i'm glad to see that you note this as your opinion, but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...



Sure, evolutionary theory is under attack by members of the "scientific community" that have never tested their findings before peer-reviewed panels or journals without being flat-out rejected.

Listen, just because a few scientists on the fringes of their respective disciplines are "attacking" evolutionary theory does not mean they have anything resembling a solid case. What is required in science is communal verification of evidence. These "creation scientists" have overwhelmingly failed this criteria time and time again.

If every hypothesis in science expounded by a handful individuals was valid, without recourse to communal verfication, then the discipline would be an absolute mess. Anyone with a degree could put forward ideas without having to "prove" them to their peers. There is a reason they do things the way they do.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...



You have yet to evince this "great deal" of understanding. You perpetually demonstrate an ignorance of the scientific understanding of both theory and falsifiability. Attributing this ignorance to "common verbiage" doesn't change this.

Also, since you are specifically talking about the field of science and its criteria, yet decline from using said field's definitions it is rather disingenous to make claims that you are trying to speak to the "common man".



			
				parmanjdack said:
			
		

> Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.



Last time I checked, convincing a like-minded neophyte is not a valid substitute for convincing a peer-reviewed scientific panel. This is something your "origins scientists" have yet to do.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> ... well, you are corrert about the dark ages... but my original statement stands, regardless of your denial of it...



Okay, no you are leaping into the realm of the absurd.

If my analysis of the Dark Ages is correct, you is your original statement still valid. This is basically akin to saying, "well, you make an excellent point --- but I'm still right, even though I don't have the evidence to support my position".

Last time I checked, ideological rigidity does not trump hard evidence.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.



I'm afraid your collapsing concepts. Again.

The brutal and violent oppression of all intellectual "competition" in the Dark Ages cannot be compared to scientific criteria for falsifiability. Just because you believe something to be true --- and the vast majority of the scientific community does not --- does not mean you are a victim.

And, to note, your "data" has yet to be verified --- at least not by any peer-reviewed panel.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> ...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.



Its actually quite sober. "Science" did not spread through Christianity, it spread through secular humanism during the Renaissance and Age of Reason (precisely as a reaction against traditional religion). Before this time, "science" was severely frowned upon by the Church (re: Galileo).

Simply uttering your beliefs over and over does not make them any more true.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> ... who's denying facts (other than you and other evolutionists)... its a fact that soccer was originated in Scotland, its also a fact that golf originated in Scotland... are they the world champs these days? nope... thats also a fact... so what's your point? that was really a rhetorical question.. i'm not interested in your point.



Of course you're not interested --- because it actually has factual support.

The simple truth is that "science" is flourishing just as well in non-Christian nations like Japan as it is anywhere else. Your notion that science is "brain-dead" in non-Christian societies is just flat-out untrue.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> .. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews..



Sources, please.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> however, secular dominated mag's simply refuse to publish opposing views from scientists who don't believe in evolution



Ah, the good old conspiracist speculation that there is a "secular atheist agenda" to stamp out those poor wittle "creationists". Just ignore that there is no evidence to support these ideas --- and the fact that the vast majority of scientists are Christian.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> I could inundate you with proofs, but you would simply dismiss them as you have all others...



You made this claim once before, on another thread. It was equally dismissed then, too.

Same old song. The "well, I have proof but I can't show it to you because you're obviously not good enough to understand it" argument doesn't fool anybody here.

Simple problem is that by refusing to show proof you are failing the burden of proof. Ergo, your speculations must be concluded to be full of poppycock.

Heh. Laterz.


----------



## Rich Parsons

parmandjack said:
			
		

> umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated, they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...
> 
> nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God



I disagree.

God can be defined as Nothing or as everything, and thereby in the equation.

You can also have a creator/Gaia/God/Ancestor/..., that started out with nothing created, and then allowed it to evolve. 

The error of the God Created it all and there is nothing else to do, is that then there is no free will (* A big thing for most Christians I know who are educated in theology *) and either it is all predetermined, or it is exactly the same as it was in the beginning with no learning.

Personally, the evoloution theory does not exclude any divine intervention of guidance.

As to your comments about presented as absolute truth, there is no absolute truth, especially in religion, hence the word faith.

I still think it is wrong to have the Word God on our Money. I think it is wrong to have it in the Pledge, I think it is wrong to have religion taught in a public school.

Yet, it seems that my views do not exclude others, and allow others to make up their own mind. Yet, I seem to have lots of religous people telling me the absolute truth of God's words, and how they should be interpreted. I have these same said people who tell me how they insist things should be.

Religions today even the Christian one based upon tolerance, does not teach tolerance. They teach their point of view and if you disagree you are wrong and going to hell.

So, the question I have is why is your faith so weak, that you cannot have other ideas presented to you and your children as possible explanations?

My opinionated thoughts and questions.
 :asian:


----------



## Mark Weiser

Rich I agree with you. In the Jewish way of life we are required to educate ourselves to the highest degree possible this usually means exposing one's self to differenet concepts and ideas in doing so we are a stronger and better person in that we glean what is the best and brightest and useful concepts and ideas that will make our life better in doing so we make the world a better place than when we arrived aka birth.  

If there was a way to do this across the board I belive the world would be a much happier and peaceful place.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Science, in part of its history, evolved out of humanist thought--itself strongly tied to Christian philosophy by reasons of its own evolution.

One must disagree, otherwise. If we aren't to respect differences between science and religion, and therefore teach creationism is science classes, then there can be no reason not to force the teaching of humanist and evolutionary ideas and theories in churches. 

One illustration might be what is currently going on in Holland, where the government is about to require imams and mosques to a) speak Dutch, b) teach basic democratic values.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One must disagree, otherwise. If we aren't to respect differences between science and religion, and therefore teach creationism is science classes, then there can be no reason not to force the teaching of humanist and evolutionary ideas and theories in churches.



If I may elaborate on this point, and hopefully not be stating the obvious, the same rationale can be applied to the other major current religious issue: gay marriage.  By the same reasoning that the religious Right want to impose their marriage norms on society (parrallel with the imposition of creationism in science classes), the government should be allowed to intrude into the churches' decisions by forcing them to marry homosexuals.  This is opposed to civil unions, which aren't religious ceremonies.


----------



## raedyn

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I did note the use of the dreaded "L-word" to denigrate one's detractor, however. Always a surefire sign that the speaker is more concerned with ideology than statistical evidence.


You are correct, Herrie. Calling someone a Liberal as an insult definately is a red-flag that the speaker is fervently committed to conservative ideologies, often very fundmentalist Christian ideologies. But it's possible that in this case you may have misread the speaker. He(?) said "your liberal use of". It's possible that he meant your _extensive _or _repeated_ use of.

Just a thought. When the speaker is attacking you personally, it's difficult not to interpret _everything_ as an attack. But in this case it might not be.



> Not once was I ever presented with the notion that the theory of evolution "negates" God --- although God is not "required" for evolutionary theory to work --- nor, does it negate anything necessarily religious or supernatural in nature.
> 
> In fact, there is no philosophical or metaphysical content to evolution whatsoever. It neither supports nor refutes the existence of God.


Exactly. And in fact, there are spiritual people who feel these theories confirm - for them - the existence of God. They feel that it shows that God has a plan. And they don't believe that these things could be accident or coincidence. There can be room for both believing in evolution and believing in God.



> All theories are "unproven".


There are those in the scientific community that like to treat their theories as fact. This is a mistake. No theory can be proven right. But it can have a growing body of evidence that supports the theory and it can gain recognition as the best explaination we have right now. It's possible that there new information will come to light that contradicts any scientific theory. The theory will either incorporate and adapt to the new information, or it will be (at times painfully) discarded.

At one time, for instance, it was believed that electron/proton/neutron were the smallest particle 'building blocks' of matter. Then science discovered that even those could be broken down - so the theories changed.

The important thing is that we can only 'know' what we can observe (emperical evidence). And we can can only theorize about the rest. And once research that supports a given theory stands the test of peer review and reproducability (as Evolutionary Theory has), it gains acceptance in the scientific community - this acceptance will stand until a better explanation surfaces. 



> The "well, I have proof but I can't show it to you because you're obviously not good enough to understand it" argument doesn't fool anybody here.


I, for one, am very interested in remaining open-minded to new ideas. But I don't accept a new idea just because someone says it. I need some reasons why I should convert to a new way of thinking. And 'because God says it' is not a reason that holds water for me. As I have discussed before, a complete, cogent and evidence-based position has often made me re-consider my position, and sometimes they have caused me to change my mind completely.

See http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=301553#post301553 for further discussion of this.



> Ergo, your speculations must be concluded to be full of poppycock.


heeheehee... poppycock... hehehe!


----------



## raedyn

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> God can be defined as Nothing or as everything, and thereby in the equation.
> 
> You can also have a creator/Gaia/God/Ancestor/..., that started out with nothing created, and then allowed it to evolve.
> 
> Personally, the evoloution theory does not exclude any divine intervention of guidance.


Well said, Rich. 




> Yet, it seems that my views do not exclude others, and allow others to make up their own mind. Yet, I seem to have lots of religous people telling me the absolute truth of God's words, and how they should be interpreted. I have these same said people who tell me how they insist things should be.


I, too, have experienced this.



> Religions today even the Christian one based upon tolerance, does not teach tolerance. They teach their point of view and if you disagree you are wrong and going to hell.


Many religions do espouse that belief. But not all demoninations/sects behave this way. But the noisiest ones sure do!

I try and remind myself that many evangelists are so zealous because they believe it's the JOB, their very *mission on earth* to 'spread the word'. They think they are helping everyone else. So I try and have tolerance for this behaviour and those viewpoints that I disagree with. For those people, these beliefs are at the very core of their being, and it's vital to them. I remind myself of that and try to be patient.

My patience does have a limit, however. Some of those people don't have the same respect and understanding that I may have vitally-important at-the-core-of-my-being beliefs that contradict theirs and that mine are JUST as valid as theirs. This is when my patience runs out. I'll respect you up until you demonstrate that you have no respect for me.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> If I may elaborate on this point, and hopefully not be stating the obvious, the same rationale can be applied to the other major current religious issue: gay marriage. By the same reasoning that the religious Right want to impose their marriage norms on society (parrallel with the imposition of creationism in science classes), the government should be allowed to intrude into the churches' decisions by forcing them to marry homosexuals. This is opposed to civil unions, which aren't religious ceremonies.


This is true.  

Unfortunately, once the disallowing of gay marriages occurs, some folks leap to "civil unions" should be blocked as well.  But they are different - one religious, one legal.


----------



## parmandjack

Ok,

lts time to get a few items straight...

1- what a number of you consider to be a personal attack by me against heretic... read what I was responding too... he immediately slurred my ability to reason... this has been his method of approach against me, and still is if you read his posts, and I responded in kind, but with less venom than he, so before you go castigating me, line him up first... fiesty has again cliamed that my defence against heretics attacks are rude etc... I'm so tired of this one-sidedness...

2- we are trying to discuss the feasibility of alternate theories for classroom discussions... that creationism is based on a foundation of a God is obviously correct - however, that evolution is based on a foundation of "no-God" is also true...therefore, lets call creationism something else.. lets call it..umm... "xyz".. having said that, I again "attempt" to bring to your attention that there are scientists out there who do not believe in God, nor the bible, but still refure evolution based on the factual evidences... lets discuss the "solid" facts proving evolution... then i'll buy your position... 

3- in support of point #2, it was said earlier (i cant remember by whom) in response to my asking for rock solid evidence of the transitional fossils supporting changes from one species to another, that there was more than enough "science" to prove that, so he needn't provide it... well, so you know, science is a tool, evidence is not... I therefore repeat my request that you present the iron-clad proof of transitional fossil evidence once and for all proving your position. after all, I don't want my child taught a false religion (evolution) when it cannto be proven.

4- while my religious beliefs are well known, I also know your positions... we all have differing ones... and thats the way it is... however, what is not cool is for people to claim to be christians, and then turn around and claim that the bible is false... I have stated it before fiesty, but you choose to argue instead of read... The bible... in fact Jesus... tells you Himself, that if you are not born again, then you are not saved... therefore, the words Christian and Born-Again don't need to be said in the same sentence... if you are born again, you are a christian, if you are not born again (which you have stated you are not), then you are not a christian.... that is not me claiming that, that is Jesus... sorry if it goes against your beliefs... thats what the book sez... if someone claims christianity, but doesnt adhere to the teachings of the book, then they are not christians, they dont belong to the church... simple... and again, that is God speaking... read for example... Revelations regarding taking away or adding to His Word...

5- "public review" is not limited to "only" a review by scientists... it means that the people who are professing a belief (ie:evolution) present their beliefs and supporting evidence in a public venue, not the private cloisters of a group of like minded scientists...and let them then defend the theory in the open against detractors... in full view of media, etc... lets them address teh valid evidences against their position... if its true, it will hold up...

6- heretic demands proof, yet whenever I present it he flippently dismisses it as being the apparent defacto leader of this group... well why should i go to the trouble of posting more and more and more and more evidences, when he truly is not interested, yet when I in turn ask for definitive proofs in support of evolution, I am also given none... I need to be convinced that what you want my children to learn is school is not simply your own fanatical belief in evolution irregardless of any supporting evidences to take it past the point of mere theory. If its wrong, then obviously smoe other theory may have the true answer.

7- someone asked why my faith was so weak, and also stated that there is no such thing as absolute truth... I answer him/her by saying that it is actually quite the opposite and because of my unwavering faith in Jesus Christ as the ultimate and Absolute Truth that I am targetted by people on this string as "intolerant" etc... I would also note that in telling me that there is no absolute truth, you have just declared an absolute... however, i disagree and state that there has to be an ultimate "truth" at the end of everything...

8- it has been said that christians who hold a belief in the inerrancy of the bible are "scared" to have there creatin beliefs "exposed" as wrong.. well I propose that it is in fact the opposite, adn that it is proponents of evolution who hold that concern...

I make no apologies for my belief in the bible as the inerrent word of God and that Jesus is the Word come in the flesh, However, as an educated individual quite capable of grasping the rudimentary concept of reading, I also know that there is a multitude of evidences that disprove evolution as a viable theory... thats how I was originally led to the bible... long before i was saved, i started reading all the materials that showed the falsehoods of evolution, and no amount of name calling or opinion bashing towards or against me by those on this board will ever change those facts... unfortunately for all of you i guess... I am extremly outnumbered, so you inundate me with unsubstantiated claims etc... you can try to silence me, but you will never succeed, I can be banned from this board.. but you will not have silenced me...

Fiesty, at the beginning of your post you stated that you were not surprised to see me back again on this string... that was a not-so-subtle dig at me, I realize that.. but why am I also not surprised that you would jump into the discussion claiming to be a christian (to detract from my christian position and never wavering belief in the bible) while at the same time as you are claiming the foundations of christianity to be false? makes y'wonder eh? hypocracy is rampant in these types of sites... and being that I have never wavered from the bible in my comments and position, I am not a hypocrit.

*While we do sometimes get heated in these discussions*... my heat comes from the fact that I truly believe in what I am saying, and would like for all of you to live forever with Jesus and me... my heat is not out of an anger or hatred of any of you.. i don't even know you except for your posts... its out of frustration from what I perceive to be your close-mindedness regarding information that dismisses your theories. As for me being close-minded, I have read far too many proofs contradicting your position, so I am now well and truly close minded in favour of the bible.

Jack.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> 4- while my religious beliefs are well known, I also know your positions... we all have differing ones... and thats the way it is... however, what is not cool is for people to claim to be christians, and then turn around and claim that the bible is false... I have stated it before fiesty, but you choose to argue instead of read... The bible... in fact Jesus... tells you Himself, that if you are not born again, then you are not saved... therefore, the words Christian and Born-Again don't need to be said in the same sentence... if you are born again, you are a christian, if you are not born again (which you have stated you are not), then you are not a christian.... that is not me claiming that, that is Jesus... sorry if it goes against your beliefs... thats what the book sez... if someone claims christianity, but doesnt adhere to the teachings of the book, then they are not christians, they dont belong to the church... simple... and again, that is God speaking... read for example... Revelations regarding taking away or adding to His Word...





> Fiesty, at the beginning of your post you stated that you were not surprised to see me back again on this string... that was a not-so-subtle dig at me, I realize that.. but why am I also not surprised that you would jump into the discussion claiming to be a christian (to detract from my christian position and never wavering belief in the bible) while at the same time as you are claiming the foundations of christianity to be false? makes y'wonder eh? hypocracy is rampant in these types of sites... and being that I have never wavered from the bible in my comments and position, I am not a hypocrit.


I read the Bible, thank you very much. I am a Christian - which, as you err in believing, does not mean one reads the Bible every day, or quotes Scripture left and right. How many Christians are out there in the world not "born-again" that you are dismissing? (Orthodox, Catholics, most of the Protestants out there....) My faith is not based on a handful of passages - which you have cited at me repeatedly, to no avail - but the whole thing, and the teachings of Church Fathers and Mothers. I realize you won't understand this, since you have already decided on what you want to think, and have expounded upon others' religious authenticity time and time again.

I have never claimed "the foundations of Christianity to be false". In your dreams. Because I do not base my faith on the *interpretation* that you have...hmmm. Interesting. 

But hey, why not attack my faith when the question really is about teaching a non-science as a science in public schools? Then it's MUCH easier. 

Evolution does not = "no God". It does not RELY on God as an explanatory power. Imagine that! We can talk about atoms moving, black holes expanding, without having to use God as an explanatory force. Why not changes in species? Microevolution is pretty well worked out, thank you.

Oh, and peer-reviewed journals ARE open to the public, and the media. Most publishers would be delighted to publish a controversial new idea - if it is not bunk, if it has supporting evidence. As of yet, you have failed to show the evidence.

But why don't you attack me on religious grounds some more? That seems to get the righteous anger/martyrdom thing going for you, which also seems to be the fuel for your "scientific" debate here.


----------



## Flatlander

*====================*
*Mod. Note. *
*Please, keep the conversation on topic.*

*This topic to be addressed in this thread*
*is "should creationism be taught in schools".*

The validity of creationism as a theory is 
a topic for another thread.

*-Dan Bowman-*
*-MT Moderator-*
*====================*

Please see evolution vs. creationism

Evolution

Darwin/Evolution

Good Online Site for Creationist Proof


----------



## Makalakumu

Flatlander said:
			
		

> *====================*
> *Mod. Note. *
> *Please, keep the conversation on topic.*
> 
> *This topic to be addressed in this thread*
> *is "should creationism be taught in schools".*
> 
> The validity of creationism as a theory is
> a topic for another thread.
> 
> *-Dan Bowman-*
> *-MT Moderator-*
> *====================*
> 
> Please see evolution vs. creationism
> 
> Evolution
> 
> Darwin/Evolution
> 
> Good Online Site for Creationist Proof



Would discussing the scientific validity of creationism and evolution, based on the evidence be on topic?  I would think so, because if creationism can be shown to validly explain the evidence, then it would be a scientific theory.  

I'm not saying that creationism validly explains the evidence, I'm just saying that comparing the two theories and their explanations could be useful to this discussion.


----------



## Mark Weiser

See if these were two Jewish Rabbis debating there would be fist thrown lol! and then we go out to dinner afterwards and shake hands and say "Good left jab" 

Seriously folks the whole idea is to be able to share ideas and thoughts in a calm and cool manner. If something makes you angry then find out why and correct that within yourself.  Become a better human being for it see it as a chance to improve.  

I do not see the problem with learning and teaching in all forums the different view points within the world. You get smarter that way and become a more interesting person.


----------



## Flatlander

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Would discussing the scientific validity of creationism and evolution, based on the evidence be on topic? I would think so, because if creationism can be shown to validly explain the evidence, then it would be a scientific theory.
> 
> I'm not saying that creationism validly explains the evidence, I'm just saying that comparing the two theories and their explanations could be useful to this discussion.


The original post did not set forth a specific topic, rather, it referenced an article.  The article referenced discussed the public debate over whether or not creationism belongs in the science curriculum.  Discussion of the validity of these theories is tangential to whether or not they belong in the classroom.  If you can demonstrate how the classification of creationism as scientific or not justifies whether or not the concept belongs in the classroom, then by all means, feast away.  

Let's just be sure that our arguments remain rooted in the original premise. :asian:


----------



## raedyn

parmandjack said:
			
		

> 1- what a number of you consider to be a personal attack by me against heretic... read what I was responding too... he immediately slurred my ability to reason... this has been his method of approach against me, and still is if you read his posts, and I responded in kind, but with less venom than he, so before you go castigating me, line him up first... fiesty has again cliamed that my defence against heretics attacks are rude etc... I'm so tired of this one-sidedness...


Herrie gets heated as well, this is true. And this is why I tried to point out to him that I think he got so wound up that he misunderstood some things you were saying. You point the finger at Herrie. This may or may not be fair. That's not for me to judge. A gentle reminder, however - two wrongs don't make a right, my friend. And when you point a finger, there are still three pointing back at you. Something to think about. For all of us.



> that evolution is based on a foundation of "no-God" is also true...


wrong. several people have addressed this point in the half dozen posts immediately before yours. 



> I have stated it before fiesty, but you choose to argue instead of read... The bible... in fact Jesus... tells you Himself, that if you are not born again, then you are not saved... therefore, the words Christian and Born-Again don't need to be said in the same sentence... if you are born again, you are a christian, if you are not born again (which you have stated you are not), then you are not a christian.... that is not me claiming that, that is Jesus... sorry if it goes against your beliefs... thats what the book sez... if someone claims christianity, but doesnt adhere to the teachings of the book, then they are not christians, they dont belong to the church... simple... and again, that is God speaking...


right. YOU are God speaking to us. *rolls eyes*

I take issue with the idea that you feel you can determine who is or is not a Christian. It's not up to you to make that call. Wait, nevermind. If you can decide that you are the Great Determiner of Christians, then I can decide that, too. So I hereby declare myself the Great Determiner of Christians. And YOU, Jack, are not a Christian because you are judging and that is against the book and because you wear clothing made from mixed fibres (see Leviticus) and that is against God's Law and you don't belong to the Church or God. So there. 

Of course, I don't really believe any of that. But I was temporarily playing at what I see you doing, hoping to help you see the absurdity of it.



> heretic demands proof, yet whenever I present it he flippently dismisses it as being the apparent defacto leader of this group... well why should i go to the trouble of posting more and more and more and more evidences, when he truly is not interested,


Whether Herrie is interested or not, I cannot say. But don't assume that he (or anyone else) can speak for everyone here. I would be interested in any evidence you might have - provided that it consists of more than Bible references. For you, the Bible may be enough. I congratule you on your committment to faith. For me, this single writing is not enough.



> yet when I in turn ask for definitive proofs in support of evolution, I am also given none...


True.



> I need to be convinced that what you want my children to learn is school is not simply your own fanatical belief in evolution irregardless of any supporting evidences to take it past the point of mere theory.


I am not fanatically attached to evolution. It seems the most reasonable idea I've heard of so far, but I've hot no emotion connection to it.

"mere" theory? I thought we had already discussed - at length - how every scientific idea is theory, not fact. So how does any idea transcend from the realm of 'mere' theory to... whatever is superior to theory.



> someone asked why my faith was so weak,


Rich asked if your faith was so weak that it couldn't withstand the teachings of God being challenged by the teachings of science.



> I make no apologies for my belief in the bible as the inerrent word of God and that Jesus is the Word come in the flesh,





> *While we do sometimes get heated in these discussions*... my heat comes from the fact that I truly believe in what I am saying, and would like for all of you to live forever with Jesus and me... my heat is not out of an anger or hatred of any of you..


This is what I was talking about earlier - how I try to patience for people such as yourself whom I disagree with. Because I understand and respect that it's important to you.



> so I am now well and truly close minded in favour of the bible.


props to you for being able to admit that. So are you telling everyone that they're just banging their head against a wall? Honest question, no malice intended.

Cheers,
raedyn


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> See if these were two Jewish Rabbis debating there would be fist thrown lol! and then we go out to dinner afterwards and shake hands and say "Good left jab"
> 
> Seriously folks the whole idea is to be able to share ideas and thoughts in a calm and cool manner. If something makes you angry then find out why and correct that within yourself. Become a better human being for it see it as a chance to improve.
> 
> I do not see the problem with learning and teaching in all forums the different view points within the world. You get smarter that way and become a more interesting person.


I think the basis of the arguments here is that a religious perspective should not be presented to children in the guise of science and empirical "truth", if in fact that is not the case.


----------



## Nightingale

MT MOD NOTE

We do understand discussions like this can get heated, so here are a few suggestions to avoid running afoul of the guidelines.

1.  attack the issue, not the poster.
2.  try to provide sources for your ideas, rather than just stating absolutes such as "this is what I think, and that's that."   It's better for discussion if it's "this is what I think, and this is why..."

Providing sources encourages people to debate the issue.  Not providing sources encourages people to attack you instead, because you've provided no other topic for debate.  While people who do attack will be dealt with, it's better all around if posts encourage discussion of the issue at hand.

3.  re-read what you post before you post it, and adjust your tone if needed.

Thanks!

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## someguy

Well I belive that there is no reason to teach it in schools.  I see no scientific evidence for creationism.  Although I suppose that would be hard.  So does it have a place in science class?  I don't think so.
Ok maybe I could almost see it in a history class.  Almost not really.  It has no real historical proof to it.  It can be proven that people have belived in for a long time that is true.  But there is no proof of it being true.
Don't jump down my throat and say it's God's word or I'll well umm sick some one on you.
Literature perhaps if it pertains to what is studied but that's kind of too religious for a public school.  So no.
Hmm what is the other class that I had to take alot of oh math.  Fit's perfectly in there of course.(Every one understand'S that's sarcasm right?)
No it shouldn't be taught in history.  Not in science. Literature nuhuh. If there was a religion class the with out a question it should be taught but as a religions belife not as a fact.
OK that is my opinion on that.  No offense meant to anyone.  And if an one wants to know I'm a christian.  I also belive in evolution.  
Let's have some fun and see who can come up with what to prove me wrong.


----------



## michaeledward

parmajack, specifically to you with this question.

In addition to Genesis 1, what other biblical passages are you sourcing as 'Creation Science'?

Are there references other than the bible that you feel are appropriate for 'Creation Science'? What are they? 

Are these non-biblical sources just interpretations of observations that support the Bible or do they stand as text in their own right?


----------



## rmcrobertson

The first note is that these issues always produce wild inaccuracies, even on the part of those with whom we might otherwise agree. At the moment, the most glaring of these lies in the claim that, "by the same reasoning that the religious Right want to impose their marriage norms on society (parrallel with the imposition of creationism in science classes), the government should be allowed to intrude into the churches' decisions by forcing them to marry homosexuals," when nobody at all has called for churches to be forced to do anything.

What is the link to this thread? Well, these ideas appear as part of a constellation of ideas: P'jack and others see evolution as one among many aspects of "secular humanism," which is destroying their precious bodily fluids. They do not see evolution as one, isolated scientific theory--but as part and parcel of the whole liberal agenda.

It's ludicrous, of course, but it is the way it works.

One was also happy to see, once again, the emergence of the concept of the religious Inquisition: first, we'll get those bastards who claim to be Christians but don't read the Bible properly. (By the way, all titles of central religious texts are capitalized  but not underlined, because they are assumed to be sui generis.) Catholics follow the Pope, and the Pope has made evolution part of Catholic dogma: they'll burn in hell. Groups like the National Council of Churches accept evolution: they don't know how to read Genesis, so they'll burn in hell. And on and on and on and on. 

The issue here isn't religion. it's fundamentalist Protestant intolerance. These folks don't want science: they want the Earth made in 4004 BC, the Great Flood that dug the Grand Canyon overnight, the Ark, the homosexuals burning in hell, and on and on and on and merrily on. 

They can say what they want to say: this isn't about tolerance for religious ideas, or acceptance of varied opinions scientific and otherwise, or any such thing. They want it all: theocracy, the banning of scientific thought, the banning of contraception let alone abortion, the repression of women (oh, oops, I forgot--the enabling of women to recognize their separate but equal role as men's helpmeets in God's Plan), etc., etc., and oh yes, Jews will all burn unless they convert and let's get ready for the End Times. It's the "Left Behind," crowd. 

This isn't about allowing creationism to be taught and discussed, which it already is. This is about the repression of scientific ideas that a few folks find threatening. 

One repeats the unanswered question. It's a vast, beautiful and variegated Universe, one that has made Christians want to fall down on their knees and study in wonder at God's handiwork for going on 500 years now. Not deny, not ignore, not stay blind to, not to stick heads in the sand--but to treat the Universe as the Book that the Author of All Things left for us to study, just as (for Christians) He left the Bible. So what is there to be so afraid of?

The general Christian approach to evolution is this: God got Nature right. God got the Bible right. If I can't see how they fit together, it's because my vision is small and my insight limited.

In brief, grow up. Quit trying to stop teachers from teaching the best scientific understanding we have of how we all got here, and worry about human short-sightedness instead.


----------



## Mark Weiser

RM very well said and I will be the one wearing the SBA Gear once in Hell I will be bringing spares LOL!


----------



## rmcrobertson

OK, cool. I'll bring barbecue forks, tater salad and tequila.


----------



## heretic888

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The first note is that these issues always produce wild inaccuracies, even on the part of those with whom we might otherwise agree. At the moment, the most glaring of these lies in the claim that, "by the same reasoning that the religious Right want to impose their marriage norms on society (parrallel with the imposition of creationism in science classes), the government should be allowed to intrude into the churches' decisions by forcing them to marry homosexuals," when nobody at all has called for churches to be forced to do anything.
> 
> What is the link to this thread? Well, these ideas appear as part of a constellation of ideas: P'jack and others see evolution as one among many aspects of "secular humanism," which is destroying their precious bodily fluids. They do not see evolution as one, isolated scientific theory--but as part and parcel of the whole liberal agenda.
> 
> It's ludicrous, of course, but it is the way it works.
> 
> One was also happy to see, once again, the emergence of the concept of the religious Inquisition: first, we'll get those bastards who claim to be Christians but don't read the Bible properly. (By the way, all titles of central religious texts are capitalized  but not underlined, because they are assumed to be sui generis.) Catholics follow the Pope, and the Pope has made evolution part of Catholic dogma: they'll burn in hell. Groups like the National Council of Churches accept evolution: they don't know how to read Genesis, so they'll burn in hell. And on and on and on and on.
> 
> The issue here isn't religion. it's fundamentalist Protestant intolerance. These folks don't want science: they want the Earth made in 4004 BC, the Great Flood that dug the Grand Canyon overnight, the Ark, the homosexuals burning in hell, and on and on and on and merrily on.
> 
> They can say what they want to say: this isn't about tolerance for religious ideas, or acceptance of varied opinions scientific and otherwise, or any such thing. They want it all: theocracy, the banning of scientific thought, the banning of contraception let alone abortion, the repression of women (oh, oops, I forgot--the enabling of women to recognize their separate but equal role as men's helpmeets in God's Plan), etc., etc., and oh yes, Jews will all burn unless they convert and let's get ready for the End Times. It's the "Left Behind," crowd.
> 
> This isn't about allowing creationism to be taught and discussed, which it already is. This is about the repression of scientific ideas that a few folks find threatening.
> 
> One repeats the unanswered question. It's a vast, beautiful and variegated Universe, one that has made Christians want to fall down on their knees and study in wonder at God's handiwork for going on 500 years now. Not deny, not ignore, not stay blind to, not to stick heads in the sand--but to treat the Universe as the Book that the Author of All Things left for us to study, just as (for Christians) He left the Bible. So what is there to be so afraid of?
> 
> The general Christian approach to evolution is this: God got Nature right. God got the Bible right. If I can't see how they fit together, it's because my vision is small and my insight limited.
> 
> In brief, grow up. Quit trying to stop teachers from teaching the best scientific understanding we have of how we all got here, and worry about human short-sightedness instead.



Wow. I gotta say that was very, very well written. Kudos.  :asian: 

But, to elaborate on one of the many points that Robert brought up, its important to see what the core goal of these "creationists" is... 

it most assuredly is _not_ expanding the horizons of what's taught in our schools.

No, if we actually implemented it so that "creation theories" were taught in a science classroom --- y'know, the Yanomami, Hopi, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroasterian, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian all side by side ---  well, not only would the teacher be bogged down by the inordinate amount of extra information added onto an already hefty curriculum, but these Protestant fundamentalist folks would still be outraged.

Let's be honest here. These guys don't want "creationist theories" to be taught side by side with evolution. They want _their_ religion's particular interpretation of the creation of the world to be taught. When they say "creationism", what is _really meant_ is "what my religion says".

The teleological argument is one thing --- and I still don't think it belongs in a science classroom --- but, it in no way specifies any particular or favored god or religion. Its very abstract and broad in application. This is not what the fundamentalists want. They want _their_ religion being expounded as "science". Plain and simple.

Robert nailed it right on the head.


----------



## heretic888

parmandjack said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> lts time to get a few items straight...
> 
> 1- what a number of you consider to be a personal attack by me against heretic... read what I was responding too... he immediately slurred my ability to reason... this has been his method of approach against me, and still is if you read his posts, and I responded in kind, but with less venom than he, so before you go castigating me, line him up first... fiesty has again cliamed that my defence against heretics attacks are rude etc... I'm so tired of this one-sidedness...
> 
> 2- we are trying to discuss the feasibility of alternate theories for classroom discussions... that creationism is based on a foundation of a God is obviously correct - however, that evolution is based on a foundation of "no-God" is also true...therefore, lets call creationism something else.. lets call it..umm... "xyz".. having said that, I again "attempt" to bring to your attention that there are scientists out there who do not believe in God, nor the bible, but still refure evolution based on the factual evidences... lets discuss the "solid" facts proving evolution... then i'll buy your position...
> 
> 3- in support of point #2, it was said earlier (i cant remember by whom) in response to my asking for rock solid evidence of the transitional fossils supporting changes from one species to another, that there was more than enough "science" to prove that, so he needn't provide it... well, so you know, science is a tool, evidence is not... I therefore repeat my request that you present the iron-clad proof of transitional fossil evidence once and for all proving your position. after all, I don't want my child taught a false religion (evolution) when it cannto be proven.
> 
> 4- while my religious beliefs are well known, I also know your positions... we all have differing ones... and thats the way it is... however, what is not cool is for people to claim to be christians, and then turn around and claim that the bible is false... I have stated it before fiesty, but you choose to argue instead of read... The bible... in fact Jesus... tells you Himself, that if you are not born again, then you are not saved... therefore, the words Christian and Born-Again don't need to be said in the same sentence... if you are born again, you are a christian, if you are not born again (which you have stated you are not), then you are not a christian.... that is not me claiming that, that is Jesus... sorry if it goes against your beliefs... thats what the book sez... if someone claims christianity, but doesnt adhere to the teachings of the book, then they are not christians, they dont belong to the church... simple... and again, that is God speaking... read for example... Revelations regarding taking away or adding to His Word...
> 
> 5- "public review" is not limited to "only" a review by scientists... it means that the people who are professing a belief (ie:evolution) present their beliefs and supporting evidence in a public venue, not the private cloisters of a group of like minded scientists...and let them then defend the theory in the open against detractors... in full view of media, etc... lets them address teh valid evidences against their position... if its true, it will hold up...
> 
> 6- heretic demands proof, yet whenever I present it he flippently dismisses it as being the apparent defacto leader of this group... well why should i go to the trouble of posting more and more and more and more evidences, when he truly is not interested, yet when I in turn ask for definitive proofs in support of evolution, I am also given none... I need to be convinced that what you want my children to learn is school is not simply your own fanatical belief in evolution irregardless of any supporting evidences to take it past the point of mere theory. If its wrong, then obviously smoe other theory may have the true answer.
> 
> 7- someone asked why my faith was so weak, and also stated that there is no such thing as absolute truth... I answer him/her by saying that it is actually quite the opposite and because of my unwavering faith in Jesus Christ as the ultimate and Absolute Truth that I am targetted by people on this string as "intolerant" etc... I would also note that in telling me that there is no absolute truth, you have just declared an absolute... however, i disagree and state that there has to be an ultimate "truth" at the end of everything...
> 
> 8- it has been said that christians who hold a belief in the inerrancy of the bible are "scared" to have there creatin beliefs "exposed" as wrong.. well I propose that it is in fact the opposite, adn that it is proponents of evolution who hold that concern...



1a) In no way did I "slur your ability to reason", Jack. I merely questioned your understanding of the scientific method. Rightly so, I might add --- given your analysis of the nature of theories, falsifiability, and constant projection of atheist philosophy onto scientific discoveries.

b) You, in fact, did personally attack me when you accused me of lying. Very "Christian" of you, I might add.   

2a) What you are calling "evolutionism" would better be described as "evolutionary theory" or the "theory of evolution". What you are calling "creationism" would better be described as "Protestant fundamentalist religion" (since, if we just so happened to find evidence for the Hindu creation myth and not yours, you would still be fighting).

b) Evolutionary theory in no way excludes "God", regardless of your constant repetition to the contrary. If your requirement for a solid scientific theory is that it _must_ include "God" to explain anything, then you are most definately barking up the wrong tree.

3) Once again, "evolution" is not a religion. It is a scientific explanation based on currently available evidence. It does not preclude any metaphysical presences, nor does it impose any set of values or worldviews.

4) In no way do you have authority to decide what is and is not "Christian". There are numerous varieties of Christianity that do not conform to your fundamentalist model --- including, but not limited to, Catholicism, non-evangelical Protestantism, Unitarian-Universalism, Quakerism, Neo-Gnosticism, Eastern Orthodox, Hesychasm, some forms of Deism, and so on.

5) I could actually care less about "public review", a term I never used in my posts. I am referring to peer-reviewed scientific journals and panels. Since you don't quite understand this concept, this basically means that individuals that have also conducted the same experiments or engaged the same paragidms (i.e., "peers") make a judgment as to the veracity of one's conclusions. The "public" as a whole are not peers in this respect.

6) You have yet to demonstrate any "proof", all you have done is copy-and-paste lengthy articles when links would suffice. The truth is that if you actually had any real understanding or knowledge of this "proof", then you'd be able to discuss it with others point-for-point. Providing links to outside sources, or copy-and-pasting lengthy articles does not demonstrate this.

7) You oppose the "intolerance" of others because they don't see the One and Only Truth, that you just happen to have?? If you can't see the sheer hypocrisy of this statement, then there's really nothing else to say. 

8) The Bible has been demonstrated to be flawed in some respects (with glaring internal contradictions being the least of its problems) --- I went into quite some depth on this in the "Historical Jesus" theads. Using it as a support for biological or historical theory is tenuous, at best.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu

parmandjack said:
			
		

> It was said earlier (i cant remember by whom) in response to my asking for rock solid evidence of the transitional fossils supporting changes from one species to another, that there was more than enough "science" to *prove * that, so he needn't provide it... well, so you know, science is a tool, evidence is not... I therefore repeat my request that you present the iron-clad proof of transitional fossil evidence once and for all proving your position. after all, I don't want my child taught a false religion (evolution) when it cannto be proven.



Remember, science *proves * nothing...onto transition fossils.  Below is a variety of sources...

1.  The following is a very detailed look at what the fossil record explains and what it does not explain.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

2.  The following is a critique of the claim, "there are no transition fossils".

http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/transitional.html

3.  Here is a detailed breakdown of homonid transitional forms...

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm#Transitionals

4.  Here is a detailed breakdown of the transitional forms of horses...

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/horses.htm#Horses

5.  Here is a good explanation of the dinosaur/bird transition...

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/horses.htm#Horses

6.  Check out the cladogram describing the transitional forms of whales...

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales

I would say that transition fossils certainly exist.  More are being discovered everyday.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## RandomPhantom700

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The first note is that these issues always produce wild inaccuracies, even on the part of those with whom we might otherwise agree. At the moment, the most glaring of these lies in the claim that, "by the same reasoning that the religious Right want to impose their marriage norms on society (parrallel with the imposition of creationism in science classes), the government should be allowed to intrude into the churches' decisions by forcing them to marry homosexuals," when nobody at all has called for churches to be forced to do anything.


I wasn't claiming that the churches have yet been forced to do anything of the sort; I know that they haven't been, and hope for the sake of Freedom of Religion that they aren't. 

All I meant was that the same reasoning you used in saying 



> If we aren't to respect differences between science and religion, and therefore teach creationism is science classes, then there can be no reason not to force the teaching of humanist and evolutionary ideas and theories in churches


could be applied to the gay marriage issue. I.e: If we aren't to respect the difference between legal rights and religious rights, and therefore bar homosexuals from civil union, then there can be no reason not to force the recognition of the legitimacy of gay marriage in churches. 

See?


----------



## michaeledward

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Remember, science *proves *nothing...onto transition fossils. Below is a variety of sources...


 
Hey, check this out. God must have know we were having this 'Hot' discussion. So he created a new fossil for our consideration. He then aged it so it would like like it was 300 million years old and hid it in Pittsburg. Wow.

A brand new Genus. A brand new Species. Not quite a crocodile, not quite a salamander. It's a Striegeli.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/09/amphibianf.ap/index.html



> *PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A geology student on a field trip stumbled across the fossil of an oversized, salamander-like creature with vicious crocodile-like teeth that lived about 300 million years ago, paleontologists said.*
> 
> Scientists say the find is both a new species and a new genus, a broader category in the classification of plants and animals. Talks are under way about what to call the new species, starting with "Striegeli" -- after the University of Pittsburgh student who discovered it.


----------



## qizmoduis

Part of the problem with arguing with creationists is that they redefine words, usually without notice, into something that fits and supports their paradigm.  The word *theory* is perhaps the best example of this.  

To a scientist, a *theory* is a rigorous model, supported by experiments and observations, that seek to explain an observation or related set of observations, and to make predictions about those observations.  Theories must be falsifiable, meaning they can be proven false using the same methods - experiments and observations - that were used to support them in the first place.

To a creationist, a *theory* is just a guess.  To them, one person's guess is as good as any other person's guess.

That's why it's nearly impossible to debate a creationist.  They simply don't operate under the same definitions as you do.

This segues into a very important point about Evolution that is often missed:  Evolution and the Theory of Evolution *aren't the same thing*.  Evolution is an observed fact.  It is observed in the fossil records and in current, everyday lab experiments.  It is observed out in the field.  Evolution was known to have occurred by scientists long before Darwin wandered into the scene.

Darwin was the first to set forth a well-supported Theory of Evolution that attempted to explain how the observed Evolution happened.  We've been refining his model ever since.  Every single branch of science (except perhaps the cosmolgical sciences) feeds into and out of evolutionary biology.  It is so well-supported now, that to falsify it would require the falsification of nearly our entire body of scientific knowledge. 

The Theory of Evolution is supported by chemistry.  It is supported by physics.  Statistics supports it, even chaos theory lends a hand.  It's amazing what can come out of extremely simple chaotic systems.  Look at the Mandelbrot equations for a good example.  Evolution is observed result of a stupefyingly simple chaotic system.

Creationism in it's current incarnation, suffers from another problem:  It doesn't seek to explain anything.  All creationist efforts seek to insert bible-reading into science classrooms at the mid-grade level.  They don't actually do science.  There is no such thing as "Creation Theory", because what they're trying to promulgate isn't a theory.  It's religious scripture using a smattering of scientific-sounding words mixed with usually misguided and always completely incorrect complaints about evolution.

Anyway, my favorite site for this is www.talkorigins.org.  One of the best places on the net for refutation of creationist nonsense.


----------



## loki09789

I think the BIG problem is that people who are arguing 'faith' are trying to force it to stand up to scientific scrutiny and people who are arguing 'science' are trying to use it to destroy mystical/faith beliefs.....

They are two different categories/mental structures so of course they will not 'stand up' to each other in the home court comparision - it is no easier to compare/discuss 'pro choice' and 'pro life' because you are not even discussing the same issue.

Can people at least acknowledge that much?  These discussions boil down to name calling and insult because that simple idea isn't clearly understood.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with 'diverse views' being presented in education, but it is totally senseless to teach a religious/philosophically based construct of the world in science class - leave it to the global studies or ELA classes.


----------



## someguy

It seems that alot of people think of theory as well a guess not a theory  as a theory really is.
Then again evolution originally had a differnt meaning.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html Look for the article that is something like What does the dreaded E word mean anyway?
As you can see the word has changed meanings.  
So What is my point?  I dunno do I really have to have a point.  Ok fine.  Words can take on a new meaning.  Theory can have to meanings.
Now if that isn't off topic I don't know what is.


----------



## loki09789

someguy said:
			
		

> It seems that alot of people think of theory as well a guess not a theory as a theory really is.
> Then again evolution originally had a differnt meaning.
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html Look for the article that is something like What does the dreaded E word mean anyway?
> As you can see the word has changed meanings.
> So What is my point? I dunno do I really have to have a point. Ok fine. Words can take on a new meaning. Theory can have to meanings.
> Now if that isn't off topic I don't know what is.


Well I can see a point in your submission: Even with the "evolutionists" there is discrepancy about how 'evolution' should be defined or detailed.

Take that same internal strife into the 'creationists' and you could expand it beyond 'those damnable fundamental christians' to include non-christian faith structures that have other than scientific/evolutionary ideals about how the world is made.

So, to really crank on this point (not you Paul ), if a 'creationist' is speaking from a Hindi mysticism and commenting on his "Strictly Darwinian" definition of evolution to a "evolutionist" that follows a different/more current variation on evolutionary theory BUT is assuming that this 'creationist' is talking from 'fundamental christian values' what kind of frustration/miscommunication is going to happen? How emotionally irritated are people going to get over assumptions? VERY.

That isn't even addressing the heat between the 'Divine Spark' people who get flak from both sides of the issue.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

*... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated, * 

Or reasonably eloquent to those with an education.  Here...try this:

Dictionary.com.

It'll help you with the tougher words.


*...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"... * 

Theories can not be proven.  They can only be falsified.   If you understood the scientific method, you'd know that.  You have yet to present any evidence falsifying the theory of evolution.  


*but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...*

Science is self correcting.  Every time a hypothesis is overturned do you jump on that as evidence of evolution being under assault?  Please show us where science is backtracking.

*Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...*

_No, you don't. _  You don't understand science or the scientific method.  You haven't an inkling.  You don't seem interested in learning it, either.

* 
Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.*

Placing the word _facts_ in quotation marks doesn't establish them as facts or lend them any truth.  It doesn't really do anything grammatically as you use it here, come to think of it  I knew a Christian who used to use caps with FACTS, and then wouldn't spend any time defending the statement.  We see that here.

*As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.*

Proponents of evolution do not attempt to get evolution taught in Sunday school classes.  As for verifiable data, where?  

*...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.*

Science did in fact spread in the Christian world, and once tension occured from what it presented, the Christian world attempted to squelch it.  Witness the persecution of Galileo.

*.. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews..*

Where?  In what journals?  As tested by whom?  

* 
Why are YOU (read evolutionists) so terrified about letting the theory of creation be taught in classrooms as an alternate to evolution?... * 

Because America is lagging behind the rest of the developed world insofar as science and math...and for the sake of the country I'd hate to see it get any worse by abandoing the scientific method for a confirmation bias that embraces ONE particular religious mindset.

*It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are cramming their personal religious belief in an unproven theory down the throat of everyone else, while at the same time attempting to silence any other competing positions... * 

Hardly.  The churches in this country are free to teach Creationism.  By attempting to have it taught by the government you unwittingly profess the impotence of your faith.  You're having the government step in and take up the slack.  You're confessing the Church can't cut the mustard.  


*we can't have a sensible discussion when we're not allowed to present our side publically in the same environment eh?*

Fine.  Provided you allow us to come to church and get our equal time with the kids in Sunday School classes.  

*...My two bits...*

Or, you could have written "just my opinion" or "IMHO" or "my two cents."  These are the various ways in which people sign off on posts.

Its a disingenuous attempt at absolving yourself and your opinions of any real blame should your perspective get slammed in analysis.  It is, after all, only your opinion (or in this case your two bits).  Opinions thus presented are supposedly unassailable, as everyone is "entitled" to one.  

Let us all dispense with these.  _Of course its your two bits._  State it, stand by it, and defend it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander

> Why are YOU (read evolutionists) so terrified about letting the theory of creation be taught in classrooms as an *alternate* to evolution?...


I missed this before.  As an alternate?  Because it is a fable.  Why on earth would I want my children taught that this is fact?  What educational standard does this demonstrate?  As an alternate?  Never.  In a religious studies class, balanced with other creation myths?  Sure!  Why not?  I don't want my children sheltered from information, but I certainly don't want them coerced into believing, later in life, that they have an "obligation" to pay off your church masters either. 





> The churches in this country are free to teach Creationism. By attempting to have it taught by the government you unwittingly profess the impotence of your faith. You're having the government step in and take up the slack. You're confessing the Church can't cut the mustard.


 Excellent insight.  Very nice.


----------



## heretic888

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think the BIG problem is that people who are arguing 'faith' are trying to force it to stand up to scientific scrutiny and people who are arguing 'science' are trying to use it to destroy mystical/faith beliefs.....
> 
> They are two different categories/mental structures so of course they will not 'stand up' to each other in the home court comparision - it is no easier to compare/discuss 'pro choice' and 'pro life' because you are not even discussing the same issue.
> 
> Can people at least acknowledge that much?  These discussions boil down to name calling and insult because that simple idea isn't clearly understood.
> 
> As I said before, I don't have a problem with 'diverse views' being presented in education, but it is totally senseless to teach a religious/philosophically based construct of the world in science class - leave it to the global studies or ELA classes.



Well said, Loki.  :asian:  :asian:


----------



## heretic888

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That isn't even addressing the heat between the 'Divine Spark' people who get flak from both sides of the issue.



Hrmmm... somehow I think that includes me.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Finally, folks like P'jack aren't a threat. Nor are their ideas; they believe what they believe, and well, so it goes.

However, when they drag in the local witch-burners and the government to force their ideas down everybody sensible's throats, they become a problem. Then, their utter lack of knowledge (let me guess: haven't read Gould, don't know who Louis and Mary Leakey are, haven't gone to a real museum in years, won't look at the evidence, certainly ain't gonna read one of the great achieveements of humankind, "The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man," third-hand Creationist texts only, right?) and their refusal to look at reality becomes a problem.  

Once they call in the cops--and that's what they want--the mere fact that they don't know the books, they won't look at the evidence, and they cannot alloww themselves to reason, becomes an issue for everybody. Hell, one would think that they'd be mildly twiddled by the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't see a prob reconciling Darwin and Genesis, or by the extent to which other practicing Christians can quote and interpret the Bible at least as well as they can--but nope, not an issue. Perfectly hermetically-sealed self-confirming belief system--but then, so are all paranoiac constructions of knowledge.

The real questions all revolve around why they believe this guff, and why they demand that everybody else must too. Of course, they'll always claim that they "just want to represent all viewpoints," that they, "only want equal time." A lie, and apparently a lie that many of their evangelical groups are encouraging them to tell as a tactic. 

What they want is their fantasy of the 13th century: creationism taught as science, sex ed banned, contraception banned, homosexuality made illegal, women shoved back (oh, so sorry--encouraged to fulfill their special, holy mission as bearers of children, cooks, toilet scrubbers, mommies and sex toys), public executions, paddling in schools, the whole sick ball of wax.

And, of course, their small, frightened version of Protestant Christianity enshrined as our State religion. Right after that, maybe we can ban Papism, erase Unitarianism and them damn non-violent Quakers and Amish, run the Muslims out of God's Country, and just generally get on with the Crusade that leads to Armageddon. Of course, they'll be liberal about it--Jews will be...encouraged, shall we say?...to convert.

Anyone who thinks this an exaggeration would do well to look up the Promise Keepers, check out a couple episodes of "The 700 Club," listen to Trinity Broadcasting, track down the various pamphlets and publications that groups like the ACLJ (Jay Sekula, smart man) put out.

Oh yes--apparently Bush is going to put Ralph Reed up for Rep. Party Chairman. Scope out THAT guy's career.

Happy to debate the issues any time; quite unafraid of debate, since these guys will ALWAYS lose any debate. We have better arguments and actual evidence. Hell, many of us have more knowledge of the Bible, sounder theology, and real understanding of ourselves to employ.

That's why they don't want to debate. They want to demand, with the aid of the cops.


----------



## heretic888

> check out a couple episodes of "The 700 Club,"



I've actually done just that. I was thoroughly disgusted about 2 minutes in.

One of the REALLY great ones was when they brought in a "reformed homosexual" who had a wife and two kids, thus proving that "homosexuality is a choice".

Errr... sorry, off-topic.  :uhyeah:


----------



## michaeledward

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Happy to debate the issues any time; quite unafraid of debate, since these guys will ALWAYS lose any debate. We have better arguments and actual evidence. Hell, many of us have more knowledge of the Bible, sounder theology, and real understanding of ourselves to employ.
> 
> That's why they don't want to debate. They want to demand, with the aid of the cops.


We need be constantly vigilant. Seems to me Kerry won three debates, Edwards won one debate ... and we still lost the battle.


----------



## MisterMike

michaeledward said:
			
		

> We need be constantly vigilant. Seems to me Kerry won three debates, Edwards won one debate ... and we still lost the battle.



I guess more people thought that Bush won them then and the Dems will continue to lose the battle.

At least they are well aware that they need to get someone a little closer to the "heartland" and doesn't appear so radically leftist. They pulled it off with Clinton, much to my dismay. Curious who they will nominate in 08. It won't be Hillary or they'll lose again. The country knows the track record and well, frankly isn't ready to elect a woman.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think the BIG problem is that people who are arguing 'faith' are trying to force it to stand up to scientific scrutiny and people who are arguing 'science' are trying to use it to destroy mystical/faith beliefs.....
> 
> They are two different categories/mental structures so of course they will not 'stand up' to each other in the home court comparision - it is no easier to compare/discuss 'pro choice' and 'pro life' because you are not even discussing the same issue.
> 
> Can people at least acknowledge that much?  These discussions boil down to name calling and insult because that simple idea isn't clearly understood.
> 
> As I said before, I don't have a problem with 'diverse views' being presented in education, but it is totally senseless to teach a religious/philosophically based construct of the world in science class - leave it to the global studies or ELA classes.



In the same way that science _cannot _ be used to explain away the existence of God, Creationism, when put into the rigours scientific light, does not hold up as a theory.  When the two are compared and their explanations analyzed, Occum's Razor mutilates one of them...


----------



## Makalakumu

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I guess more people thought that Bush won them then and the Dems will continue to lose the battle.



People who _really _ know what debate is suppose to look like, know who won.  _Those _ are the people who are saying Kerry won.  Debate coaches, speech professors, professional politicos who debate all of the time, all agreed.  Bush/Cheney lost the debates.  Kerry/Edwards won them.  Therefore reasoned debate played, in this instance, did not sway many voters.

Anyway, its the same with evolution and creationism.  The last thing I can see these guys wanting is for the theories to be held up side by side.


----------



## MisterMike

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> People who _really _ know what debate is suppose to look like, know who won.  _Those _ are the people who are saying Kerry won.  Debate coaches, speech professors, professional politicos who debate all of the time, all agreed.  Bush/Cheney lost the debates.  Kerry/Edwards won them.  Therefore reasoned debate played, in this instance, did not sway many voters.
> 
> Anyway, its the same with evolution and creationism.  The last thing I can see these guys wanting is for the theories to be held up side by side.



People who really know, will agree those weren't debates, but whatever...

Also, the object of teaching creationism in the classroom isn't to say which is better. If it isn't even theory, why are you trying to compare it to evolution? And if the evolutionists have no fear that it may stack up against their theory, why do they work do hard to keep it out of the schools?


----------



## Flatlander

MisterMike said:
			
		

> People who really know, will agree those weren't debates, but whatever...
> 
> Also, the object of teaching creationism in the classroom isn't to say which is better. If it isn't even theory, why are you trying to compare it to evolution? And if the evolutionists have no fear that it may stack up against their theory, why do they work do hard to keep it out of the schools?


Mike, with all due respect, this is not what the thread is demonstrating.  What seems to be the goal is the teaching of Creation _instead_ of Evolution.  And note that most are saying that there's no real problem with teaching Creation, as long as they don't limit it exclusively to the KJV story.  There are other myths that warrant study and exposure too.


----------



## MisterMike

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Mike, with all due respect, this is not what the thread is demonstrating.  What seems to be the goal is the teaching of Creation _instead_ of Evolution.  And note that most are saying that there's no real problem with teaching Creation, as long as they don't limit it exclusively to the KJV story.  There are other myths that warrant study and exposure too.



Well, I'll concede that that is where people have brought this thread, but the subject is just "getting a place in the classes." Where it's primarily gone is that Creationism is being 'pushed' by the fundy 'right wingers' to convert our precious nation's youth into Bible-thumpers.

I for one would be interested in Native American beliefs as well, but we run into the same problem of Who is 'expert' enough to teach it?

Bottom line is that they don't want it offered at all. Leave it to the churches and family to teach. Well sorry, but for the rest of the people who don't grow up with any idea of what it is about, you get the likes of half the ignorant posters on this thread. (Myself included as I'm not Bible scholar either.)


----------



## Feisty Mouse

MrMike, are youthen advocating for a religious studies or international cultures studies class?

I think that is an excellent idea.


----------



## heretic888

Its a rather simple problem, Mike.

"Creationists" want to teach fundamentalist Protestant theology in a science classroom. A theology which, by the way, has no supporting _scientific evidence_. That is what is so truly bizarre.

So, yes, this truly is a matter of the Religious Right trying to forcefeed their beliefs down the throats of America's youth.

I'm all for teaching different creation myths and philosophical speculations on the origins of existence. But, guess what?? We already do that. They're called So-and-So Literature, Philosophy, Theory of Knowledge, Comparative Religion, Cultural Anthropology, and so on --- in fact, there are a helluva lot more classes dedicated to talking about this stuff than they are about evolution.

These "creationists" aren't fighting for having "alternate views" portrayed in our schools --- which they already are, in the appropriate classrooms and settings. No, they are fighting to have their religious beliefs passed off as "science".

Because, rest assured, these guys would still be absolutely livid if it was Hindu or Buddhist or Mithraic creation myths being taught and not theirs...


----------



## rmcrobertson

Just FYI, the Puritans came to this country because they were a narrow-minded, bigoted religious cult that meddled in national politics. They came here to DENY the religious liberties that Englishmen and Englishwomen were slowly acquiring.

Pennsylvania--William Penn?--is there in large part because when this group of loons took over England in the 1640s, they immediately attacked groups like the Quakers. Rhode Island is there because these selfsame Puritans meant their name, and drove out any and all Dissenters.


----------



## Makalakumu

MisterMike said:
			
		

> People who really know, will agree those weren't debates, but whatever...



I agree with you here.  All four debates were like extended infomertials...anyways...



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Also, the object of teaching creationism in the classroom isn't to say which is better. If it isn't even theory, why are you trying to compare it to evolution? And if the evolutionists have no fear that it may stack up against their theory, why do they work do hard to keep it out of the schools?



I have no problem comparing evolution to creationism on their "scientific" merits.  No body wishes to do so on this thread and in the creationism community, nobody really wishes to do so either.


----------



## Rich Parsons

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just FYI, the Puritans came to this country because they were a narrow-minded, bigoted religious cult that meddled in national politics. They came here to DENY the religious liberties that Englishmen and Englishwomen were slowly acquiring.
> 
> Pennsylvania--William Penn?--is there in large part because when this group of loons took over England in the 1640s, they immediately attacked groups like the Quakers. Rhode Island is there because these selfsame Puritans meant their name, and drove out any and all Dissenters.



Robert, I agree that the Puritans, are Religous intolerants, yet, they came here to practice their religion their way.  I never said they were right or that those in Rhode Island, need to be given special treatment for past sins committed toward them.

As to Penn and the Quakers, I agree that it goes back to England for the source, yet, teh creators of the Constitution, knew of them and did nto want them to take over here as well. Yet, they did nto wish to deny them the right to practice their religion no matter how wierd it might seem to anyone.

:asian:


----------



## heretic888

> As to Penn and the Quakers, I agree that it goes back to England for the source, yet, teh creators of the Constitution, knew of them and did nto want them to take over here as well. Yet, they did nto wish to deny them the right to practice their religion no matter how wierd it might seem to anyone.



Ummm.... since when have the Religious Society of Friends tried to "take over" anything?? They don't even believe in having militaries. They're as pacifist as it comes.

And, just for kicks, if I were to single out any one or two religions/philosophies that definitively shaped our constitutional forbearers my vote goes to Unitarianism (which later became Unitarian-Universalism) and Deism.

Unitarianism, by the way, in addition to influencing such intellectuals as Jefferson and Franklin also gave us the first truly great American literary movement: Transcendentalism (Emerson and Thoreau, anyone?).


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. Among the reasons that one "does not want," creationist doctrines taught as serious scientific theories in science classes (and just incidentally, such theories often do come up--so that they can be debunked, and the difference betweeen science and religion explained) is the notion that it's for the same reason that one doesn't want three-year-olds playing with choo-choos--grownups have better things to do. 

2. Who wrote anything about folks from RI deserving "special treatment," because of past sins committed against them? Compensation for Roger Williams, whose statue one used to live two doors down from on Congdon Street? (And, by the way, about a block and a half from the First Baptist Church...no, really, the first one, which was there BECAUSE RELIGIOUS FANATICS DROVE ALL DISSENTERS OUT OF THE MASS BAY COLONY, which was also why the first synagogue built in this country is in Newport, RI...good state.) One suspects that this is another case of over-reading (those libs...always wanting guilt money...) a simple recognition of history.

3. Personally, who cares if there's a jumble of "pagan," and "Christian," symbols on our money? Atheists--who some folks quite correctly believe have made their own leap of faith in declaring that there ain't no God--fussing over Masonic imagery would do better to sweat over, say, the un-Constitutional recitation of forced prayer at public meetings. Money's just representative of our history...why go back and scrub off all the bits ya don't like? You'll be left with precious little history.

4. The real crossover to worry over isn't science and religion. It's capitalism and Christianity.

5. The preamble to the Constitution cites Nature's God simply in order to postulate an origin for subsequently-discussed Rights. Why? because (see Kaja Silverman's opening chapters, "The Subject of Semiotics," or Chris Weedon's "Feminist Practice and Post-Structuralist Theory") it's very difficult to work out the reasons that rights should even exist if everything's grounded in human practice and history alone. In other words, on one hand you have essentialist theories: there's some, 'essential,' reality existing before human practice came along, and continuing along outside our control to legitimate/make meaningful what we do. On the other, you have 'cultural construction:' no outside solid reality, and we make the world meaningful in whatever fashion we collectively choose.

Examples of essentialism: all religions; Jungianism; biology/evolution based theories of human behavior, rights, culture, gender differences, etc. These all share the notion that there's something defining us, outside our culture, language, history, etc.

Examples of cultural construction: Marx's, "men make history, but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing;" Foucault's arguments.

OK, this is oversimplifying a bit for the sake of clear illustration. But in the Constitution, you see: a) Rights guaranteed by "Nature's Creator," so that they can be put outside our ability to change them--therefore, the Bill of Rights, which despite some goofball claims, we cannot vote away, and which is protected by a judiciary taking its authority from Nature's Creator, whoever or whatever one thinks that is; b) government and laws constructed through human action, and continuing to evolve as we reassemble and rethink our history and our institutions.

Why? One explanation: essentialist theories explain why there are, "certain inalienable rights;" constructivist theories explain, and allow people intellectual grounds for building as just a society as possible. 

Is there a tension between them? Sure. Perfectly healthy for the Republic. Built in, in fact. Good.

The problem with religious nutcakes (including the Madalyn Murray O'hares of the world) is that they want the tension to go away. This a bad thing. See Iran. See Lysenko.



However, science also has an Authority that's outside human intervention: Nature, to which we pray (just kidding) by observation and/or experiment. By definition, science tables and/or brackets the whole question of is there a God, placing that outside the order of science. 

Incidentally, these "bracketings," and construction of systems of thought around irreducible tensions and/or core illogicalities go on everywhere. See Jacques Derrida's work, especially the stuff on supplements to origins.


----------



## Flatlander

Discussion of Religious symbolism on US money spun off to E Pluribus Unum thread.


----------



## heretic888

Thanks, Flatlander.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In the same way that science _cannot _be used to explain away the existence of God, Creationism, when put into the rigours scientific light, does not hold up as a theory. When the two are compared and their explanations analyzed, Occum's Razor mutilates one of them...


Occum's Razor, being a scientific/logic process, is going to be obliterating creationism I take it?

My point is that the comparison is pointless.  Apples and oranges.

Personally, believing the Creationist view or 'fundamentalist' view of the Bible as literally and exactly accurate is about as reasonable to me as believing that Santa Claus is real instead of what 'Santa Claus' stands for as a symbol.

BUT,

That isn't the point.  The point is that Americans are suppose to give equal voice/time/respect to diverse/multicultural views that represent the spectrum of the population.  If that means that I end up teaching a multicultural unit that presents diverse mythical 'creation' stories and Social studies presents the 'global' belief systems so that students get exposure to the different ways that Americans see the world, that is fine.

Since we are discussing public education that is state/locally funded, if the people in that community want to pursue presentations that are not presently being made, so what.

In our area they have magnate schools that are thematic (Native American school, Italian school,....) and that was partly to represent the diverse cultures in the city.


----------



## heretic888

Well, personally, I think biology teachers have enough on their plate to deal with without getting into different creation myths --- which could be an entire class in and of itself.


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, personally, I think biology teachers have enough on their plate to deal with without getting into different creation myths --- which could be an entire class in and of itself.


Yup, English or Global or a combo of the two in a public education setting.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Occum's Razor, being a scientific/logic process, is going to be obliterating creationism I take it?



Yes.  That is why I think putting so called "creation science" into the scientific field really does a disservice to the symbol the creation story is.  There are important metaphors and symbols that wouldn't be addressed as the rigor of science dismantles "creationism" in a very literal sense.  I think that it would eventually harm people's faith in Christianity.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> My point is that the comparison is pointless.  Apples and oranges.



The comparison is important, if only to teach people the difference between science and religion.  For some, it takes the placement of an apple and an orange before their eyes before they'll see the difference.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Since Occam's Razor has been brought up--William of Ockham's remark that one must not multiply hypotheses unnecessaily, often translated as, "always try the simplest explanation first"--one must speak to the notion that "creation science," somehow belongs in the science classroom as a matter of diversity.

Leaving aside the issue of the Right's goofy political correctness, there's this: the Razor is utterly incompatible with fanciful ideas about Jehovah slapping the world together in six days. Such faith-based ideas are, by definition, NOT based on reason, and they are NOT based on facts. If anything, faith acts DESPITE reason and DESPITE facts.

Science does not merely teach this theory or that theory, this fact or that fact. Science teaches students to try and put aside their beliefs and their biases, whatever these are, and to simply look at the world as it really is. Science teaches students to construct reasoned hypotheses, and to test them against Nature, and to discard or modify hypotheses that do not work, no matter how dear to one's heart they might be.

One suspects, at times, that religions are indeed going to have a difficult time surviving rational thought and a respect for reality. Perhaps Clarke was right--Buddhisms will do fine, but the sky-god cults are in for a rough ride...at least, if they keep insisting on nonsenses.

One also suspects that multiculturalisms don't have a lot of place in science classes, though they assuredly do in the history of science. (It'd be nice if white men quit pretending that they invented everything....) especially since one of the most hopeful things about science and mathmatics is that they really do offer a lingua franca for everybody, a way of allowing everybody to look at the world with less bias, and make rational judgments about what they see. 

It would be every bit as revolting to have, say, Norse mythology jammed into biology as it is to have wacko Protestant fundamentalism jammed in there. It's just that we don't happen to be hip-deep in Baldur-worshippers at the moment.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It would be every bit as revolting to have, say, Norse mythology jammed into biology as it is to have wacko Protestant fundamentalism jammed in there. It's just that we don't happen to be hip-deep in Baldur-worshippers at the moment.


:roflmao: 

Whew!  That was excellent.


----------



## michaeledward

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The point is that Americans are suppose to give equal voice/time/respect to diverse/multicultural views that represent the spectrum of the population.


I wasn't aware that was the point.

What if one believes that all human beings come from a race of superbeings hiding in a space-ship that follows closely behind comet Hale-Bopp?

Does Heaven's Gate get equal time?


----------



## Nightingale

The theory of evolution was formed when scientists looked at evidence, and came up with a theory to explain the evidence.

Creationists formed the idea first, and then began trying to squeeze the evidence into their idea, and proceeded to ignore what didn't fit (dinosaurs).

That is why one belongs in a science class and the other does not.  One is a scientific theory that is the best explanation we have at this point in time and fits all the available evidence.  The other is a random idea with no source other than a single book that's been translated and mistranslated for the last few centuries, and practically re-written by Constantine, and doesn't fit the evidence anyway.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> MrMike, are youthen advocating for a religious studies or international cultures studies class?
> 
> I think that is an excellent idea.




I think its a great idea, too.  I suspect, however, that Fundamentalists won't much like it when we teach them about Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Shinto, Animism, and the others.

The latest article.  Georgians are worried that people will think them uneducated because of the controversy over evolution.  Can't imagine why:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/12/evolution.embarrassment.ap/index.html


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward

And now Pennsylvania steps into the fray!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/



> School board OKs challenges to evolution
> Controversial step taken in rural Pennsylvania district
> 
> DOVER, Pa. - When talk at the high school here turns to evolution, biology teachers have to make time for Charles Darwin as well as his detractors.
> With a vote last month, the school board in rural south-central Pennsylvania community is believed to have become the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of intelligent design, which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power.
> Critics call the change in the ninth-grade biology curriculum a veiled attempt to require public schoolchildren to learn creationism, a biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God. Schools typically teach evolution, the theory that Earth is billions of years old and that life forms developed over millions of years.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And now Pennsylvania steps into the fray!




<sigh...>

Thus it begins.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/bob_jones_bush

"In your re-election, God has graciously granted America  though she doesn't deserve it  a reprieve from the agenda of paganism....You have been given a mandate.... Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ," 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888

Ugh. Maybe it really is the End Times after all.  :shrug:  :shrug:  :shrug: 

*vomits in disgust*


----------



## michaeledward

The rhetoric of Bob Jones club for holy boys and girls aside .... 

I believe that the President is going to do exactly what the Evangelicals are asking of him. Although the 'Christian Right' may think it is because they delivered the vote, it is probably more likely that those are the President's own leanings. 

All the talk over the last week about the President 'looking to his legacy' and 'moving more to the center', I believe is wishful thinking. The President made it clear, in no uncertain terms, during the debates that the American people can, quote; "*KNOW *(pound on the podium) *WHERE *(pound on the podium) *I *(pound on the podium) *STAND* (pound on the podium)."

I was very strongly for Kerry during this last election because I refuse to misunderestimate the President again. In 2000, he told us he would be a compassionate conservative and then appointed John Ashcroft as Attorney General. This was very clear. The President has ruled from the far right for the last four years. I take him at his word... I don't think our Supreme Court Justices can hold out another four years.

m


----------



## Rich Parsons

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ugh. Maybe it really is the End Times after all.  :shrug:  :shrug:
> 
> *vomits in disgust*



Wow, We agree  

:shrug:


----------



## heretic888

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Wow, We agree
> 
> :shrug:



Looks like.


----------



## parmandjack

and in Atlanta too...

....maybe its time to open your minids to other ideas eh?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41437


----------



## Flatlander

From your own article, 





> By contrast, evolution and *intelligent design* are not provable by empirical observation and are therefore *not truly scientific theories* at all. Each theory does possess scientific character because they each attempt to correlate and explain scientific data. Yet, both intelligent design and evolution are best characterized as explanatory models on mans' origins. They are *philosophical and historical in nature, not empirical. *


 Creation belongs not in a science class.


----------



## Flatlander

From your own article:





> A trial opened Monday over a warning sticker placed in suburban Atlanta biology textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact." The sticker reads, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."


 They are not teaching Creation in the classroom, they are questioning the validity of evolution, which is fine by me.  That's what theories are for, to be probed, contemplated, and held up to the light of criticism.


----------



## parmandjack

Flatlander said:
			
		

> From your own article, Creation belongs not in a science class.


... and as you lend credence to the article... neither does evolution.... thats teh point...


Anyway, this will be my last post to this site...

AS I noted form the beginning, only those who are proponents of evolution, and only those who are liberal "christians" (yes fiesty this means you) , are allowed to express the kinds of arrogance, bigotry, hatred, and vicious personal assaults that has been the halmark of this web site against born again people... when I respond in kind, but with much less vitriol, I am threatened with barring...

I have been "warned" and "threatened" by mod's in the past, and now Seig has make silencing the real believers his personal mission... i have to be nice to you while you are rude and slanderous towads me... i simply cant stomach it anymore... but hey,... thats teh goal of these supposed "exchange of ideas" right... keep slamming the person who disagrees with you till they leave...

however...the amount of bias, bigotry, and downright hatred towards true bible-believing christians emanating from you on this site is revolting...

... whether you believe it or not, Jesus is God, and God is real, and Jesus created everything... your puffed up chests wont change anything... the bible sez what it sez... God said what He meant, and meant what He said...He doesnt need hypocrits like fiesty claiming salvation through Jesus, then denying that Jesus (the source of her believed salvation) was a liar and wrong... which you did, even though you will deny this and try to explain the bible away...

...argue all you want about it, especially you fiesty... you are wrong.. i dont read little bits here and there - i read the whole bible, and leave it all in its original context, something you refuse to do [fiesty and other pretend christians] because that method of study would highlight your glaring ignorance, and ruin the bubble you have created for yourself in your delusion of salvation by the God you claim is wrong...

I have therefore responded to Seig's threats by telling him in no uncertain terms which part of my anatomy he can kiss, and advised him to go ahead and ban me from this close-minded site...

I may be born again, but unlike you primadonas and hypocrits pretending to be christians, I am fallible, and fall well short of God's desire for us.. I can only ask and receive forgiveness from God for my rightious anger and words against the hypocrits on this site.... 

I therfore "shake" the proverbial "dust from my sandals" as I leave this little internet clubhouse full of disbelieving vipers, poisonous ideas, and theologically corrupt wolves in sheeps clothing like fiesty...

I know the character assassinations and the rest of the vileness that you contain will follow my departure, but rest assured, as fallible I am, God is just as True to His Word... for those of you who may really be interested in true christianity, please don't iassume that my disgust with this group of self-involved and arrogant "intellectuals" ... hahaha,, is reflective of Jesus.. this is my own fallen self speaking...

Judgement Day is coming, whether you agree or not...

May God Save your lost souls...


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. Evolution rests on EMPIRICAL grounds that in fact are rock solid--as solid, indeed, as anything in science. You don't have to believe that--because a) it isn't a matter of belief, and b) Nature doesn't care whether or not you believe in Nature.

2. Those, "innocent," stickers were put there to placate a radical fundamentalist Protestant group. One is as outraged as one would be to open a science text and read a sticker saying, "the theory of the heliocentric solar system and the expanding universe is just a theory, and...," or to open a history text and read, "the idea of equal treatment under the law propounded by the 14th Amendment is just a legal theory, and...." This is exactly the same tactic as "silent meditation," and all those, "student-led," prayers before games, and should be understood as a tactic. Go scope out the specific strategies advocaated by groups like the Institute for Creation Studies.

3. Make no mistake: none of this has anything whatsoever to do with open-mindedness, fairness, or any other such thing. If it did, these folks would take the risk of actual debate rather than simply bullying and Bible-thumping.


----------



## Flatlander

> Anyway, this will be my last post to this site...


 Well, I'm sorry to hear you're leaving forever, but, in your travels, should you find a fact which supports your position, please come share it with us.


----------



## Adept

parmandjack said:
			
		

> whether you believe it or not, Jesus is God, and God is real, and Jesus created everything


 Prove it.


----------



## Nightingale

:feedtroll


----------



## RandomPhantom700

No feeding necessary.  Parmy's running off his own proverbial fumes.


----------



## Cruentus

My brain is now leaking out of my head...this is really a dumb thread.

Especially considering that I can PROVE imperically that creationism is not only not a scientific theory, but completely false to boot.

Proof: If Adam had a rib removed to make a Eve, then Adam would have less ribs. With less ribs, he would have achieved every man's deep down goal of being able to bury his head into his own crotch. If Adam could bury his head into his own crotch, then he wouldn't have needed Eve for anything, and humankind would have been lost.

So you see, creationism is completely false, which is all for the better of humankind....

Paul


----------



## Makalakumu

parmandjack said:
			
		

> ... and as you lend credence to the article... neither does evolution.... thats teh point...
> 
> 
> Anyway, this will be my last post to this site...
> 
> AS I noted form the beginning, only those who are proponents of evolution, and only those who are liberal "christians" (yes fiesty this means you) , are allowed to express the kinds of arrogance, bigotry, hatred, and vicious personal assaults that has been the halmark of this web site against born again people... when I respond in kind, but with much less vitriol, I am threatened with barring...
> 
> I have been "warned" and "threatened" by mod's in the past, and now Seig has make silencing the real believers his personal mission... i have to be nice to you while you are rude and slanderous towads me... i simply cant stomach it anymore... but hey,... thats teh goal of these supposed "exchange of ideas" right... keep slamming the person who disagrees with you till they leave...
> 
> however...the amount of bias, bigotry, and downright hatred towards true bible-believing christians emanating from you on this site is revolting...
> 
> ... whether you believe it or not, Jesus is God, and God is real, and Jesus created everything... your puffed up chests wont change anything... the bible sez what it sez... God said what He meant, and meant what He said...He doesnt need hypocrits like fiesty claiming salvation through Jesus, then denying that Jesus (the source of her believed salvation) was a liar and wrong... which you did, even though you will deny this and try to explain the bible away...
> 
> ...argue all you want about it, especially you fiesty... you are wrong.. i dont read little bits here and there - i read the whole bible, and leave it all in its original context, something you refuse to do [fiesty and other pretend christians] because that method of study would highlight your glaring ignorance, and ruin the bubble you have created for yourself in your delusion of salvation by the God you claim is wrong...
> 
> I have therefore responded to Seig's threats by telling him in no uncertain terms which part of my anatomy he can kiss, and advised him to go ahead and ban me from this close-minded site...
> 
> I may be born again, but unlike you primadonas and hypocrits pretending to be christians, I am fallible, and fall well short of God's desire for us.. I can only ask and receive forgiveness from God for my rightious anger and words against the hypocrits on this site....
> 
> I therfore "shake" the proverbial "dust from my sandals" as I leave this little internet clubhouse full of disbelieving vipers, poisonous ideas, and theologically corrupt wolves in sheeps clothing like fiesty...
> 
> I know the character assassinations and the rest of the vileness that you contain will follow my departure, but rest assured, as fallible I am, God is just as True to His Word... for those of you who may really be interested in true christianity, please don't iassume that my disgust with this group of self-involved and arrogant "intellectuals" ... hahaha,, is reflective of Jesus.. this is my own fallen self speaking...
> 
> Judgement Day is coming, whether you agree or not...
> 
> May God Save your lost souls...



I appreciate the fact that you had the courage to present your beliefs so strongly on this matter.  Look at the length of this thread.  Look at the depth of the discussion.  Finally, take a look at what people are saying.  Not the abrasiveness, but the points...I know you believe strongly in God, Jesus, the Bible and Creationism and it can be very difficult to see those beliefs challenged...and I have a fair bit of empathy for that.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Parmandjack anticipated we wouldn't be kind.  Upnorth was, somewhat, to his credit.  This last post of Parmandjack's is so hateful, however, that I have to answer it as I see fit.  I may not be kind.


*Anyway, this will be my last post to this site...*

I have mixed feelings about that.  Having a Fundamentalist of this caliber on the Forum showcases a form of bigotry seemingly unique to the United States, and we need to acknowledge it by having it up front and center for all to see.  Parmandjack is not a caricature.  He is one of a large subset of Americans who live their lives by a creed of hatred, and who mock the teachings of the Lord they profess to follow.  (Matt. 7:2-7:5)  

*AS I noted form the beginning, only those who are proponents of evolution, and only those who are liberal "christians" (yes fiesty this means you) , are allowed to express the kinds of arrogance, bigotry, hatred, and vicious personal assaults that has been the halmark of this web site against born again people... * 

I have known Feisty for about two years now.  She is kind, gentle, and generous.  She is articulate and well educated.  For those on this forum who have befriended her, if you're ever fortunate enough to meet her you'll quickly note her eyes, which betray her sensitivity and warmth.  

To term her as a vicious, arrogant bigot is easily one of the stupidest and most mean spirited things I have ever read on this forum, but certainly not beyond Parmandjack.  Feisty and others have raised a mirror to him and he has cast about blindly what he has seen within it.  Much of it has been directed at her.

I'll offer this to her as a counter:  If anything I say or write carries any substance with you Feisty, then know that I consider you one of the finest people that I have ever met.  Standing up to a man like Parmandjack only increases my esteem for you and the pride I have for you as my friend.  

You seem to draw invective from guys like Parmandjack, Feisty.  They come at you with a degree of animosity that is unprovoked and surprising...I suspect its because you're a woman that speaks her mind.  In doing so you readily expose the disparity of intellect between you and your antagonists.  This emasculates them and exposes them as the sexist, craven cowards that they are.  

Keep up the good work.  


* 
I have been "warned" and "threatened" by mod's in the past, and now Seig has make silencing the real believers his personal mission... * 

Note the improper use of quotation marks here by Parmandjack.  "Seig," though I have often "disagreed" with him in the past, "doesn't" strike me as holding a "bias" towards Christians.  Parmandjack "probably" had it coming.


*i simply cant stomach it anymore... but hey,... thats teh goal of these supposed "exchange of ideas" right... keep slamming the person who disagrees with you till they leave...
* 

My goal would have been for the young people on this thread to see Parmandjack's rants, and to note our reasoned counterpoints and challenges to him to back up what he wrote.  Maybe it is misplaced optimism to think that a youngster might read this and grow from it.  I have a lot of faith in young people, though, and I intend to keep that confidence well into old age.  

*... whether you believe it or not, Jesus is God, and God is real, and Jesus created everything... your puffed up chests wont change anything... the bible sez what it sez... * 

Yes.  It does.  

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/


*I therfore "shake" the proverbial "dust from my sandals" as I leave this little internet clubhouse full of disbelieving vipers, poisonous ideas, and theologically corrupt wolves in sheeps clothing like fiesty...*

_I do so want to meet you in person. _ 

Proverbs 18:6 (Revised Standard Version)


* 
May God Save your lost souls...*


I'll make it a point to ask for a GPS for Christmas.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard

parmandjack said:
			
		

> AS I noted form the beginning, only those who are proponents of evolution, and only those who are liberal "christians" (yes fiesty this means you) , are allowed to express the kinds of arrogance, bigotry, hatred, and vicious personal assaults that has been the halmark of this web site against born again people... when I respond in kind, but with much less vitriol, I am threatened with barring...


 No, when you continue to violate the posted rules, and flame bait, you are threatened.  Personal opinions expressed in most of the cases have not been any more filled with bigotry, hatred, etc than your own.



> I have been "warned" and "threatened" by mod's in the past, and now Seig has make silencing the real believers his personal mission... i have to be nice to you while you are rude and slanderous towads me... i simply cant stomach it anymore... but hey,... thats teh goal of these supposed "exchange of ideas" right... keep slamming the person who disagrees with you till they leave...


 No one asked you to leave. That was your choise.  After seeing this little temper-tantrum however I would have banned you myself.



> however...the amount of bias, bigotry, and downright hatred towards true bible-believing christians emanating from you on this site is revolting...


 Considering the majority here probably is a member of some christian faith, I find your statement to be very misleading.



> ... whether you believe it or not, Jesus is God, and God is real, and Jesus created everything... your puffed up chests wont change anything... the bible sez what it sez... God said what He meant, and meant what He said...He doesnt need hypocrits like fiesty claiming salvation through Jesus, then denying that Jesus (the source of her believed salvation) was a liar and wrong... which you did, even though you will deny this and try to explain the bible away...
> 
> ...argue all you want about it, especially you fiesty... you are wrong.. i dont read little bits here and there - i read the whole bible, and leave it all in its original context, something you refuse to do [fiesty and other pretend christians] because that method of study would highlight your glaring ignorance, and ruin the bubble you have created for yourself in your delusion of salvation by the God you claim is wrong...


 Then your studies are incomplete. I have also read it cover to cover, and I personally find your interpretation to be in extreme error.



> I have therefore responded to Seig's threats by telling him in no uncertain terms which part of my anatomy he can kiss, and advised him to go ahead and ban me from this close-minded site...


 Yes, very Christian of you.



> I may be born again, but unlike you primadonas and hypocrits pretending to be christians, I am fallible, and fall well short of God's desire for us.. I can only ask and receive forgiveness from God for my rightious anger and words against the hypocrits on this site....


 I truely feel sorry for you, and pity you for the narrow cell you have caged yourself within. It is not anywhere near what I found in your Bible, or what my other reborn friends did either.  They seem happy, content, and hold a peace in their hearts you seem to so sadly missed out on.



> I therfore "shake" the proverbial "dust from my sandals" as I leave this little internet clubhouse full of disbelieving vipers, poisonous ideas, and theologically corrupt wolves in sheeps clothing like fiesty...


 The saying goes "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."



> I know the character assassinations and the rest of the vileness that you contain will follow my departure, but rest assured, as fallible I am, God is just as True to His Word... for those of you who may really be interested in true christianity, please don't iassume that my disgust with this group of self-involved and arrogant "intellectuals" ... hahaha,, is reflective of Jesus.. this is my own fallen self speaking...


 We could never do to your image or faith the damage your own actions and words have done. Your own hate soaked words show your heart and soul to be the black pits they truely are.  If you are an example of what True Christianity is, then I thank my Gods I found them, before you found me.



> Judgement Day is coming, whether you agree or not...


 Saw the movie, nice special effects, especially the T-1000.



> May God Save your lost souls...


 Actually, SHE did...and was a great kisser if I remember my visitation correctly......but thats a story for the theology forum. 


 Now, fun time is over. Lets go back to the topic of this thread, please.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

I just want to say a very heartfelt Thank You to Steve.  :asian: 

I cannot tell you what your kind words meant to me.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I just want to say a very heartfelt Thank You to Steve.  :asian:
> 
> I cannot tell you what your kind words meant to me.




Over coffee, sometime, you could try.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Will do.  

And, as a matter of curiosity, I was wondering what the regional differences are with wanting to change science textbooks, placing creationism in classrooms, etc.  I must admit I did not expect Wisconsin or Georgia to be hotbeds of creationism activism, necessarily.

Why is it that some regions are finding this to be the case?


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Will do.
> 
> And, as a matter of curiosity, I was wondering what the regional differences are with wanting to change science textbooks, placing creationism in classrooms, etc.  I must admit I did not expect Wisconsin or Georgia to be hotbeds of creationism activism, necessarily.
> 
> Why is it that some regions are finding this to be the case?




I don't know, to be honest.  While Georgia is in the south and  a red state, you'd think one of the poorer states down there would take up the cause.  Demographics may change now that more affluent blacks are returning to Georgia and Atlanta becomes more of an "ideaopolis."

Let me speculate....

Wisconsin is farm country...redder than one would think.  

When one looks at the counties that went red versus those that went blue, it gives one the impression of a landslide for Bush, which is not the case.  However, in blue states there were many counties that had the majority for Bush, even though the states overall went to Kerry.  Most of those counties were rural counties.

So...farmers tend to vote Republican.  Even Yankee farmers.  Farmers tend towards fundamentalism.  The liberals tend to congregate in the cities.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander

> So...farmers tend to vote Republican. Even Yankee farmers. Farmers tend towards fundamentalism. The liberals tend to congregate in the cities.


 For the most part, this pattern is the same in Canada.


----------



## raedyn

Currently, this is true of Canada. But more historically some of the rural areas (such as Saskatchewan) have been strongholds of socialism. Examples: the co-op movement, trade unionism, home of medicare. I wonder why the idelogical shift?


----------



## heretic888

Holy crap (pardon the pun)!!

I'm gone for a day or two, and Jack gives us his *counts* fourth Farewell Tour. Like KISS, I sincerely doubt it'll be the last one, either.   

All this does validate an idea I've had for quite some time. That, whenever there's a "personal god" in someone's belief system  --- as opposed to Meister Eckhart's Godhead, Nagarjuna's Shunyata, Thomas Merton's Ground of Being, Plotinus' the Absolute, Plato's the One, Lao Tzu's Tao, or Shankara's Brahman-Atman --- its really little more than an elevated projection of the speaker's superego (to use a Freudian term).

Liberal pacifist types have liberal pacifist "gods" (and "Jesuses"). Fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist types have fire-and-brimstone "gods" (and "Jesuses"). Rational, positivist types lean toward deism. Nature-loving types learn toward pantheism and Gaia. So on and so on.

P'jack, clearly, does not break from this projectionist trend. An intolerant, biggoted god for an intolerant, biggoted jack-in-the-box.


----------



## raedyn

I think you will find, Herrie, that Jack will have difficulty returning because he is a banned user. I *think* (and don't quote me on this) that means his IP is also banned. When he made it a significantly personal attack, he stepped way over the line, IMO.


----------



## heretic888

Well, we can always hope can't we??


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Hes banned.  If he returns as someone else, we will escalate the administrative response, as needed.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Hes banned.  If he returns as someone else, we will escalate the administrative response, as needed.



I like that word, "escalate."  

Can we call in an airstrike on his position?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## bignick

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> So...farmers tend to vote Republican. Even Yankee farmers. Farmers tend towards fundamentalism. The liberals tend to congregate in the cities.


not always true...minnesota is pretty rural...and my home county is as rural as it gets and the voter turn out was around 97-98% with the county going to Kerry....strangely...where most people think liberals are located, the youth in college...i see quite differently...the apparent numbers of Bush supporters here on campus appear to heavily outweigh the liberals

oh well,  i'm awfully purple with a definite blue hue during this last election...

and of course we all know that it ain't easy being green


----------



## 5 hand swords

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> The inability to employ inflection over the internet does get annoying at times. For clarification, my comment was sarcastic.
> 
> Creationism is, in no way, shape, or form, a scientific theory. Those who say that it is think that something is a "scientific theory" if all it does is explain stuff. Science does that, but to qualify as a scientific theory, you need a hell of a lot more: a hypothesis, refutability, verification, all that stuff.


I just think Religion should be a elective extracurricular thing if it is in public school at all - they can fight it out for the collage level teachers cheap if they tithe it instead of tax it for funding.
LOL


----------



## 5 hand swords

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes


Hey I got a Problem with Priests in Public Schools!
;with all the little impresionable kids you know, It's not Catholic School people. It's Public school do we add DiskWorld theroy next? I am not forbidding discussion of the topic but in science class, can the teacher explain why the materal is included?

Use Math


----------



## 5 hand swords

5 hand swords said:
			
		

> Hey I got a Problem with Priests in Public Schools!
> ;with all the little impresionable kids you know, It's not Catholic School people. It's Public school do we add DiskWorld theroy next? I am not forbidding discussion of the topic but in science class, can the teacher explain why the materal is included?
> Use Math


Legal status of teaching this in WI vs. 50 others of the super-set involved would be a start for a place to get numbers from, Religion in politics and its role in the community would be other areas I recommend inclusion of.


----------



## 5 hand swords

bad bad bad - where delete?


----------



## someguy

This whole evolution and Georgia thing is abit dear to me.  I dunnowhy oh wait might be where I live sooooo.....
I would like to say this.  I love the south for the most part.  Y'all have heard 'bout southern hospitality.  Now we can't spel to good sometime. Wait thats just me always.  
The south also can be the most annoying place ever.  Sure you can smack people around when you get bored though.  Here is how "Hey Bubba Creationism is wrong"  From here a fight ensuse.  usually with words.  People will hold on to their views no matter how much you show them yor right though.  I think we have seen proof of that here on this thread.
I also have seen people drop a class because Neitzche said "God is dead."  
Well I blame the education.  I blame people like Cathy Cox(or is it Kathy Cox there are two of 'em in power round here) Wait I blame the voters.  But I blame there education.  But I blame people like Cathy Cox.  
Cathy(or Kathy) Cox is the Georgia School Superintendent person lady.
What purpose did this rant of mine have.  Well education need's help.  

I'm not saying people who don't belive in evolution are dumb mind you.  There are some really smart people who belive in creationism I know.  One of my aunts does and she is very smart.  She does stuff with lasers and junk that i'll only nod my head pretending to understand about the word after parabolic(who knows what a mirror is)
Well hope that wasn't to confusafying for you.  I know I can be some times err alot of the time.  All I'm saying here is well amongst other things don't hold Georgia against Georgia.  Education will get better.  In some places it is horrible but getting better.  And evolution v. creationsim battle is kind of slowly dieing I think.  
Oh and one more thing if y'all ever say anything bad about my State I'll come kick your sorry Yankee____ ____________________________ _____________ ___________ _____ __________ _______ ____________ ________ ____ _______ ____ _____ _____.  You fill in the blanks.  It's like mad libs with cuss words.  But take nothing I say to seriously and peace.


----------



## heretic888

*blinks*  :lookie:


----------



## Makalakumu

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Parmandjack anticipated we wouldn't be kind.  Upnorth was, somewhat, to his credit.  This last post of Parmandjack's is so hateful, however, that I have to answer it as I see fit.  I may not be kind.



I look at the fact that there are 80 million right wing christian voters and that these people basically voted GW Bush into office in 2004.  I do not like the hateful tone that many of these guys take and I do not like the way these guys promote an agenda that is so obviously anti-intellectual.  

Yet if you look at what these people are saying and feeling and you compare it to what people have got to say regarding transformational education experiences, you inevitablely come to the conclusion that the protection of these inane principles is more then just pride.  It is more then arrogence.  they are defending their very _being_.

Take a look at what Friere has to say about transformational experiences.  the evangelical movement is all about making a life change.  It is all about reshaping everything fiber in your body and spirit until it fits this model of purity, humility, and submisiveness to the word of Jesus...as interpretted by the High Priest.  

In my opinion, this is sad and degrading to a person's humanity, but it exists all of the same.  

Can education make a difference when faced with this type of organization and this type of societal structure?  I think that it can.  I believe that learning can take place if the people feel that you are talking to them as an equal.  I believe that by reaching out and understanding this internal conflict with an external reality, we can affect more change.  

I think that a lot of liberals, myself included, have approached these positions with disbelief, disdain and outright hostility and I think that these attitudes have embolded people against reason and reality.  They view us not as their equals and as their enemies.  

How can they learn when faced with this conflict?

There fore, I think that we need to make an effort to undestand that for these people the information presented is going to be _upsetting_.  It is going to _challenge_.  It is going to _alter _ *if * its allowed to sink in.  

If that means accepting creationism as a theory only to destroy it when comparing it to evolution, so be it.  I've worked with Dr. Standly Lewis throughout the West and I've seen evolution in action in real life and with my own hands in the fossil record.  There is *NO * better theory that explains our origins as of yet.

Getting people to understand this is going to require a little compassion...even when faced with jackassery...because its only a symptom of the transformational experience they have undergone.  

upnorthkyosa

PS - I realize that certain behaviors require sanctions based on forum policy...this post addresses dealing with this 80 million person voting block in general.


----------



## heretic888

> Yet if you look at what these people are saying and feeling and you compare it to what people have got to say regarding transformational education experiences, you inevitablely come to the conclusion that the protection of these inane principles is more then just pride. It is more then arrogence. they are defending their very being.



Beliefs are the life-support system of the self (or "ego"). If you try and pull the plug, what is literally experienced is a death-threat. Thus, the hostility.


----------



## Flatlander

Upnorth, that was a fantastic post.  Very eloquent.  I liked this: 





> If that means accepting creationism as a theory only to destroy it when comparing it to evolution, so be it.


----------



## loki09789

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that was the point.
> 
> What if one believes that all human beings come from a race of superbeings hiding in a space-ship that follows closely behind comet Hale-Bopp?
> 
> Does Heaven's Gate get equal time?


If they organize, lobby and petition for it they have the chance to get the equal time.  Just because you don't agree with/are personally judging it as invalid does not mean that they don't have the right to feel, think and believe that way - or that they should be blocked from representation if they can run a strong enough lobby to push the issue forward.  Do I think it is rational or reasonable?  Maybe it isn't as crazy as believing in the ressurection of a human being and his assention into the devine?

Some folks have argued that the planet was seeded by meteors that struck the earth and carried bacteria...

It is public school, depending on the mission and focus of the state and local schools, giving equal time might be considered appropriate.  

Should demonstration/parade permits be denied KKK and Hate groups because they present a minority view?  I personally find it detestable that they can have access to those kinds of venues, but as an American Citizen, they have that right.


----------



## Flatlander

loki09789 said:
			
		

> If they organize, lobby and petition for it they have the chance to get the equal time. Just because you don't agree with/are personally judging it as invalid does not mean that they don't have the right to feel, think and believe that way - or that they should be blocked from representation if they can run a strong enough lobby to push the issue forward. Do I think it is rational or reasonable? Maybe it isn't as crazy as believing in the ressurection of a human being and his assention into the devine?


Paul, I agree with this, as it seems reasonable, fair, and balanced. 





> Should demonstration/parade permits be denied KKK and Hate groups because they present a minority view? I personally find it detestable that they can have access to those kinds of venues, but as an American Citizen, they have that right.


This, I do not.  These groups, by definition, seek to infringe on the rights of other groups.  They exist to encourage themselves and others to commit crimes against humanity.  I believe that because of that, they should not be extended the freedoms of assembly or expression.


----------



## Nightingale

if the KKK want to have a parade, parents have the option to keep their kids away.  Kids must go to school.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The question Dan, is where does 1 draw the line?  Who determines just what a subversive group is?


----------



## Flatlander

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The question Dan, is where does 1 draw the line? Who determines just what a subversive group is?


OK, I see your point.


----------



## michaeledward

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The question Dan, is where does 1 draw the line? Who determines just what a subversive group is?


Now, a religous group that commits mass suicide, even if stylishly covering their faces with purple scarf (I wonder about the significance of that) I think would qualify as a 'subversive group', but perhaps they could petition for equal time.

Of course, students have a limited time in school. And if all these groups, fringe or otherwise, are able to petition to affect the curriculum, we may have a problem with the 12 year plan.

Don't you think it might be better if we let the experts in field of study determine the curriculum? You know, people who understand trigonomotry and calcus should be involved in deciding whether algebra and geometry have any value; people with lots of experience with words, and stories should be looking at the English language requirments. Do we really need to read Shakespeare, after all? Maybe there is just something about Preachers petitioning for the curriculum of Science class that seems out of whack.

But maybe that's just me.


----------



## loki09789

Nightingale said:
			
		

> if the KKK want to have a parade, parents have the option to keep their kids away. Kids must go to school.


True.  But, the democratic idea that they are not denied the opportunities of presentation from the government, have just as much right to present their view in public - as long as they are not violating the law or some decency code.

In both cases the point that the gov. is allowing diverse views to be presented - regardless of PERSONAL ideology my main point.

I don't remember the town but I remember seeing a HISTORY channel special (GEEK REVEALED) about a small town that was doing everything under the sun to block a Neo-Nazi group from assembling publically - the group petitioned to the ACLU and got a Jewish lawyer that willingly represented him.

Some really blasted the Jewish Lawyer for representing this Neo Nazi Group.  IMO it was the best thing - how can you claim to have the true science and correct ideas on race and superiority when you are relying on a Jewish lawyer?  It is SOOO much better than standing there and yelling at them or blocking their civil liberties.


----------



## qizmoduis

All this stuff about the KKK being allowed to demonstrate publicly is totally irrelevant to creationism in science class.  Science class is for science, which isn't something that is or should be amenable to influence by agenda-pushing groups of people for political or religious purposes.  Creationism in science class is just as inappropriate as porn in mathematics class.  If a preacher wants to stand in a park blathering nonsense 8 hours a day, every day, then he's perfectly capable of doing so, but science class is for science.  That fact that this still comes up as an issue boggles my mind, and I don't like having my mind boggled.


 :flame:


----------



## heretic888

> That fact that this still comes up as an issue boggles my mind, and I don't like having my mind boggled.



Its not that mind-boggling, quizmodius, when you take a look at contemporary trends in academia, philosophy, science, and politics.

This is the symptom of a dying ideology. Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote a book entitled "Christianity Must Change or Die", and he was right. The fundamentalist-evangelical current of Christianity --- while popular in some respects among certain media outlets --- is becoming increasingly discredited and ridiculed. Even among conservatives.

Most American "Christians" today are leaning toward some type of quasi-deism. The reactions we are seeing among the Religious Right are just that --- _reactions_ to a world that is increasingly seeing their rantings as archaric, silly, and quaint.

They are gaining a little political momentum because of a variety of factors as of late, but it ultimately won't last. Not enough people buy into their claims, and more than enough prefer more practical and rational approaches to religion.

Another interesting thing, Bishop Spong actually agreed with Freud's analaysis of the patriarchal "father god". Wiggy.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Yeah, students do really need to read Shakespeare. 

Perhaps if folks read what are about the greatest works in the language--for their humanity, intelligence, critical eye, and beauty--there'd be a lot less of the sort of ignorance and fear that leads to attempts at censorship.


----------



## loki09789

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> All this stuff about the KKK being allowed to demonstrate publicly is totally irrelevant to creationism in science class. Science class is for science, which isn't something that is or should be amenable to influence by agenda-pushing groups of people for political or religious purposes. Creationism in science class is just as inappropriate as porn in mathematics class. If a preacher wants to stand in a park blathering nonsense 8 hours a day, every day, then he's perfectly capable of doing so, but science class is for science. That fact that this still comes up as an issue boggles my mind, and I don't like having my mind boggled.
> 
> 
> :flame:


I've never said that Creationism should be taught in Science class. I have said that the community that is paying taxes into the local public school system has the right to have their students education reflect that community as well as expose the students to a wider diversity as well. That by no means is permission for the school to 'convert' students to these diverse views (whether scientific, mystical, ...what ever) but only expose them to these other idea. We teach 'Nazism' in Social Studies on a regular basis and I don't see students coming out 'converted' on a regular basis.

Should we stop teaching Native American mythos/ideology or Greek Mythos, or any other 'Creationistic' mystically based views of the world origin as well? These are taught as part of diversity/multi-cultural education so that people recognize and respect difference without judging it - and those who believe in it - blindly or in a bigotous way......

The point isn't that people are saying that Evolution/Big Bang can not be taught - so it isn't a case of sensorship. The point is that a sector of the community is seeking representation in their own childrens public education.

I teach in a community with a Native American population, if they wanted to find a way to include some educational lessons on their culture/heritage and beliefs would it be fair to say no simply because they believe the beginning of the earth was a pile of dirt from the bottom of the sea dropped on a turtles back?

The school board decided that it would not be fair (even though the NA population is less than 4% of the overall student population) and do have programs that educate NA and non NA students alike on the local NA traditions and culture and Language.


----------



## heretic888

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yeah, students do really need to read Shakespeare.



I agree. If you are learning anything about Western literature, and someone as influential as Shakespeare isn't being included, then there are some serious problems in the curriculum.


----------



## heretic888

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I teach in a community with a Native American population, if they wanted to find a way to include some educational lessons on their culture/heritage and beliefs would it be fair to say no simply because they believe the beginning of the earth was a pile of dirt from the bottom of the sea dropped on a turtles back?



It would be quite fair to say no, if they proposed teaching it in a biology classroom. Certain other classes, however, would be most appropriate.


----------



## shesulsa

I have avoided this thread carefully, but for some reason, today I decided to don the hip boots and wade through which I have been doing for the past hour plus. And boy does my head hurt.

 Sadly, we have seen a strong example of what we battle against in society - the ignorance of unilateralism in fundamentalism. One wonders if folks with these opinions are jealous because they can't afford parochial school where creationism is favored over evolutionary science. But then, that could be construed as flaming, so I would never accuse anyone directly of this.

 I am still struck by the lack of evidence supporting the "creation science" theory and emotional banter which are the hallmarks of what I call the "Christian Right" (please see this thread before feeling insulted) and the power they supposedly wield on the general populus and were engaged by a certain someone who is no longer here.

 HHJH - I looked for a map online (to emulate your red-and-blue) of the population of the country, but I think we can all generally agree that we can generally assume the higher populus of the country lie in the blue states, yes? And yet, the value statements of the few (bible belt) continue to wax ignorant and rule our country.

 I am all for an "origins of man" elective which explores creationism, evolution, animism, etcetera and a religious studies elective which considers Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism, Agnosticism, Atheism, you name it. But I really disagree to even evolution being taught as required curriculum unless all viewpoints will be considered. There are missing links to evolution, after all.

 Is it just me, or does anyone else kinda think both are at play here? Couldn't it be we were created but were, perhaps, in a different form and evolved as we can see species evidently have over the millions of years?

  Regards,

  G


----------



## michaeledward

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I have said that the community that is paying taxes into the local public school system has the right to have their students education reflect that community as well as expose the students to a wider diversity as well.


Many members of the community do not have any interest in public education (such as my mother-in-law, whose daughter went to private school and graduated some 20 years ago). Do we allow these tax paying citizens to decide not to contribute to the local school system because they draw no tangible benefit from it? Of course, not. The community has decided that mandatory education benefits all members of society, therefore, all members of the community must contribute to it. Do we give voice to my mother-in-laws concerns by eliminating the education portion of her property tax?

Is this not the logical extension of your argument? 

Is this not the argument for 'vouchers'? Let's privatize all education to a pay-for-what-you-use market system. And if people choose not to educate their young, so be it. Eliminate mandatory education for the country's youth. Let the Faith Based schools educate those who choose to pay for it. Break the backs of the teachers unions.

That is not the country I want to live in. Thank you.

Michael Atkinson


----------



## rmcrobertson

It is grossly inaccurate to describe evolution as one among many, "viewpoints," or to claim that there are, "missing links," to evolutionary theory in support of such a description.

Evolution is the best scientific account we have of how we all got here. It is as well established as any theory in science. Its lacunae do not change the fundamental theory at all; they are simply example of why many of the details still need to get straightened out--especially those having to do with the ideas that the process was, "guided," or, "deliberate," or, "purposeful," in the way so-called intelligent design theory would suggest.

It would be nice if folks either learned the sccience, or let the professionals handle it. One preferes that they learn the science...


----------



## loki09789

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Many members of the community do not have any interest in public education (such as my mother-in-law, whose daughter went to private school and graduated some 20 years ago). Do we allow these tax paying citizens to decide not to contribute to the local school system because they draw no tangible benefit from it? Of course, not. The community has decided that mandatory education benefits all members of society, therefore, all members of the community must contribute to it. Do we give voice to my mother-in-laws concerns by eliminating the education portion of her property tax?
> 
> Is this not the logical extension of your argument?
> 
> Michael Atkinson


That is not the logical extension because you are talking about taxation and where the local school funding comes from and I am talking about curriculum.  If the property owning, school tax paying members of the community don't want certain things included they have the opportunity to comment, lobby and vote/persuade on these issues...  If she (or anyone for that matter) feels strongly about an issue they have the chance to raise their voice about it in a productive forum.

Herrie,

Amen brother.


----------



## Erik

Great.  We want to teach this in public schools?

"Lev 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; *you may purchase male and female slaves.* 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you-those born in your land. *These may become your property.* 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; *you can make them slaves for life.*

And we want this kind of primitive racist idiocy to be taught in public schools, a place where kids *must* attend?

This is part of the reason we have a separation of Church and State.  I trust the State far, far more than any religious body.  I do _not _want my kids accepting religious-based information with the same trust as academic information.


----------



## Flatlander

Erik said:
			
		

> Great. We want to teach this in public schools?
> 
> "Lev 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; *you may purchase male and female slaves.* 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you-those born in your land. *These may become your property.* 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; *you can make them slaves for life.*
> 
> And we want this kind of primitive racist idiocy to be taught in public schools, a place where kids *must* attend?
> 
> This is part of the reason we have a separation of Church and State. I trust the State far, far more than any religious body. I do _not _want my kids accepting religious-based information with the same trust as academic information.


This doesn't really address the topic of the thread.  In other threads, we have discussed at great length the various ways of interpreting specific passages from the Bible, however, with regards to whether or not, and in what context, Biblical Creationism belongs in the classroom is the topic here.

If you disagree with the validity of the Bible in its entirety, then it is apparent that this will color your opinion of its educational value.


----------



## loki09789

Erik said:
			
		

> Great. We want to teach this in public schools?
> 
> "Lev 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; *you may purchase male and female slaves.* 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you-those born in your land. *These may become your property.* 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; *you can make them slaves for life.*
> 
> And we want this kind of primitive racist idiocy to be taught in public schools, a place where kids *must* attend?
> 
> This is part of the reason we have a separation of Church and State. I trust the State far, far more than any religious body. I do _not _want my kids accepting religious-based information with the same trust as academic information.


 
We teach 'slavery' in Social studies and ELA when we discuss the American Civil war period.  We teach "Nazism" when we teach WWII (which includes Genocidal treatment of the Jews).  We teach 'sex' when we teach student human reproduction and Health class issues..... do you get my point?

In a public school setting, these topics are not to be presented as "THE WAY IT IS" issues but "this is the way that people who did/do view the world this way and did these things because of it" issues.

I would say that even among those who don't see a problem with teaching 'creationism' as a survey topic that none of us are saying that it should turn into 'church' where these ideas are presented as 'the way' issues.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Flatlander said:
			
		

> This doesn't really address the topic of the thread. In other threads, we have discussed at great length the various ways of interpreting specific passages from the Bible, however, with regards to whether or not, and in what context, Biblical Creationism belongs in the classroom is the topic here.
> 
> If you disagree with the validity of the Bible in its entirety, then it is apparent that this will color your opinion of its educational value.


More specifically, Biblical creationism in the *science* classroom.   I'm all for a comparative world religions course - I think it would be a good idea for kids to learn.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Among fundamentalists, the basic objection to Darwin is this: evolution denies the revealed truth of God's Word, as set forth in Genesis; once one aspect of that Truth is undercut, all aspects are damaged. The result is social chaos, the breakdown of the family, rising immorality, dogs and cats living together...

Therefore, a) ALL parts of the Bible would demand equal time, b) every aspect of the Bible--including the loonbox ranting about gay people in the King James version--would be shoved into every classroom.

First, Creationism; then, fundamentalist fantasies about God's Plans for women, gay people, the human race, etc., in social studies, history, sex ed, whatever.

They've been explicit: the point is to do away with humanist education, and replace with a "God-centered," curriculum that they dictate.

The idea is very much the same as with so-called, "school prayer:" get the government involved in shoving their weird little reading of the Bible down everybody else's throat.


----------



## Flatlander

> First, Creationism; then, fundamentalist fantasies about God's Plans for women, gay people, the human race, etc., in social studies, history, sex ed, whatever.


 It seems to me that your strenuous opposition to this is based on a fear of "opening the door" to the possibility of further fundamentalist agendizing.  It seems to me that this is projectionist and unfounded, and further to that, uncompromising.  Is this not ironic, given that it is in fact these fundamentalist qualities which you seem to so despise?

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not suggesting that there ought to be one way or the other.  What I am suggesting is that through the principles of tolerance and mutual understanding, our children will have the opportunity to be exposed to unlimited ideas, rather than propaganda.  That they may be able to formulate their own opinions, rather than live a life of blind faith and naivety.  That rather than imposing limits on their learning because of the concepts we fear, we can allow them the freedom to choose their own paths.

Knowledge is power.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Among fundamentalists, the basic objection to Darwin is this: evolution denies the revealed truth of God's Word, as set forth in Genesis; once one aspect of that Truth is undercut, all aspects are damaged. The result is social chaos, the breakdown of the family, rising immorality, dogs and cats living together...


:roflmao: 

Dogs and cats living together?  That's crazy!


----------



## raedyn

Flatlander said:
			
		

> It seems to me that your strenuous opposition to this is based on a fear of "opening the door" to the possibility of further fundamentalist agendizing. It seems to me that this is projectionist and unfounded ...


I disagree. If you look at the writings of people supporting the creationist view, they are consistently filled with other fundamentalist christian rhetoic.

examples: 
from the splash page of creationism.org


> articles about our ancient history and the importance of our creation in God's own image and fall from grace.  Each new false religion of the post-Flood period has sought to detract from our Creator and from our responsibilities in this life; evolution's effect is no different <snip>  Pray about this!


Aha! It's really about the TRUE religion, isn't it? And how does prayer enter into scientific discussion?

from the FAQ page of creationism.org



> At the time of the Fall, when Adam and Eve sinned we lost direct contact with our Maker.  This was about 6,000 years ago.  In the intervening generations it has been a struggle to preserve and pass on our place in the universe and how to get back into a right place with Him.


 
And these are just a couple of examples drawn from the first hits on a cursory Google search for "creationism". As you can see, their trust in God having created the heavens and the earth and constucting Eve out of Adam's rib is inextricably intertwined with the rest of their religious ideology. It is the same thing. Even in a setting designed to convince outsiders, these people cannot make their arguements without constant reference to various christian myths. These hold no water for anyone that is not that type of christian.

The sites also devote a lot of time to pointing out some of the weaknesses of evolution. The Center for Scientific Creation's website in particular spends a lot of time refuting evolution in an item-by-item fashion. That's fine by me. Infact, I even found some of their points interesting to think about. I maintain evolution is the best explaination we've currently got, but wouldn't try and claim we won't have a better explanation in the future. If evolution is correct or not is a separate issue from if creation myths are correct or not. None of these sites have provided one *IOTA* of evidence that their theory has any merit, just challenges to the standing theory and leave it out there as assumed that in the vaccum left without evolution, "the word of God" is the obvious answer to fill in the blank. Well that just has no creedence with a non-believer.

Also, all of the creationist sites talk a lot about the Great Flood. Super! We can have a scientific discussion where believers and non-believers can agree that there was, 5000ish years ago, a massive flood. Flatlander, you and I have even watched programs about this together that very eloquently outlined scientific & anthropologic evidence that support this idea. But believers and non-believers have different reasons for agreeing that this was the case. Believers say "Look, it's written in the Bible! The word of God! It must be true!" and non-believers say it's written in the Bible and exists in various other myths because it is a real historical event, and the Bible is only another manifestation of a culture attempting to record & interpret the events of the past.

Again, these people believe that if we agree that one portion of the Bible could have a leg to stand on, then we must accept the entire book, word for word. I whole-heartedly disagree. But this is obviously the position of those advocating for this story to be included in science class.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

The term "Biblical Creationism" is accurate in describing the present conflict.  A comparitive studies class would have to be termed something else, and would need to include the explanation of other creation stories of the world.  "Biblical Creationism" limits it to the Christian/Orthodox Judaism's version alone (Islam's too...though I think its slightly different).

Let's assume for the sake of argument that at all levels of elementary, middle, and high school we threw out the standard science texts and replaced them with creationism texts and taught only those.  Speculate as to where we would be.

-College freshman would be finding that what they'd been taught conflicted completely with their astronomy, geology, anthropology, archeology, physics, oceanography, meteorology, chemistry and history classes.  Note I didn't mention biology.  That isn't the only friction we would see.  Creationism currently contradicts the findings of all the above scientific fields.  Evolution is but one theory with which creationism conflicts.

-Students, lacking the basics because of this, might shy from the sciences in even greater numbers than they do now.

-Competing nations could as a result continue the trend towards superiority in the sciences that they currently enjoy.  India has twelve of the best technical schools in the world and are exporting qualified researchers and engineers worldwide.  We're taking in many of them due to a shortage of our own.  The US is publishing less scientific research papers than ten years ago, and South American countries are publishing more and more.  We're slipping.  

-We could conceivably lose our competitive edge in military and industrial areas.  Allready Japan and Europe are spending several billion on fusion research in a joint venture.  America's federal expenditures on nanotech research are a fraction of Japan's.  We seem even now (without our hypothetical scenario) to be losing an interest at the national level in basic research.  Is this due to encroaching scientific illiteracy?

Now this is a worst case scenario and I suspect (and hope) we won't see this due to stiff resistance to sliding down such a slippery slope.  Still, the argument over creationism itself costs us dearly in terms of self-respect and international esteem.  It is embarrassing to have to debate this...yet debate we must for the sake of free speech.  On that note...

As to the argument that creationists are being censored--that their arguments are being shouted down--hardly.  There is a difference between censorship outright and the placement of boundaries.  Churches are free to preach creationism.  Christian home school programs and Christian schools can teach it.  Evangelical cable channels are welcome to promote it.  The internet is an easily accessable resource for those wanting to learn about it or, for that matter, research the pro-science counter arguments.  Libraries and bookstores today carry books pulling for creationism and knocking evolutionary theory.  That the debate exists clearly indicates that fundamentalist Christians are not being squelched.  Shouted at, perhaps, but not shouted down...and as we've seen here on this forum they're perfectly capable of shouting right back.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson

For those who argue against the proposition that for these fundamentalists, it all hangs together, let me suggest a peek at:

http://www.csinfo.org/Creation_Versus_Evolution_as_World-Views.htm

For those who have questions about some deliberate national strategy, let me suggest the last few pages of:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=109

These folks ain't kidding, neither.


----------



## Flatlander

raedyn said:
			
		

> I disagree.


As I have stated previously in this thread, I also do not believe that Creationism belongs in a science class. I do think that it belongs in a well rounded and equally representational philosophy class, and would support the inclusion of such class in a Secondary curriculum, to stimulate young minds, and get them thinking about intangibles. I believe that any way we can stimulate young minds is a good thing. 



> If you look at the writings of people supporting the creationist view, they are consistently filled with other fundamentalist christian rhetoic.


 Indeed.  However, I think that including the creation myth as part of a well rounded philosophy or history program doesn't necessarily require the allowance or endorsement of the entire fundamentalist agenda.  I believe that the middle way exists, somewhere.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Just got this in from someone.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## raedyn

flatlander - I understand you aren't advocating for biblical creationism (thanks for the handy term, HHJH) to be included in or to replace our current science curriculum. What I was disagreeing with is your assertion that fears of _"opening the door" to the possibility of further fundamentalist agendizing_ is _projectionist and unfounded._ I believe it's very soundly built on the words of these people themselves. It's all a part of their agenda.

Read Robert's links, they're enlightening.

And of course I don't believe that every Christian would take it to these extremes. But I do believe these are the people that are driving this movement. And that's a scary thought. They say the evolution theory has born only evil fruit including abortion, homosexuality, beastiality, drug culture, pollution, pornography, genocide, euthanasia, criminality, slavery... the list goes on. How they pin all this on the theory of evolution is beyond me. Nevermind that these things existed before anyone thought up the theory of evolution! And nevermind that some of these things have been done _in the name of GOD_ or (it couldn't be!) _with the assent of Christianity. _


----------



## michaeledward

You know ... this conversation has evolved passed the idea of fossile evidence (chuckling to myself on that one). But, just when you think its safe to believe Genesis, news like this comes out.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/18/great.apes/index.html



> *(CNN) -- Scientists in Spain announced Thursday that they've unearthed a 13 million-year-old fossilized skeleton of an ape that is possibly a common ancestor of humans and great apes, including orangutans, bonobos, chimps and gorillas.*
> 
> The find could add a yet another branch to the human family tree and fill in a gap in our knowledge of hominoid evolution.
> 
> "It's very special," said Frans de Waal of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "It's almost as if we will have to redraw the (evolutionary) tree if these discoveries keep coming out."
> 
> Salvador Moya-Sola of the Miguel Crusafont Institute of Paleontology in Barcelona, Spain, and his colleagues describe the species, which they have named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, in the November 19 issue of the journal Science.


----------



## heretic888

Nice discussion, guys. Keep it comin'.  :asian:



			
				raedyn said:
			
		

> And of course I don't believe that every Christian would take it to these extremes.



Oh, of course not. Like I said before, most Christians in America lean towards a type of quasi-deism.

Which means, basically, that they evince a certain type of ideological trends that are sympathetic with humanism and rationalism. A big emphasis on free will and determinism, an increasing Christian disbelief in a literal Satan ("evil", instead, is seen as a side-effect of free will), a personal God that typically avoids overt intervention and stands moreso as guide and teacher and supporter, an increasing Christian rejection of the notion that only those of their ilk are "holy" or will "go to heaven", and that sort of thing.

Even with Jesus, there is the increasing idea that he was more of a political or civic activist (in sympathies with modern American ideals), and less of a notion of an apocalyptic prophet (the traditional understanding).

The evangelical-literalist fundamentalists are a dying breed, and they know it. That's why they are so deathly afraid, and so desperate in their attempts to force their views upon the rest of us.

Yup.  :asian:


----------



## Flatlander

raedyn said:
			
		

> What I was disagreeing with is your assertion that fears of _"opening the door" to the possibility of further fundamentalist agendizing_ is _projectionist and unfounded._


I will grant that the word "projectionism" was perhaps out of place in this discussion. "Unfounded" may stand, because no sources were provided. You have provided ample evidence to counter that.


> I believe it's very soundly built on the words of these people themselves. It's all a part of their agenda


 The clarity of this agenda carries as much weight as we allow. Ultimately, the method of delivery, the language, the context in which students are exposed to creationism will be what determines what amount of "endorsement" it may or may not receive from the representative. The agenda is theirs to promote, not ours to accept. Why not simply extract what is useful, and work with that?

I see value in the creation story. I see value in the lessons taught in the Bible. I see value in the impact that this book has had on the history of human civilization. In order to contextualize where our society comes from and the things that it has done, the creation story has an important place within the framework of Christianity's influence.


----------



## Rich Parsons

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It is grossly inaccurate to describe evolution as one among many, "viewpoints," or to claim that there are, "missing links," to evolutionary theory in support of such a description.
> 
> Evolution is the best scientific account we have of how we all got here. It is as well established as any theory in science. Its lacunae do not change the fundamental theory at all; they are simply example of why many of the details still need to get straightened out--especially those having to do with the ideas that the process was, "guided," or, "deliberate," or, "purposeful," in the way so-called intelligent design theory would suggest.
> 
> It would be nice if folks either learned the sccience, or let the professionals handle it. One preferes that they learn the science...



Robert,

To some the world is still flat.

To some cutting into people for surgery is an afront to god, since the body is a temple, ...

The list goes on and on.

I agree it is not a list among many. It is the best theory out there that science can come up with the existing data. All these others are just stories people told to explain things to the frightened, and or to keep people frightened. 

Yet, as others stated before, even yourself, Faith is belief in the absense of facts of data. I do not question a person's right to believe in their own home in their lives, etcetera, yet I do not expect to have to believe as they do either.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That is not the logical extension because you are talking about taxation and where the local school funding comes from and I am talking about curriculum.  If the property owning, school tax paying members of the community don't want certain things included they have the opportunity to comment, lobby and vote/persuade on these issues...  If she (or anyone for that matter) feels strongly about an issue they have the chance to raise their voice about it in a productive forum.



I'm not so sure.  What if someone is wrong?  What if you know it and you can prove it?  What happens if this persons ignores the evidence and then goes about passing on this incorrect information to others...in essence passing on _lies_?

That is what we are talking about here.  Creationism, when compared to evolution as a scientific theory, doesn't stand a chance.  It is incorrect and demonstratably so.  Therefore passing it off as science, despite the evidence, is nothing more then a lie.


----------



## Makalakumu

Flatlander said:
			
		

> It seems to me that your strenuous opposition to this is based on a fear of "opening the door" to the possibility of further fundamentalist agendizing.  It seems to me that this is projectionist and unfounded, and further to that, uncompromising.  Is this not ironic, given that it is in fact these fundamentalist qualities which you seem to so despise?



In my opinion, diversity is precious and it is frightening.  It takes a strong spirit to stand up and face difference and accept the fact that you may be kindred in some special way.  In a philosophical way, this is a reflection of the principle of evolution.  Our common ancestors bind us all, making us responsible for each other despite our differences.

This fundamentalist philosophy would do away with this responsibility.  They would like to create McAmerica where everybody is the same, one food, one flavor, one God, one people, _Novus Ordo Seclorum_, everywhere.  Diversity exists under the thumb of God and everything is safe _again _ (referring to that mythical time that fundamentalists reinvent whenever new information disproves the history the've rewritten).

Paradoxically, they would like to change our society to the point where one can do anything to anyone for a buck.  Cut down the forests, poison the water, centralize the wealth and power of this country to benefit their High Priests, and let children starve...

Perhaps it is not so paradoxical...

Our President and his ilk are basically saying, "Donate to charity if you want, but if you feel like screwing the (insert dehumanizing adjective) (insert person or people different then you), do that too."  

Mission accomplished.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," the unwritten axiom for the true conservative America.  Eventually, the good buried in a fundamentalists heart will be buried by this evil.  My family shares special relationships with many people who share a fundamentalist beliefs and I know these people are good people, yet I feel that this strange alliance they have formed with capitalophiles is only knocking on the Devils Door.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## raedyn

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I see value in the lessons taught in the Bible.


Me too, as long as we are looking at the work as a parable, not literal word for word truth.



> I see value in the impact that this book has had on the history of human civilization. In order to contextualize where our society comes from and the things that it has done, the creation story has an important place within the framework of Christianity's influence.


You are absolutely correct. I think it's important to learn where people's ideas come from. It is incredibly useful to learn about our history and about WHY people thought & behaved in certain ways. Our knowledge of the past - in context - can inform our future. We can best learn from our mistakes and our triumphs if we know how we got there in the past. So I agree (I think most everyone currently in this discussion does as well), this stuff should be taught - but in the right context - just as we teach about slavery and Nazism and Greek mythology etc.


----------



## Makalakumu

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The evangelical-literalist fundamentalists are a dying breed, and they know it. That's why they are so deathly afraid, and so desperate in their attempts to force their views upon the rest of us.



This letter was published in our local paper and I think that it is indicative of the fundamentalist mindset...



> Election Makes Liberal Opinions Irrelevent
> 
> I can't believe how irrational you liberal ideologues are.  I truly pity you.  You've just been given a verdict by the people of the United States and have no ability to comprehend it.  You are stunned at this devastating loss.  To you, power, not morality, has been the basis of truth, and you have neither.
> 
> It shows in this campaign.  You conscripted the entire media machine, Hollywood entertainers, ground war prostetylizers, and other wealthy liberal elitists to ensure the defeat of George Bush.  You thought power resided within these.  You lost and you are distraught.  And now your secular humanistic view of the world is crumbling like a house of cards and you can't change this because you are blinded by the fog of moral relativity.
> 
> There is one lesson you need to learn in order to understand why you lost.  Bush is a moral absolutist.  Sen. John Kerry is a moral relativist.
> 
> The president never had to worry about being all things to all people.  He's had a vision and we all know where he got it...God.  He did not have to run from who he is.  His decisiveness was refreshing and comforting.  Kerry never had this same certainty.  He had to cater to the "heralded" diversity of his party and he was the ideal candidate to represent the mongrolized liberal base of his party.  He was eager to redefine his ever changing views, but never resolute.  Unfortuneately, for him and all other liberals, the problem remains the same.
> 
> The understand of your dilemma is so obviously simplistic.  Your opinion is irrelevant and your worldview is defunct.  This twisted sense of reality has allowed you to rationalize behavior that disgusts most decent folk.  There is one absolute reality, and it is not yours.  Face up and think deeply about your purpose in life.  Stop attempting to impose this godless ideology on the rest of us.  There is hope for you and me in Jesus Christ.
> 
> Andrew T Persons
> Superior, WI



Flip on the TV sunday mornings.  Listen to the High Priests talk about the "mongrolized liberals."  Turn on the 700 club.  Watch Pat Robertson pray for to God to kill activist liberal judges.  Watch our President pray in front of the cross and then drop some more bombs on little brown children.

Looks like I'm going to have to clear off a lot of places in Hell... :whip: 

Evolution is only one battle in the fight against the "secular humanist" agenda.

 :jedi1: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## raedyn

I am amazed at the dismissal of 49% of voters! This minority is far from irrelavant, no matter what the victors might say.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Mr. Persons' opinions in bold.  It'd be nice if he were on this forum so we could answer him:


*Election Makes Liberal Opinions Irrelevent*

Well, if Arlen Spectre gets confirmed that'll blow this argument out of the water.

*You've just been given a verdict by the people of the United States and have no ability to comprehend it. You are stunned at this devastating loss. * 

The verdict was handed down by a slim majority that obviously don't speak for the entire United States.  As to it being a devastating loss...Persons thinks so and many Democrats seem to agree if you look at their hand wringing.  It ain't over yet.

*To you, power, not morality, has been the basis of truth, and you have neither. * 

We have both.  Kick back and wait.

*It shows in this campaign. You conscripted the entire media machine....*

Like FOX network and Rush Limbaugh....
*
The understand of your dilemma is so obviously simplistic. Your opinion is irrelevant and your worldview is defunct.*

Again...kick back and wait.

Thanks for the letter.  I'm going to forward it to friends.  This kind of hubris is going to backfire for them.  I reeeeeally am going to enjoy watching them feed on each other when their agenda isn't met by Republicans.  

Creationism will be one of those things I suspect will be a problem for them.  If this gets a lot of press and makes any headway in the Republican agenda, expect the pendulum to swing.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure. What if someone is wrong? What if you know it and you can prove it? What happens if this persons ignores the evidence and then goes about passing on this incorrect information to others...in essence passing on _lies_?
> 
> That is what we are talking about here. Creationism, when compared to evolution as a scientific theory, doesn't stand a chance. It is incorrect and demonstratably so. Therefore passing it off as science, despite the evidence, is nothing more then a lie.


It has already been discussed that a faith based mental construct will not stand up in a scientific mental construct.  Vice versa is true too.

I am not debating the validity or the accuracy of these beliefs.  I am saying that if the community that is paying taxes into the local public school are lobbying for their community values to be represented (not in place of, instead of, or better than the science but at least represented) what is wrong with that?

Too many people here are spending time judging the values instead of focusing on how it is just another aspect of diversity education/multiculturalism.

The way that "creationism" or any other faith based ideas would be presented in the classroom would not be evangelical or recruitment, it would be presented as another view point.  

In church you look at the Bible as a divine work.  In an educational classroom (ELA or Social Studies appropriately) it would simply be described and explained in detail and summary as objectively as possible (yeah as possible).

I took a Bible as Lit course (two actually) where the other students were doing the same thing:  Looking at it as a divine work instead of a literary work.  "IT" just is there for the sake of educational discussion.

Once this kind of thing is in place, I can see it being treated like Sex in health class or disection in Bio:  Note goes home to parents, parents are given the chance to pull their child from the class during that lesson and given equivalent/alternate assignments.

Like I have said before about other 'isms' being taught in school:  It will be discussed in an educational/informational way NOT pushed or treated as "THE WAY" as it might be treated in a church or by 'believers' that knock on your door.

Nazism, totalitarianism, socialism, mysticism, communism....all being covered in a students education.  Why would this topic be any different other than personal prejudice and judgemental views seem to be overwhelming the reasonable members of this forum who generally argue for the protection of a citizens civil liberties - including an education that represents their community and the wider world.


----------



## Satt

I just wish schools would teach kids how to get a job. LOL.


----------



## michaeledward

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I am saying that if the community that is paying taxes into the local public school are lobbying for their community values to be represented what is wrong with that?


There you go again .... 

You are saying that the 'community' has a voice with which to petition the curriculum. In business, we call this the 'voice of the customer'. 

What are the limits to this voice? 
At what point, can the voice of the community reach no further into the functioning of the school?

It seems you are presenting that the voice-of-the-customer can reach into the classroom as far as the content of material taught. You disagreed with the argument that the voice-of-the-customer could extend as far as whether anything is taught at all. Why would the voice-of-the-customer be able to affect one, but not the other?

I believe the community should decide *if* education is required for all children or not. (In this country, this argument has long been settled. Like most ideas, perhaps it needs to be revisited occassionally.) Once that decision is made, we should allow the experts in a particular field of study determine what is appropriate to be taught in that field.


----------



## loki09789

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There you go again ....
> 
> You are saying that the 'community' has a voice with which to petition the curriculum. In business, we call this the 'voice of the customer'.
> 
> What are the limits to this voice?
> At what point, can the voice of the community reach no further into the functioning of the school?
> 
> It seems you are presenting that the voice-of-the-customer can reach into the classroom as far as the content of material taught. You disagreed with the argument that the voice-of-the-customer could extend as far as whether anything is taught at all. Why would the voice-of-the-customer be able to affect one, but not the other?
> 
> I believe the community should decide *if* education is required for all children or not. (In this country, this argument has long been settled. Like most ideas, perhaps it needs to be revisited occassionally.) Once that decision is made, we should allow the experts in a particular field of study determine what is appropriate to be taught in that field.


Off topic.  The school board, PTO and tax paying community already do have a voice/influence so that is place.  You are comparing a consumer/business model on a governmental model.

I do find it ironic that you think that the appointed, approved 'experts' should determine appropriate decisions on education but are not leaving the appointed, approved 'experts' of this country to determine the 'appropriate' decisions about those choices.

citizens have a say in what happens within their community in a democracy.  You are free to crow and gripe about Bush and the current administration and are free to petition, lobby and contact your chosen/voted representatives to let them know how you feel.

These citizens have the same rights at the local level when it comes to public education.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> It has already been discussed that a faith based mental construct will not stand up in a scientific mental construct.  Vice versa is true too.
> 
> I am not debating the validity or the accuracy of these beliefs.  I am saying that if the community that is paying taxes into the local public school are lobbying for their community values to be represented (not in place of, instead of, or better than the science but at least represented) what is wrong with that?



I know that you think Creationism should not be allowed in the science class, but in the context of this debate and in the context of fundamentalist belief, *they * think it *should * be.  So, *they * are exerting pressure at the local level to do *this*.  

That is the problem I have with local control in education in the context of this debate.  The _locals _ in question are pushing something that is obviously incorrect and the victims of this decision will be their children.  Putting it simply, they are making a mistake.

So, the question becomes, do we let them make that mistake or do we attempt to explain that they are mistaken and take away their freedom to screw up their kids education?

Sounds like we are talking about a lose/lose situation.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward

loki09789 said:
			
		

> .... but are not leaving the appointed, approved 'experts' of this country to determine the 'appropriate' decisions about those choices.


I do not understand this. 

Who are the 'experts' to which you are referring, and what 'choices' are you referring to?


----------



## Makalakumu

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Mr. Persons' opinions in bold.  It'd be nice if he were on this forum so we could answer him:



Rest assured that I will answer Mr. Person's infantile rant in the same forum he presented it.  The comment about moral absolutist vs moral relativist really fried me... :flame:


----------



## loki09789

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I do not understand this.
> 
> Who are the 'experts' to which you are referring, and what 'choices' are you referring to?


Presidency, administration, ....  all elected public servants.

School boards are voted/appointed and vote on every hiring and firing from bus drivers to school superintendents.  They are (generally speaking) elected officials.

So, the local governmental model is similar to the national governmental model.  Comparing it to a business model isn't effective IMO because students are not 'raw materials being manufactured into finished products' they are people.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I know that you think Creationism should not be allowed in the science class, but in the context of this debate and in the context of fundamentalist belief, *they *think it *should *be. So, *they *are exerting pressure at the local level to do *this*.
> 
> That is the problem I have with local control in education in the context of this debate. The _locals _in question are pushing something that is obviously incorrect and the victims of this decision will be their children. Putting it simply, they are making a mistake.
> 
> So, the question becomes, do we let them make that mistake or do we attempt to explain that they are mistaken and take away their freedom to screw up their kids education?
> 
> Sounds like we are talking about a lose/lose situation.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


Or do we simply offer the comprimise of teaching it in ELA and Social classes instead? Based on the morals and values of citizenship, they have right to their voice AND their chosen local representatives have the right to say no to their requests or to modify them and say that is where it ends...it doesn't have to be so blunt or cut and dry as Yes or NO.

It may be incorrect that they are (and at this point I don't remember if the original thread topic states this or not) pushing for Creation in Science class, but they are 'correct' in their point of view because of faith.  IMO, fundamentalism or any singular 'ism' only works in a vacuum anyway.  I teach kids who are being raised in strong faith families and when I present things that make them uncomfortable because of difference, I make sure that I don't simply present it as "THE WAY" but the way some people see things.

I have met the local school board members, at least one NA, a construction contract business owner and I'm not sure about the rest. They work hand in hand with the administrators. If the local citizenry (which is pretty heavily fundamentalist here as well) were to propose such a move locally or at the state level, just like any other issue before a board, the negotiations and consensus skills come out before a final decision is made.


----------



## michaeledward

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I do find it ironic that you think that the appointed, approved 'experts' should determine appropriate decisions on education but are not leaving the appointed, approved 'experts' of this country to determine the 'appropriate' decisions about those choices.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe the community should decide *if* education is required for all children or not. (In this country, this argument has long been settled. Like most ideas, perhaps it needs to be revisited occassionally.) Once that decision is made, we should allow the experts in a particular field of study determine what is appropriate to be taught in that field.





			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Presidency, administration, .... all elected public servants.
> 
> School boards are voted/appointed and vote on every hiring and firing from bus drivers to school superintendents. They are (generally speaking) elected officials.
> 
> So, the local governmental model is similar to the national governmental model. Comparing it to a business model isn't effective IMO because students are not 'raw materials being manufactured into finished products' they are people.


We obviously are not talking about the same thing. 

I do not think an elected school board member should be able to deterimine the curriculum content for, let's say English liturature, unless, that school board member has a demonstrated level of expertise in that field. Determining the content of a course is not something that should be left to the democratic process. 

There are many more yellow belt students than black belt students. Because of their greater number (majority) do we allow the yellow belt students to determine what is going to be taught in the karate studio?


----------



## loki09789

michaeledward said:
			
		

> We obviously are not talking about the same thing.
> 
> I do not think an elected school board member should be able to deterimine the curriculum content for, let's say English liturature, unless, that school board member has a demonstrated level of expertise in that field. Determining the content of a course is not something that should be left to the democratic process.
> 
> There are many more yellow belt students than black belt students. Because of their greater number (majority) do we allow the yellow belt students to determine what is going to be taught in the karate studio?


Again, inaccurate construct comparison.  What class structure model are you working from for the martial art class:  confucionistic family model, para military rank structure....?

As I said, the school board works with the administration.  The school board uses the administration and staff as topic experts and, generally speaking, votes in favor of the curriculum advise that is presented.  They don't act in a vacuum.


----------



## raedyn

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I do not think an elected school board member should be able to deterimine the curriculum content for, let's say English liturature, unless, that school board member has a demonstrated level of expertise in that field. Determining the content of a course is not something that should be left to the democratic process.


I agree with this, but it is often not what happens in real life. Elected officials usually like to get re-elected, so often (there are notable exceptions) they will do what is popular with their consituents - disregarding what is the 'right' choice. And other times, they will act on their own principles, disregarding the opinions of their constiuents. See, for example, book banning. Shouldn't a librarian be fit to determine what books should be available to the students? I would say so, but many school boards have over-ruled librarians' authority.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I teach kids who are being raised in strong faith families and when I present things that make them uncomfortable because of difference, I make sure that I don't simply present it as "THE WAY" but the way some people see things.



Do you think the school board has the right to make the decision to dictate THE WAY you had to teach and that was the ONLY WAY that could be taught?  

I don't think that they do, yet that is what some local communities are trying to do with evolution.

And Creationism is wrong as a scientific theory.

The problem I'm trying to point out with Local Control of Schools is that some people just aren't informed enough to make some decisions regarding curriculum.  Is this a job better left to "experts" or is this something the average joe can give input?  

The result of a mistake is screwing up the education of your kids...I'm sure it would be someone elses fault...


----------



## rmcrobertson

No. It is not a librarian's place tp pick and choose which are the 'good,' books, and it damn sure isn't the school board's. 

It is the librarian's, and the school board's job to explain to the community why it is that intellectual freedom is important, why it is that a few loudmouths do not get to dictate what everybody else reads, why it is that it's just a crying shame if somebody's beliefs (goofy or otherwise) conflict with books.

Of course there're financial considerations, just as there are common-sense considerations: grade-school librarians ought not to be ordering "Hustler."

But considering some of the vicious nonsense that appears in libraries and nobody says a word, and considering that the books the yahoos fuss over include "The Cat In the Hat," "Harry Potter," "Huck Finn," and everything Judy Blume ever wrote--yes, and Darwin--we're not talking about porn really, are we?

A big chunk of the American public believes in astrology--including Nancy Reagan. So let's get rid of Carl Sagan, that godless bastard, and teach astrology in astronomy...it's only fair, just another theory. A big chunk believes that "racial minorites," are biologically inferior--so we should teach that in biology classes, it's just a reasonable compromise. There're lots of wackos who believe that gay people deserve to die, that the Indians had it coming, that Hitler got a raw deal--so let's represent white people's diversity too.

Since when are Americans willing to compromise over intellectual freedom, and  real science? Where's this political correctness coming from...the Right?


----------



## Makalakumu

"On the issue of evolution, the jury is still out regarding how God created the Earth," George W. Bush.


----------



## Makalakumu

This show just happened to be on NPR's Science Friday...

http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2004/Nov/hour1_111904.html

This is an awesome program.  I'm listening to it right now.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward

While we were out ... this comes in from TIME Magazine

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html?cnn=yes



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs. This fantasy accommodates the creationists view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Darwins theory of evolution is false. Among the park exhibits is one that illustrates another creationist article of faith. It consists of a long trough filled with sand and fitted at one end with a water spigot. Above the trough is a sign reading That River Didnt Make That Canyon. When visitors open the spigot, the water quickly cuts a gully through the sand, supposedly demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was created, practically overnight, by Noahs flood.
> 
> And, oh yes, it was formed about 4,500 years ago, a direct consequence of Noahs Flood. Hows that? Yes, this is the ill-informed premise of Grand Canyon, a Different View, a handsomely-illustrated volume also on sale at the bookstores. It includes the writings of creationists and creation scientists and was compiled by Tom Vail, who with his wife operates Canyon Ministries, conducting creationist-view tours of the canyon. For years, Vail explains, as a Colorado River guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time span of millions of years. (Most geologists place the canyons age at some six million years). Then I met the Lord. Now I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, cant possibly be more than a few thousand years old.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do you think the school board has the right to make the decision to dictate THE WAY you had to teach and that was the ONLY WAY that could be taught?
> 
> I don't think that they do, yet that is what some local communities are trying to do with evolution.
> 
> And Creationism is wrong as a scientific theory.
> 
> The problem I'm trying to point out with Local Control of Schools is that some people just aren't informed enough to make some decisions regarding curriculum. Is this a job better left to "experts" or is this something the average joe can give input?
> 
> The result of a mistake is screwing up the education of your kids...I'm sure it would be someone elses fault...


Firstly, the school board and the supers don't tell you how you can teach that is your pedagogy and such... they CAN tell you what content they want you to cover -they do that now with State educational standards and the District/Subject curriculum maps that we use. The maps basically outline the skills and content that are to be covered from K-12. The way that you teach those skills and content pieces is really up to you - as long as you don't go TOO crazy with it based on your schools policies and culture...

oops did I say School CULTURE -which is a reflection of the local culture, which is using the locally funded educational institution as a vehicle to pass on it's ideas of citizenship and values - as well as informational/skills proficiency?

We are public servants and serve the community with our content knowledge.  The superintendent and school board are the ones who decide what the overall vision/mission/philosophy and culture that we are working it will try to perpetuate or develop. If you don't like the direction that your school district is going, get involved or get out those are really the choices we have. Move from Faculty to Adminstration so that you can influence the culture to fit your vision.  If you stay a classroom teacher, you are just that a classroom teacher with your individual views and only the influence of your classroom/department.  Personally, at this point, I am not interested in Administration.  I understand that I might have a different, more 'educated' view on certain issues relative to the school board - but they have taken up the mantel of decision making and I have not.  Lead, follow or get out of the way is basically the way it goes.

School boards do have the power to approve issues of education - this isn't new - and isn't the issue.

I don't argue that Creationism is flawed as a scientific theory....it is a faith issue and I have been pretty straight on that all along.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Firstly, the school board and the supers don't tell you how you can teach that is your pedagogy and such... they CAN tell you what content they want you to cover -they do that now with State educational standards and the District/Subject curriculum maps that we use. The maps basically outline the skills and content that are to be covered from K-12. The way that you teach those skills and content pieces is really up to you - as long as you don't go TOO crazy with it based on your schools policies and culture.



In some places in this country, your experience is not the norm.  The school board must approve all curriculum.  And in some states, creationism (intelligent design) has already been adopted as part of their state standards.  There are some places in the bible belt where you are handed a large three ringed binder and THAT is what you must teach from.  

Again I ask, do these parents/school boards/religious groups have the right to screw up their childrens education?  By teaching evolution the way they want to teach it, they basically are taking the scientific method and trashing it.

The bottom line is that these people are messing up their children's chance for success in a scientific field.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> oops did I say School CULTURE -which is a reflection of the local culture, which is using the locally funded educational institution as a vehicle to pass on it's ideas of citizenship and values - as well as informational/skills proficiency?



Yet, we are part of a broader nation and the success of our nation depends on education.  Are we going to allow a group of backward thinking fundamentalists to weaken our nation so they can feel more comfortable with their spiritual choice?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> We are public servants and serve the community with our content knowledge.  The superintendent and school board are the ones who decide what the overall vision/mission/philosophy and culture that we are working it will try to perpetuate or develop. If you don't like the direction that your school district is going, get involved or get out those are really the choices we have. Move from Faculty to Adminstration so that you can influence the culture to fit your vision.  If you stay a classroom teacher, you are just that a classroom teacher with your individual views and only the influence of your classroom/department.  Personally, at this point, I am not interested in Administration.  I understand that I might have a different, more 'educated' view on certain issues relative to the school board - but they have taken up the mantel of decision making and I have not.  Lead, follow or get out of the way is basically the way it goes.



What makes you think that people _aren't _ doing this?


----------



## Tgace

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> *Are we going to allow* a group of backward thinking fundamentalists to weaken our nation so they can feel more comfortable with their spiritual choice?


As an American, the bolded part is what worries me. I understand that sometimes the "majority rule" needs to be overruled in the interest of doing whats right (Slaverly was the majority rule, Hitler was elected etc. etc). At the same time, we should be extremely careful with the "we know whats best for you" approach. I find that teachers (very general statement coming up) are amongst the more liberal crowd. And I think that all the years of being the person with all the answers, and the final say in the classroom, causes many of them to believe that they know "whats best" for everybody. Having both family and friends in the profession, as well as spending many years (and $$) in the educational system, Ive meet many educators with very arrogant and condescending attitudes. Fortunately, Ive also meet many (hopefully the majority) teachers who are genuinely interested in education and student welfare and keep their personal politics just that...personal.

On creationism, I remember it just being "mentioned" as an alternate option when I was in school. How much time can it really occupy in the classroom anyway?


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1.  In some places in this country, your experience is not the norm. The school board must approve all curriculum. And in some states, creationism (intelligent design) has already been adopted as part of their state standards. There are some places in the bible belt where you are handed a large three ringed binder and THAT is what you must teach from.
> 
> 2.  Again I ask, do these parents/school boards/religious groups have the right to screw up their childrens education? By teaching evolution the way they want to teach it, they basically are taking the scientific method and trashing it.
> 
> 3.  The bottom line is that these people are messing up their children's chance for success in a scientific field.
> 
> 4.  Yet, we are part of a broader nation and the success of our nation depends on education. Are we going to allow a group of backward thinking fundamentalists to weaken our nation so they can feel more comfortable with their spiritual choice?
> 
> 5.  What makes you think that people _aren't _doing this?


1.  That, in essence is how some Social Studies Curriculums and mathematic curriculums run as well.  If that was VOTED into approval and developed by Educated people who embrace these values, who are we to say you are wrong - it is THEIR CULTURE that they are preserving.  Would you blast the Native American Reservation schools for teaching traditional values within their curriculum - along side the state standards?  I don't think so.  But, it is amazing to me that something so much closer is freely blasted on.

2.  They are teaching it as they see fit.  If it conflicts with the 'truth' of the rest of the world, then they will be challenged at college when they get hit by the wider world - or not at all and we will get limited view folks...wait those people have always been around - even among 'educated' people it seems if they can find someone with the degree clout to legitimately develop a statewide curriculum on creationism...Remember that Science only EXPLAINS what people THINK (with substantial support and detail) how they think things happened.  Faith deals with the WHY things even bothered happening...never the twain shall meet.

3.  Nope.  They aren't.  These people are doctors, psychs, scientists, mathematicians...but interestingly enough they can justify learning a method and applying a mental discipline that conflicts with their personal values in some way.  Herrie has already mentioned that 'fundametalists' does not automatically equate to 'extremist' or 'fanatic' in all cases.

4.  Gee...those 'backward thinking fundamentalists' were the exploratory backbone that fought the elements, disease, each other.... to build this nation.  That same 'fundamentalist' level of faith has been around in some form or another for a very LONG time and has been a source of strength and will to get the job done in so many ways.  It isn't just that these 'backward thinkers' believe that God literally created the heaven and earth in 6days and then drank a cold one.

There are some very good values and personally enriching faith practices in these 'backwards thinkers' that we all could learn a thing or two from - and that is coming from a Catholic who already gets in trouble for discussing religion with his local priest...

Now, they are going to undermine the nation?  The Puritan work ethic, the 'God Fearing' order established in the community to serve each other instead of self, the Bapstists who supported the underground railroad,... yeah 'those people' (sounds awefully prejudicial to me) really destroyed the nation.

5.  I am not addressing some people, but I am addressing you.  You and I are classroom teachers.  If it is so bothersome to you, you have the opportunity to move up the food chain to increase your range of influence if you want...otherwise we are simply classroom teachers with very limited influence.  That is my point about lead, follow or get out of the way.

If we were generalizing African Americans/Latin Americans/Muslims...who ever else as a group and stereotyping them this badly there would be someone that would be blasting it all over the place as prejudice/bigotous and racist.  I am really surprised at the lack of criticism up to now.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1.  That, in essence is how some Social Studies Curriculums and mathematic curriculums run as well.  If that was VOTED into approval and developed by Educated people who embrace these values, who are we to say you are wrong - it is THEIR CULTURE that they are preserving.  Would you blast the Native American Reservation schools for teaching traditional values within their curriculum - along side the state standards?  I don't think so.  But, it is amazing to me that something so much closer is freely blasted on.



What makes you think these people are _Educated_?  Why do you think they have the background to make these decisions?  They may, or they may not.  From my experience with school boards, these folks are average joes and janes.  Very few of them have any scientific training if at all.  How are they qualified to determine what should be taught in science?

I wouldn't blast the Native Americans from preserving their culture anymore then I would a Fundamentalist Christian.  Their culture does not belong in a science classroom, though (the exception would be when discussing how a culture impacts the real world).  By its very nature, science is cultureless (or it should be).  Science attempts to look at the world through an objective lense in order to glimpse what is _really _ out there.  

The fancy stories cooked up by the human imagination do not belong in the science classroom.  Science is discussing the _real _ world and is therefore fact based.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 2.  They are teaching it as they see fit.  If it conflicts with the 'truth' of the rest of the world, then they will be challenged at college when they get hit by the wider world - or not at all and we will get limited view folks...wait those people have always been around - even among 'educated' people it seems if they can find someone with the degree clout to legitimately develop a statewide curriculum on creationism...Remember that Science only EXPLAINS what people THINK (with substantial support and detail) how they think things happened.  Faith deals with the WHY things even bothered happening...never the twain shall meet.



Science means knowledge.  True knowledge.  Real knowledge.  In a scientist's mind, a real world exists and we believe that we can know that world through observation.  You can't just "teach it as you see fit" because then you are not addressing the real world.  You are not teaching science.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 3.  Nope.  They aren't.  These people are doctors, psychs, scientists, mathematicians...but interestingly enough they can justify learning a method and applying a mental discipline that conflicts with their personal values in some way.  Herrie has already mentioned that 'fundametalists' does not automatically equate to 'extremist' or 'fanatic' in all cases.



The Soviet Union rejected Genetics when the theory was first formulated because it conflicted with their ideology.  Their knowledge of biology was thrown into a quagmire of deadends for decades because of this.  We are facing the same thing in a way.  The fundamental beliefs of science are being attacked right now.  According to the fundamentalist view, science is mutable when it doesn't ascribe to your worldview, but when it does, its rock solid.  In a very Orwellian way, this is exactly what O'Brian was trying to show when he was attempting to tell Winston that 2+2 = 5.  In our world, we see this with our current administration, if the science doesn't fit, disregard it and find some that does, no matter how obscure.

I agree, fundamentalist does not always equate to extremist or fanatic.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 4.  Gee...those 'backward thinking fundamentalists' were the exploratory backbone that fought the elements, disease, each other.... to build this nation.  That same 'fundamentalist' level of faith has been around in some form or another for a very LONG time and has been a source of strength and will to get the job done in so many ways.  It isn't just that these 'backward thinkers' believe that God literally created the heaven and earth in 6days and then drank a cold one.



There were a lot of people who contributed to building this country, not just the "fundamentalists".  I'm not sure how you are defining this anymore...I'll go with my gut, though...

Our knowledge base has, by and large, exponentially during the age of reason and enlightenment.  _Fundamentalists _ have fought this every step of the way despite all of the good it has done for humanity.  So, backward thinking isn't a term that is dripping with prejudice invective.  It describes the truth.

By the way, a LARGE segment of the _fundamentalist _ population believes that God literally did create the heaves and earth in six days then kicked back a cold one on the seventh.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> There are some very good values and personally enriching faith practices in these 'backwards thinkers' that we all could learn a thing or two from - and that is coming from a Catholic who already gets in trouble for discussing religion with his local priest...



I'm not denying this.  I believe that most people carry goodness in their hearts.  Yet, they have no right to force Science (which means Knowledge with a capitol K) to back up their worldview when reality shows nothing of the sort.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Now, they are going to undermine the nation?  The Puritan work ethic, the 'God Fearing' order established in the community to serve each other instead of self, the Bapstists who supported the underground railroad,... yeah 'those people' (sounds awefully prejudicial to me) really destroyed the nation.



Loki - You are taking my words into places where they were not meant.  All people are basically good and all peoples have done good.  Yet, they have also done "not so good" and you can pick out the places in their philosophy where this has occured.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 5.  I am not addressing some people, but I am addressing you.  You and I are classroom teachers.  If it is so bothersome to you, you have the opportunity to move up the food chain to increase your range of influence if you want...otherwise we are simply classroom teachers with very limited influence.  That is my point about lead, follow or get out of the way.



Hmmm - my district isn't having a problem with this because I am part of a group of professionals that is getting the information out.  I can affect people in other districts by talking to people in far away places like I am right now and by voting.  

Have no fear, I practice what I preach and I have no problem with putting my money where my mouth is.   :asian: 



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> If we were generalizing African Americans/Latin Americans/Muslims...who ever else as a group and stereotyping them this badly there would be someone that would be blasting it all over the place as prejudice/bigotous and racist.  I am really surprised at the lack of criticism up to now.



What are the "generalizations" in which you object?  I believe that what I have said has been correct.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> As an American, the bolded part is what worries me. I understand that sometimes the "majority rule" needs to be overruled in the interest of doing whats right (Slaverly was the majority rule, Hitler was elected etc. etc). At the same time, we should be extremely careful with the "we know whats best for you" approach. I find that teachers (very general statement coming up) are amongst the more liberal crowd. And I think that all the years of being the person with all the answers, and the final say in the classroom, causes many of them to believe that they know "whats best" for everybody. Having both family and friends in the profession, as well as spending many years (and $$) in the educational system, Ive meet many educators with very arrogant and condescending attitudes. Fortunately, Ive also meet many (hopefully the majority) teachers who are genuinely interested in education and student welfare and keep their personal politics just that...personal.
> 
> On creationism, I remember it just being "mentioned" as an alternate option when I was in school. How much time can it really occupy in the classroom anyway?



I'm not sure how to respond to this, but I'll give it a go.  I've got a Masters in Education and now in Physics.  Does this give my opinion more weight when talking about issues involving these two topics?  

If I was respectful in giving this opinion to you and it went against something you believed, how would you react?

What if my opinion was soundly grounded in fact?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how to respond to this, but I'll give it a go. I've got a Masters in Education and now in Physics. Does this give my opinion more weight when talking about issues involving these two topics?
> 
> If I was respectful in giving this opinion to you and it went against something you believed, how would you react?
> 
> What if my opinion was soundly grounded in fact?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


In a democracy, should that allow you to override the public will?

In that vein, should I be the "last word" and final arbiter on law enforcement around here? I think my opinion on the topic should bear a little more consideration due my experience, but I dont expect or want people to "clam up" because I know better.

Personally, until a moral line is crossed, I think we should be extremely careful about ignoring the public will because "we know better than them...the ignorant fools". 

If a teacher can say, "scientists think we develpoed through evolution but some people believe in creationism. Make your own choice" than who cares if its said in a science class or a social studies class. How much time can you spend teaching creationism anyway? Either you believe or you dont. I wouldnt think there would be a lot of subject matter to dwell on.

BTW: I "believe" that evolution is the most likely mechanism of lifeform development. However it dosent bother me that others believe in creationism. Most of them probably aren't going to become biologists anyway.


----------



## rmcrobertson

One continues to be astonished not merely by the lack of understanding of the differences between science and faith, and by the refusal to accept that the fundamentalists mean precisely what they say, but by the utter rejection of the Enlightenment values that were so precious to Franklin, to Paine, to Jefferson, to Adams, and to the others who framed this country.

For the 2, 416th time then--and recognizing that it's useless--science is not predicated upon belief, unless you think that the existence of the material universe is simply a matter of belief. Science involves the generation of reasoned hypotheses based upon previous knowledge, and the subsequent testing of these hypotheses by observation and experiment. Religion does not. When you teach kids that evolution and fundamentalist Protestantism offer equally-valid theories of human origins, you are lying about what science--and for that matter religion--fundamentally are. When precisely was it that lying to students, and distorting the nature of what they are studying, became an American value?

One recommends perusing already-posted links, in reference to what Protestant fundamentalists are demanding and to their plans for the future. Their notion is that evolution is OF A PIECE with sex ed, multiculturalism, etc., as teaching destructive of basic moral values. Indeed, these guys repeatedly link evolution to promiscuity, the rise of homosexuality, the decline of school prayer, etc., etc., etc. They do not want compromise. They want these things, and many others, removed completely. They demand compulsory fundamentalist prayer. They demand "abstinence-only," sex ed. They demand book censorship. And oh yes--they demand that women be forced back into what they conceive (and "conceive," is preciselt the right word) as their traditional role. They make these demands, and they assert these relations, in virtually every piece of literature they put out. One is disposed to believe them.

Most of all, it is disturbing to see the rejection of the fundamental values--humanist, Enlightenment, scientific--upon which our Constitution was framed. One supposed that rightist political correctness knows no bounds, but one is surprised to read the repeated rejection of basic American values.


----------



## michaeledward

I think it is so great when Robert says stuff like that. It doesn't hurt that he is correct either.

Science is not supposed to be about what the community standard is. As I recall, Galileo got into a bit of trouble with those community standards. But, in the end, he was right. So, do we teach what is right .... or what is the community standard right-now?


----------



## Tgace

Are these people saying they want Darwin banned from the classroom? I thought they just wanted creationism taught as well.......a little different from the Galileo example. Nobody (as far as I can see) is talking about banning thought, just including another.


----------



## michaeledward

Not at all .. it is very American to be 'Fair' and present differing points of view.

Except, the two issues being discussed do not carry equal weight. One, as Robert so clearly spelled out three posts back, is based on rigorous testing and evaluation, as well as processes that seek to disprove any assumptions that may mislead, and finally be repeatable in different place at different times.  The other is because someone 'Says So' (be that someone a local authority or a generations perished author).

Curriculum should not be based on what is 'Fair', but what is 'Known' and 'Knowable'.


----------



## Tgace

I just think people are twisted around bringing religon into the classroom, unless its some "other" religon or culture we must be "tolerant and openminded" about.

I remember creationism being taught alongside evolution when I was in grade school and that was the late 70's early 80's. So I just cant get too worked up over the subject. If the religious segment was trying to suppress evolutionary theory that would be a different story.


----------



## Tgace

Additionally, if creationism/darwinism is being reinforced at home anyway, how much of a difference will this make? Let the school present each thought and leave it at that.

The educators just seem to be more upset over the fact that they dont believe in creationism and have to teach it IMHO.

It also seems odd that people who would have a cow if a religious group tried to keep evolution out of the classroom are for keeping creationism out of the classroom because this isnt about being "fair". I thought "inclusiveness" was a liberal buzzword.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> Are these people saying they want Darwin banned from the classroom? I thought they just wanted creationism taught as well.......a little different from the Galileo example. Nobody (as far as I can see) is talking about banning thought, just including another.



Yes, they are.  Check out a little of what Ken Ham has to say...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> I just think people are twisted around bringing religon into the classroom, unless its some "other" religon or culture we must be "tolerant and openminded" about.
> 
> I remember creationism being taught alongside evolution when I was in grade school and that was the late 70's early 80's. So I just cant get too worked up over the subject. If the religious segment was trying to suppress evolutionary theory that would be a different story.



They are and they have.  There have been many instances across the country where school boards or administrators have outright banned the teaching of evolution.


----------



## 5 hand swords

Flatlander said:
			
		

> This doesn't really address the topic of the thread. In other threads, we have discussed at great length the various ways of interpreting specific passages from the Bible, however, with regards to whether or not, and in what context, Biblical Creationism belongs in the classroom is the topic here.
> 
> If you disagree with the validity of the Bible in its entirety, then it is apparent that this will color your opinion of its educational value.


Or...
If you think of the Bible as equal to other great early documents about how to build a social structure that works based on rules of law for behavior, but that existed in a pre-scientific framework. 
Might this also color your opinion as to it's scientific relavence?


----------



## rmcrobertson

Good to know that it is, indeed, OK to be lying to students about what science is, in the name of compromise with community standards.

One wonders if teaching creationism as what it is--a) an interesting aspect of  Christianity; b) an opposite of scientific thought; c) a fringe belief no longer held by the Catholic Church as well as groups such as the National Council of Churches; d) a good example of superstition; e) an interesting aspect of anti-humanist and anti-modern thought; f) one among several (the most obvious being fundamentalist Islam) attempts to roll back the clock to the 13th century--would be an acceptable compromise.

From Robert A. Heinlein, "Year of the Jackpot:"

"TENNESSEE SENATE VOTES TO REPEAL LAW OF GRAVITY"


----------



## heretic888

People often seem to forget that the State has rights, too. One of this is that its citizens have a certain modicum of proper education.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Tgace said:
			
		

> Additionally, if creationism/darwinism is being reinforced at home anyway, how much of a difference will this make? Let the school present each thought and leave it at that.
> 
> The educators just seem to be more upset over the fact that they dont believe in creationism and have to teach it IMHO.
> 
> It also seems odd that people who would have a cow if a religious group tried to keep evolution out of the classroom are for keeping creationism out of the classroom because this isnt about being "fair". I thought "inclusiveness" was a liberal buzzword.


Well, that's another problem with talking about different groups and assuming that no creationism = liberal agenda.

Not every conservative in this country is 1) a fundamentalist Protestant Christian, or 2) wants creationism taught as science in schools.

Having schools present non-science as science would be doing kids a disservice.  How much further behind other industrialized nations does the US have to fall, before we realize how important it is?


----------



## Rich Parsons

5 hand swords said:
			
		

> Or...
> If you think of the Bible as equal to other great early documents about how to build a social structure that works based on rules of law for behavior, but that existed in a pre-scientific framework.
> Might this also color your opinion as to it's scientific relavence?



Social Structure.

I see we should stone people for certain acts. 

I see we should not eat pork at all. ** this was because people did not know how to cook it to avoid issues. **

Eat Fish only on Friday, ** which is a light meat to help in the purification process of the Sabbath of the 7th day of the week which is from Sunset on Friday to Sunset on Saturday. **

It was a good idea for guiding people at that time. The faith portions still are relavent, yet, no one follows 100% of every word in the Bible. If they do, then most likely they could not function in society today. So, just like Robert pointed out, rolling back the clock is what people seem to want, in this aspect. I personally do not know how to go back in time, nor how to change everyone on the earth to get theri views back to flat world and medicine is the work of "Satan". 

 :idunno:


----------



## heretic888

> So, just like Robert pointed out, rolling back the clock is what people seem to want, in this aspect. I personally do not know how to go back in time, nor how to change everyone on the earth to get theri views back to flat world and medicine is the work of "Satan".



Or, as Jon Stewart put it, "bring the world back to a state that never even existed in the first place".


----------



## Tgace

Personally, I just dont think this is a place where its necessary for the government to step in (is that what ya'll want? or is this just a gripe session?). If the people of the state want it, well its their loss. I just think we should be very careful about where and when its necessary for us to "not allow" our fellow countrymen to do what they want, as long as its legal.


----------



## TonyM.

The flat world thing was just meme from Washington Irving. Most people never believed that nonsense, especially sailors. I call what John Stewart is intimating national cognative dissodence. Who new Leon Festinger would inadvertingly predict the end of true democracy and reason.


----------



## heretic888

Actually, most people did believe the world was flat.

It was part of the whole metaphysical system of the time --- the world had to be flat, and the sun had to revolve around the earth, and the earth had to be the center of the universe.

Why?? Because, "God" had to literally be "up there" watching all of us --- and if the world wasn't flat, then he could only see half of what's going on at any given time.

In addition, the "flat earth" idea also fitted in with the notion that "heaven" is literally "up there" (where "God" is), and "hell" is literally "down there" --- i.e., there was belief in a 3-tiered layering of the world.


----------



## Tgace

Did they chance their minds because some government mandated it. Or did they chance their minds because they were "properly" educated.


----------



## heretic888

Tgace said:
			
		

> Did they chance their minds because some government mandated it. Or did they chance their minds because they were "properly" educated.



It should be noted that not everyone in the populace held to "flat earth" beliefs. Like heliocentrism and evolution, the "round earth" are among concepts that philosophers and scientists (such as Plotinus, Pythagoras, etc) have held to for centuries.

Think Darwin was the first one to propose evolutionary ideas?? Nope, he was jsut the first to support it with hard evidence. Think heliocentrism originated with Galileo?? Nah. Likewise, many other philosophers of the time disbelieved the predictive power of astrology and doubted the notion that the world was "flat".


----------



## qizmoduis

Tgace said:
			
		

> Are these people saying they want Darwin banned from the classroom? I thought they just wanted creationism taught as well.......a little different from the Galileo example. Nobody (as far as I can see) is talking about banning thought, just including another.



In  many cases, they have tried to get evolution removed from the curriculum.  In ALL cases, they are trying to get non-science taught in science class.  That's the issue.  About the fairness issue:  the only way to be fair is to teach what is correct.  It would be grossly un-fair to the students to teach them creationism (or any other myth) as an alternative to evolution, because that would be a lie.  And it isn't science.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personally, I just dont think this is a place where its necessary for the government to step in (is that what ya'll want? or is this just a gripe session?). If the people of the state want it, well its their loss. I just think we should be very careful about where and when its necessary for us to "not allow" our fellow countrymen to do what they want, as long as its legal.



On one hand, I don't think the state needs to interfere.  I think that people who support evolution have got to stop letting Creationist take pot shots on science and on Evolution.  People need to take the time to refute this stuff.  It's not hard, _creation science_ is an absolutely horrible theory!  Some of the claims they make are totally outrageous!  Making people understand the point that Evolution is best theory we have is is the best way to kick this crap back to the intellectual backwater that it belongs.

On the other hand, perhaps the state has no choice but to be involved.  Science means knowledge and intimates an understanding the real world, therefore the teaching Creation Science, which is theology, in a science class, basically discredits all other cultural myths by claiming that this _myth_ is reality.  In a public school, you couldn't have a more powerfully philosophical sanctioning of religion.  This type of thing makes the whole "under god" debate trivial.


----------



## loki09789

Upnorth,

Many here, including you have been open about being 'politically active' as well as members of churchs, faith based value systems. You are motivated by your faith based values in how you proceed publically. How is this any different? I know you don't agree with the ideology (and neither do I honestly), but as a citizen what gives you the right to impose your values on this community? What would you do if you were a teacher in this community and were there to meet the needs of the community?

If, as a Citizen, you believe that people have the right to self expression and this community votes to have the Judeo/Christian Creation idea presented along side (though not in Science IMO) in their children's education how is that any different than that community talking about their American ideas being presented along side communism/Nazism? How is it any different from the Native American schools teaching their faith/mystic based ideas of creation within the curriculum as part of culturalization/heritage training about the local and global values they either grew up with or will experience as they grow up?

As a citizen, we have the right to vote/lobby and so on equally, regardless of what other people think. Do the defenders of civil liberties on issues of "Quarentining Dessent" and other issues seem to be lobbying for a "Educational Ruling class" to lead the masses because they don't know what is good for them? Isn't that a violation of civil liberties as well as an affront to the good old Judeo/Christian idea of "free will" where you can do what ever you want but you will suffer the pos/neg results of those choices?

I have feeling that this vacuum discussion is more empassioned than the reality will end up being. You will have a bunch of half attentive teens taking a prefab quiz at the end of a unit on "Creationism" with questions like "What day did God create the Heavens and the Earth?" (which some will get wrong) just like they get asked questions like "Who did the Bodhidarma study with after he shed all his earthly richs?" (which some will get wrong) and the state rationale behind the 'Creationism' unit won't be to recruit new followers but to educate students on the different value systems and moral structures that influence their own community and have influenced history.... just like we study WWII or some other cultural/global event.

The thing to remember here is that PUBLIC education is more about indoctrinization than it ever will be about 'enlightenment.'  Just go back to most school mission statements where ideas like 'citizenship' are mentioned.  That is a goal that will conflict at times with the enlightenment goal that many educators personally adhere to more so than the citizenry development IMO.

It is truly ironic to me that in past discussions about 'truth' the idea that it 'depends' comes out, but on this issue a clear stance of absolute right is coming out.  I guess I can learn something from this stuff after all.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> (though not in Science IMO)


 That, I think, is the crux of the matter.  No-one here has said "people should not be able to talk about their religion/religious beliefs" - the problem is presenting a non-scientific idea in a science classroom, as a scientific theory. 

Again, presenting creationism in a religious studies class, or even social studies class ("some people in the USA believe _____") is perfectly well and good.  

But presenting a faith-based concept as science is doing a disservice to faith and science.


----------



## raedyn

here, here Feisty!


----------



## loki09789

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> That, I think, is the crux of the matter. No-one here has said "people should not be able to talk about their religion/religious beliefs" - the problem is presenting a non-scientific idea in a science classroom, as a scientific theory.
> 
> Again, presenting creationism in a religious studies class, or even social studies class ("some people in the USA believe _____") is perfectly well and good.
> 
> But presenting a faith-based concept as science is doing a disservice to faith and science.


And, again, they have the right to vote/lobby and negotiate those terms within the civil liberties that protect all of us, regardless of outside opinion. If they say they want it in Science class (is that what they are saying?) and it passes with those terms...viola! They get it. Just like the KKK can get a permit to have a parade through your town.

I don't agree with it personally, but I am not about to say that they are 'wrong' as citizens for doing this. They are within their rights, as are the 'anti-creation education' element that can vote/lobby/petition to have it reversed. The system is there - who wants it more will win.

Simplest solution, offer it as a separate elective. When low attendance forces them to drop the course.....it's done'

I read through the article and there is no specific statement that says that it had to be taught in science class.  The only comment in the article was the inclusion of various models/theories.  Where and how they are presented could be negotiated it seems.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What makes you think these people are _Educated_? Why do you think they have the background to make these decisions? They may, or they may not. From my experience with school boards, these folks are average joes and janes. Very few of them have any scientific training if at all. How are they qualified to determine what should be taught in science?
> 
> I wouldn't blast the Native Americans from preserving their culture anymore then I would a Fundamentalist Christian. Their culture does not belong in a science classroom, though (the exception would be when discussing how a culture impacts the real world). By its very nature, science is cultureless (or it should be). Science attempts to look at the world through an objective lense in order to glimpse what is _really _out there.
> 
> The fancy stories cooked up by the human imagination do not belong in the science classroom. Science is discussing the _real _world and is therefore fact based.


Science studies and sifts through what can be observed and supported. Whether that defines 'real' is up to you. Scientific theory may be able to explain how things like emotions are biologically/systematically exist as chemical creations/secretions or reactions, but it can't explain 'real' to the person who is feeling it in a satisfactory way IMO.

There are things now that we call 'Scientifically proven' that may be defined as unreal or 'superstition' in time to come as well. Look at the shift in views on dinosaurs/neanderthals....name it right within science itself.

Science creates its own culture - cultureless is impossible. The God of Science is Reason. Right now that has proven pretty successful in building techinological progress but not all that much more successful in creating personal fulfillment than what was there before.  

Technology/Science killed the 'warrior traditions' that seems to be romanticized at times here.  It 'dehumanized' the individual and his efforts on the battlefield and reduced him to a statistic instead of a name to be remembered in song or tales of 'legend' (something else that scientific study will put in a test tube and reduce to a statistic).  I consider myself a rational person, but we all crave a little mystery in the world - look at the refabrication of the Victorian Christmas, Thanksgiving,....or any other 'custom' that kids grow up celebrating in school as well as home.  I don't see this as any different or anymore pervasive.

Remember too that these people are not throwing away the scientific method, only embracing something they believe as a 'sign' that God transcends sciencific explanations.

I know my own fair share of scientifically/technically trained people that are walking contradictions - this isn't all that different.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> That, I think, is the crux of the matter.  No-one here has said "people should not be able to talk about their religion/religious beliefs" - the problem is presenting a non-scientific idea in a science classroom, as a scientific theory.
> 
> Again, presenting creationism in a religious studies class, or even social studies class ("some people in the USA believe _____") is perfectly well and good.
> 
> But presenting a faith-based concept as science is doing a disservice to faith and science.




Yes, I had a World History Class that covered the religions and the Empires they created, or the countries that used them. This was covered from the historical point of view, and I have no problem discussing this as history. I do have a problem when there is no data, none at all, other than a book written and re-written and miss-transcribed, that requires you to have faith, to be taught as science.


----------



## rmcrobertson

1. There are, inevitably, contradictions that appear in a democratic society. many of these center around education, the most obvious intellectual and ideological battleground.

2. It is a matter of conscience for teachers to teach what they understand to be true, whatever the 'community standards," of the moment happen to be. If they fold on this, they are not only lying about what they know to be true (and if there is anything essential to teaching it is this: do not teach what you know to be a lie), but they are teaching students that folding under community pressurte is the right thing to do. One had thought that, from a conservative viewpoint, teachers were meant to not only teach skills and information, but to set moral examples for kids to learn from. 

3. Defining this as a freedom of speech issue is absurd. The question is this: should we allow a minority of loud-mouthed, bullying Protestant fundamentalists supported by wealthy nutjobs and organized Christian pressure groups (check out Bob Jones University! is Oral Roberts still claiming that a 600-foot Jesus threatened his life over fund-raising? Jimmy Swaggert still haanging out in motels with hookers? Falwell still claiming that 9/11 was God' punishment for the ACLU?) to dictate public school curriculums?

4. It is an absurd, shameful denial of the last 500 years of progress, as well as the founding principles of this country, to give in to these yahoos. Surrendering modern thought is exactly what we criticize the people of countries like Iran for doing.


----------



## loki09789

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. There are, inevitably, contradictions that appear in a democratic society. many of these center around education, the most obvious intellectual and ideological battleground.
> 
> 2. It is a matter of conscience for teachers to teach what they understand to be true, whatever the 'community standards," of the moment happen to be. If they fold on this, they are not only lying about what they know to be true (and if there is anything essential to teaching it is this: do not teach what you know to be a lie), but they are teaching students that folding under community pressurte is the right thing to do. One had thought that, from a conservative viewpoint, teachers were meant to not only teach skills and information, but to set moral examples for kids to learn from.
> 
> 3. Defining this as a freedom of speech issue is absurd. The question is this: should we allow a minority of loud-mouthed, bullying Protestant fundamentalists supported by wealthy nutjobs and organized Christian pressure groups (check out Bob Jones University! is Oral Roberts still claiming that a 600-foot Jesus threatened his life over fund-raising? Jimmy Swaggert still haanging out in motels with hookers? Falwell still claiming that 9/11 was God' punishment for the ACLU?) to dictate public school curriculums?
> 
> 4. It is an absurd, shameful denial of the last 500 years of progress, as well as the founding principles of this country, to give in to these yahoos. Surrendering modern thought is exactly what we criticize the people of countries like Iran for doing.


 
So your saying that a professional, given a mantle of responsibility and trying to effectively, responsibly carry out that duty while balancing the social desire and his/her personal beliefs should stick to his/her guns and not let the 'majority' sway his decisions?

Careful, your sounding a little "BUSH LIKE" here.  Change "religious whackos" or what ever the derogatory term you used was to something that describes the "anti-Bush" types and you have the same thing.  Stick to your guns, stand by your convictions and plans and don't apologize for doing what you think is right......


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Careful, your sounding a little "BUSH LIKE" here.  Change "religious whackos" or what ever the derogatory term you used was to something that describes the "anti-Bush" types and you have the same thing.  Stick to your guns, stand by your convictions and plans and don't apologize for doing what you think is right......



Don't you think that you might be over simplifying this comparison?  

Science is what it is.  Saying something is science when it doesn't fit the definition, even when you have a group of people behind you doesn't change the definition.  

I think that you are getting hung up on the concepts of culture and the real world.  Your perceptions are yours and yours alone, yet a scientist believes that a real world exists outside your perceptions.  Science attempts to glimpse this world.  

See what I'm saying?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Don't you think that you might be over simplifying this comparison?
> 
> Science is what it is. Saying something is science when it doesn't fit the definition, even when you have a group of people behind you doesn't change the definition.
> 
> I think that you are getting hung up on the concepts of culture and the real world. Your perceptions are yours and yours alone, yet a scientist believes that a real world exists outside your perceptions. Science attempts to glimpse this world.
> 
> See what I'm saying?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


 
And even within science, you can find disputes on what, how, who what when and where are defined, measured and what the compiled data really means.  When you simplify 'science' as the 'thing' that is doing the work, the thinking and the idea generation you are actually personifying a 'thing' when it is people who are disciplined (disciples?) in science that are doing it.  It is interesting that you use the term 'science' similar to the way these backward fundamentalists are using the term "god"....

The thing is that some of these 'creationsistic' theories are being presented by credible, reasonable science types who are working from the Divine Spark concept as well.  Even Carl Sagan, after a lifetime of scientific study said that it was too miraculous for it to be circumstancial.

I would say that the scientists are the ones trying to push 'reality' into only was is within your perceptive experience while the mystical believers are saying that it is more than that.


----------



## heretic888

Okay, guys, two things I'd like to chime in here...

First off, someone seems to really be into the myth of the given here.

Secondly, I really wouldn't lump the "Divine Spark guys" --- if you are talking about who I think you're talking about --- with the "creationist guys".

Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Myth of the given?


----------



## rmcrobertson

First off, one is far more qualified to teach than George Bush is to be President.

Second off, one belives that he noted "contradictions," in democratic societies, rather than asserting some fantasized superiority to anybody.

And as for the bizarre remark to the effect that Dr. Carl Sagan underwent some sort of deathbed conversion, piffle.

Here are some of his last words:

ON PSEUDOSCIENCE: 

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." 

-"Science and Hope," The Demon-Haunted World, pp. 26-27.

WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE NONSENSE: 

"Such reports persist and proliferate because they sell. And they sell, I think, because there are so many of us who want so badly to be jolted out of our humdrum lives, to rekindle that sense of wonder we remember from childhood, and also, for a few of the stories, to be able, really and truly, to believe-in Someone older, smarter, and wiser who is looking out for us. Faith is clearly not enough for many people. They crave hard evidence, scientific proof. They long for the scientific seal of approval, but are unwilling to put up with the rigorous standards of evidence that impart credibility to that seal." 

-"The Man in the Moon and the Face on Mars," The Demon-Haunted World, p. 58.

ON SCIENCE LITERACY: 

"All inquiries carry with them some element of risk. There is no guarantee that the universe will conform to our predispositions. But I do not see how we can deal with the universe-both the outside and the inside universe-without studying it. The best way to avoid abuses is for the populace in general to be scientifically literate, to understand the implications of such investigations. In exchange for freedom of inquiry, scientists are obliged to explain their work. If science is considered a closed priesthood, too difficult and arcane for the average person to understand, the dangers of abuse are greater. But if science is a topic of general interest and concern - if both its delights and its social consequences are discussed regularly and competently in the schools, the press, and at the dinner table - we have greatly improved our prospects for learning how the world really is and for improving both it and us." 

-"Broca's Brain," Broca's Brain, p. 12.

ON SCIENCE AND UNCERTAINTY: 

"We will always be mired in error. The most each generation can hope for is to reduce the error bars a little, and to add to the body of data to which error bars apply. The error bar is a pervasive, visible self-assessment of the reliability of our knowledge. You can often see error bars in public opinion polls...Imagine a society in which every speech in the Congressional Record, every television commercial, every sermon had an accompanying error bar or its equivalent." 

-"Science and Hope," The Demon-Haunted World, p. 28.

ON HUMANS AND ANIMALS: 

"We must stop pretending we're something we are not. Somewhere between romantic, uncritical anthropomorphizing of the animals and an anxious, obdurate refusal to recognize our kinship with them - the latter made tellingly clear in the still-widespread notion of 'special' creation - there is a broad middle ground on which we humans can take our stand." 

-"Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, p. 413.

ON VELIKOVSKY: 

"In the entire Velikovsky affair, the only aspect worse than the shoddy, ignorant and doctrinaire approach of Velikovsky and many of his supporters was the disgraceful attempt by some who called themselves scientists to suppress his writings. For this, the entire scientific enterprise has suffered. Velikovsky makes no serious claim of objectivity or falsifiability. There is at least nothing hypocritical in his rigid rejection of the immense body of data that contradicts his arguments. But scientists are supposed to know better, to realize that ideas will be judged on their merits if we permit free inquiry and vigorous debate." 

-"Venus and Dr. Velikovsky," Broca's Brain, p. 127

BIOLOGY AND HISTORY: 

"Biology is much more like language and history than it is like physics and chemistry. ...Now you might say that where the subject is simple, as in physics, we can figure out the underlying laws and apply them everywhere in the Universe; but where the subject is difficult, as in language, history, and biology, governing laws of Nature may well exist, but our intelligence may be too feeble to recognize their presence - especially if what is being studied is complex and chaotic, exquisitely sensitive to remote and inaccessible initial conditions. And so we invent formulations about "contingent reality" to disguise our ignorance. There may well be some truth to this point of view, but it is nothing like the whole truth, because history and biology remember in a way that physics does not. Humans share a culture, recall and act on what they've been taught. Life reproduced the adaptations of previous generations, and retains functioning DNA sequences that reach billions of years back into the past. We understand enough about biology and history to recognize a powerful stochastic component, the accidents preserved by high-fidelity reproduction." 

-"Life is Just a Three-Letter Word," Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, p. 92.

ON GOD: 

"Because the word 'God' means many things to many people, I frequently reply [to people who ask 'Do you believe in God?'] by asking what the questioner means by 'God.' To my surprise, this response is often considered puzzling or unexpected: 'Oh, you know, God. Everyone knows who God is.' Or 'Well, kind of a force that is stronger than we are and that exists everywhere in the universe.' There are a number of such forces. One of them is called gravity, but it is not often identified with God. And not everyone does know what is meant by 'God.'...Whether we believe in God depends very much on what we mean by God. 

My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts (as well as unable to take such a course of action) if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival. In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species." 

-"A Sunday Sermon," Broca's Brain, p. 291. 

ON THEISM AND ATHEISM: 

"Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questioning, courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God." 

-"The Amniotic Universe," Broca's Brain, p. 311.

ON A PLEA FOR TOLERANCE: 

"We have held the peculiar notion that a person or society that is a little different from us, whoever we are, is somehow strange or bizarre, to be distrusted or loathed. Think of the negative connotations of words like alien or outlandish. And yet the monuments and cultures of each of our civilizations merely represent different ways of being human. An extraterrestrial visitor, looking at the differences among human beings and their societies, would find those differences trivial compared to the similarities. The Cosmos may be densely populated with intelligent beings. But the Darwinian lesson is clear: There will be no humans elsewhere. Only here. Only on this small planet. We are a rare as well as an endangered species. Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another." 

-"Who Speaks for Earth?," Cosmos, p. 339.

ON THE TRANSIENCE OF LIFE: 

"Each of us is a tiny being, permitted to ride on the outermost skin of one of the smaller planets for a few dozen trips around the local star. ...The longest-lived organisms on Earth endure for about a millionth of the age of our planet. A bacterium lives for one hundred-trillionth of that time. So of course the individual organisms see nothing of the overall pattern-continents, climate, evolution. They barely set foot on the world stage and are promptly snuffed out-yesterday a drop of semen, as the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote, tomorrow a handful of ashes. If the Earth were as old as a person, a typical organism would be born, live, and die in a sliver of a second. We are fleeting, transitional creatures, snowflakes fallen on the hearth fire. That we understand even a little of our origins is one of the great triumphs of human insight and courage." 

-"Snowflakes Fallen on the Hearth," Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, pp. 30-31

One can certainly understand the objection to schoolchildren being taught such things.

N.B.: The very people defended for their, "right to free speech," here, by the way--and of course that is a right worth defending--it should be noted, immediately after his death in 1996 began to publish gleeful attacks on Sagan and his life's work. Perhaps it would be best to consider who exactly it is that we're defending.


----------



## Cruentus

wow...Carl Sagan.... what a heathen bastard...


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Okay, guys, two things I'd like to chime in here...
> 
> First off, someone seems to really be into the myth of the given here.
> 
> Secondly, I really wouldn't lump the "Divine Spark guys" --- if you are talking about who I think you're talking about --- with the "creationist guys".
> 
> Laterz.


Don't get the myth of the given.  In the original article the idea that multiple models/theories should be presented -according to the school superintendent.  Later, another school district with a similar view mentioned including the Divine Spark theory as on of those other theories that was being presented.

My point is that even within the scientific community there is disagreement.  "Science" isn't a unified body of believers all seeing the same thing when they look at the same data.  There are still arguments over TRex as scavenger or TRex as hunter - when the same body of evidence is in front of these two groups.  How much more diverse will the camps be when you have chemists, biologists, astronomers (of ALL the various types).....looking at different data forming opinions about the origins of life?  If it isn't even a unified idea within the community it will NEVER be resolved between faith followers and science followers.

In the end, though, what powers to override the popular vote do the minority, the unorganized, the unmotivated have in this case?  What powers to override the popular vote to these school officials have?  We live in a democracy - if that is what they want, that is what they will get.

There have been tons of comments about how ridiculous creationism is, how it doesn't belong in science class (which was not absolutely stated as the only way it will be presented), and how it is being perpetuated by a bunch of backward thinkers....but very little mention of how we live in a country where we don't all have to agree to the same things and no one has the right to stop you from thinking the way you want...that is prejudice and bigotous.  I have used the Native American analogy as another community that adheres to and teaches a faith based origin idea/creation belief but no one feels that it is acceptable to call them backwards.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And even within science, you can find disputes on what, how, who what when and where are defined, measured and what the compiled data really means.



In some places yes, in others, no.  In science, observations are repeatable by anyone, even your greatest detractors.  In fact, scientists _expect _ their _worst enemy _ to comment so they can learn from those comments.  The bottom line is that science is our most precious tool for examining the world.  Our picture of reality is a commonality that binds all people together.  It is something we all experience regardless of culture.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> When you simplify 'science' as the 'thing' that is doing the work, the thinking and the idea generation you are actually personifying a 'thing' when it is people who are disciplined (disciples?) in science that are doing it.



Science is a meme.  It is a tool.  It is a way at looking at and determining structures in the real world.  It is a way of speaking to another person and saying, do you see the same thing that I do.  Repeatable observation is the basis for all science.  In martial arts we *know * this because we are constantly asking the question, _what works and what doesn't_.  In reality, some things are much simpler them martial arts and I can describe those things to you in a way that you (or anyone else) will see it using science.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> It is interesting that you use the term 'science' similar to the way these backward fundamentalists are using the term "god"...



The only link between these two things is that they are BOTH memes.  The comparison ends there.  Science is internally focused.  It gives you power by stating that you can actually know something.  God is externally focused.  The meme takes away your power by claiming that there are somethings that you cannot know.  Science is the exemplification of the Light of Reason, the Fire of Prometheus, the Snake in the Garden, the Golden Apple...

Perhaps this is why the fundamentalists are so opposed...



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> The thing is that some of these 'creationsistic' theories are being presented by credible, reasonable science types who are working from the Divine Spark concept as well.  Even Carl Sagan, after a lifetime of scientific study said that it was too miraculous for it to be circumstancial.



Attempting to dovetail the "divine spark" group into the "creation science" group is looking at the details of what both groups propose.  It's like plopping a catholic down next to a muslim and saying that they are the same because they both believe in God...except in this case there are even more differences.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I would say that the scientists are the ones trying to push 'reality' into only was is within your perceptive experience while the mystical believers are saying that it is more than that.



Reality exists.  It _pushes _ its way onto *you*.  You stick to the earth because of this reality, because of the Laws of Nature.  

F = G (m1*m2)/r^2.  

Scientists tell you about these laws.  Evolution is also a part of our universe.  Scientists *must * tell people about it.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> My point is that even within the scientific community there is disagreement.  "Science" isn't a unified body of believers all seeing the same thing when they look at the same data.  There are still arguments over TRex as scavenger or TRex as hunter - when the same body of evidence is in front of these two groups.  How much more diverse will the camps be when you have chemists, biologists, astronomers (of ALL the various types).....looking at different data forming opinions about the origins of life?  If it isn't even a unified idea within the community it will NEVER be resolved between faith followers and science followers.



In faith, disagreement is heresy.  In science, disagreement is blessing.  Arguing over the details does not negate the power of knowledge.  The laws of our universe apply to all humans, everything *IN * the universe.  

We can know these laws...and this is what fundamentalists are truly objecting to.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> In the end, though, what powers to override the popular vote do the minority, the unorganized, the unmotivated have in this case?  What powers to override the popular vote to these school officials have?  We live in a democracy - if that is what they want, that is what they will get.



The _majority_ you mentioned above may extinguish the light of reason through their democratic power, despite all attempts at education.  This would be a slap in the face to everything America stands for because our founding fathers attempted to create a society in which reason prevailed over quackery.  Yet, it could happen.  Flip over a dollar bill and look into the Eye of Osirus.  Would you stand by and let people blind that eye?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> There have been tons of comments about how ridiculous creationism is, how it doesn't belong in science class (which was not absolutely stated as the only way it will be presented), and how it is being perpetuated by a bunch of backward thinkers....but very little mention of how we live in a country where we don't all have to agree to the same things and no one has the right to stop you from thinking the way you want...*that is prejudice and bigotous*.  I have used the Native American analogy as another community that adheres to and teaches a faith based origin idea/creation belief but no one feels that it is acceptable to call them backwards.



Can you imagine the prejudice and bigotry (and not to mention hubris) of a group that could claim that their religious myths are based off of repeatable observations by anyone including their worst enemies?  That their religious myths are a law of the universe that everyone obeys whether they like it or not?  If you cannot see the utter contempt for diversity inherit in this effort, then I cannot help you.  But this is what is at stake...ALL other cultures, beliefs, myths and people are being put to the stake and burned away, leaving only one under the trappings of something that used to be called knowledge...under the mantle of a lie.

Who would tell you the truth in this slave new world?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. In faith, disagreement is heresy. In science, disagreement is blessing. Arguing over the details does not negate the power of knowledge. The laws of our universe apply to all humans, everything *IN *the universe.
> 
> 2. We can know these laws...and this is what fundamentalists are truly objecting to.
> 
> 3. The _majority_ you mentioned above may extinguish the light of reason through their democratic power, despite all attempts at education. This would be a slap in the face to everything America stands for because our founding fathers attempted to create a society in which reason prevailed over quackery. Yet, it could happen. Flip over a dollar bill and look into the Eye of Osirus. Would you stand by and let people blind that eye?
> 
> 4. Can you imagine the prejudice and bigotry (and not to mention hubris) of a group that could claim that their religious myths are based off of repeatable observations by anyone including their worst enemies? That their religious myths are a law of the universe that everyone obeys whether they like it or not? If you cannot see the utter contempt for diversity inherit in this effort, then I cannot help you. But this is what is at stake...ALL other cultures, beliefs, myths and people are being put to the stake and burned away, leaving only one under the trappings of something that used to be called knowledge...under the mantle of a lie.
> 
> 5. Who would tell you the truth in this slave new world?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


1. Generalization. There are many a debate in religious study - whether between sects or within sects. There are also hertical treatment of people with diverse views on a subject (oh say like evolution.....). What if somewhere in the future, there is a way to identify, measure and show evidence of some divine scheme? Does the 'majority' or 'popular' views of some in science have the right to squash the views of others who disagree...it is happening right now. THere is a theory of an aquatic ape as part of the human evolutionary process (or a possible parallel evolution that died out) that has been laughed out of 'majority' scientific views. The Berring st. idea about the human migration of the American continent has been challenged and resisted early on.... so disagreement in Science does not automatically mean joy nor do all scientists agree when they see the same data.  Conviction in your beliefs/ideas 'right' isn't only in religion.  There are many 'educational superiority king/queens' out there that behave just as narrowly as religious superiority king/queens.

Oh, btw, the idea that the laws of nature are for everyone sounds a lot like "Jesus/God died for all men, regardless of time or place...." it's for everyone.

2. No, the fundamentalists are lobbying for their particular cultural view to be presented in their childrens education. Beyond that it is speculation.

3. No. The majority are not throwing away the scientific method, only seeking representation within their community. Are we a democracy or not?

4. Again, this is not a case of censoring information or limited book lists. It is a case of including a local cultural norm in the local educational system. Isn't this argument against allowing them to include their culture in there education ironic when your very argument is intolerant of their view?

5. What slave state? New World?..... If there is some grand scheme involved it is going to be an old world anachronism not an 'new world' if religion is going to rule - which I don't see in this case in any way.


----------



## raedyn

on a side note to the current discussion, but relevant to original topic;
see http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/


----------



## rmcrobertson

We must teach whatever belief comes up in the community, no matter how wacko, as equally-valid as the very best knowledge of the sciences and the humanities that we have. Fine. Let's run with that.

1. A significant portion of the American public believes in astrology. Astrology is now a mandatory subject--more than that, it must be taught as equally-valid theory--in all astronomy classes. 

2. Many Americans believe that the Holocaust never happened, or that it wasn't anything like six million to ten million killed in gas chambers. Fine. All history classes must teach this as an equally-valid version of historical events.

3. Many of us believe that HIV is a) a CIA plot; b) not the cause of AIDS. Fine. We must now teach this as equally-valid science in all health/sex ed classes.

4. Many Americans believe that we should ban Mark Twain, Judy Blume, "West Side Story," and a range of others, from libraries. Fine. We must now ban these books, and teach students that censorship and book-burning are perfectly acceptable ideas.

5. A significant minority of Americans believe that black people really are inferior. And Asians are smart and sneaky. Fine. We must now teach racist ideas as perfectly-valid, because the local community wants it.

This is, of course, insanity. One was taught that Americans did not do such things--that it was the bad guys who did them.

Incidentally, one's experience teaches that students are universally aware of what Creationism says. Less than 50% are familiar with even basic evolution. 

Congratulations.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1. Generalization. There are many a debate in religious study - whether between sects or within sects. There are also hertical treatment of people with diverse views on a subject (oh say like evolution.....)..



There is no heresy in science.  No scientist has ever been burnt at the stake or excommunicated because of his or her "beliefs".  There is only evidence and lack there of.  A scientist relies the colleages that disagree in order to pain a better picture of the real world.  This is not the case in religious circles...



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> What if somewhere in the future, there is a way to identify, measure and show evidence of some divine scheme?.



Care to wager on that postulation?



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Does the 'majority' or 'popular' views of some in science have the right to squash the views of others who disagree...it is happening right now..



Is it?  People world wide deride creationism because it isn't science...and there beliefs matter because we are talking about science.  Science descries there world too.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> THere is a theory of an aquatic ape as part of the human evolutionary process (or a possible parallel evolution that died out) that has been laughed out of 'majority' scientific views. The Berring st. idea about the human migration of the American continent has been challenged and resisted early on.... so disagreement in Science does not automatically mean joy nor do all scientists agree when they see the same data.



There are many things on which scientists disagree.  There are also many things that scientists agree.  When scientists have an abundance of data that is repeatable by anyone, then it is safely assumed that we have glimpsed this real world.  Evolution is a good example of this.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Conviction in your beliefs/ideas 'right' isn't only in religion.  There are many 'educational superiority king/queens' out there that behave just as narrowly as religious superiority king/queens..



In my experience, this has been the exception and not the rule.  A scientist is swayed by data.  Pet theories are extraordinarily discouraged.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Oh, btw, the idea that the laws of nature are for everyone sounds a lot like "Jesus/God died for all men, regardless of time or place...." it's for everyone..



In a world where Jesus does not exist, F=ma still applies.  So do a whole host of other natural laws.  Your comparison falls flat because you are confusing a meme with the real world.  Thoughts are precious because the are so rare in this vast universe.  Yet, even they follow Natural laws.  Evolution for instance...

Are these fundamentalists so arrogant that they can declare their memes reality?  2+2 does not equal 5.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 2. No, the fundamentalists are lobbying for their particular cultural view to be presented in their childrens education. Beyond that it is speculation..



This is not speculation.  Read the literature posted.  They see evolution as a direct frontal assault on genesis and they seek to banish it.  And they have accomplished it in the recent past!  Recent moves are only steps toward this old goal.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 3. No. The majority are not throwing away the scientific method, only seeking representation within their community. Are we a democracy or not?.



Democracy can be a double-edged sword.  Good can come from it and so can evil.  And yes, they are throwing away the scientific method.  They are trying to shove a theory that is replete with singularities into an arena that is supposed to describe the real world.  This is an old battle, religion vs reason.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 4. Again, this is not a case of censoring information or limited book lists. It is a case of including a local cultural norm in the local educational system. Isn't this argument against allowing them to include their culture in there education ironic when your very argument is intolerant of their view?.



Including the local cultures beliefs into the educational curriculum is totally appropriate in other subject areas.  Not science.  Science describes something that transcends culture.  There is only one real world and a meme can only be a reflection of that world.  A meme can never transcend the real world...the laws of nature.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 5. What slave state? New World?..... If there is some grand scheme involved it is going to be an old world anachronism not an 'new world' if religion is going to rule - which I don't see in this case in any way.



The implications of putting particular cultural memes into a science curriculum are staggering.  Again, science describes the real world.  By giving a cultural meme the label science, one is saying that this meme describes the "real world" and others do not.  This is arrogent bigotry at its finest.  

Furthermore, it undermines science when one says a cultural meme somehow describes the real world without repeatable evidence to back up that claim.  Do we have a Christian science and a Muslim science and a Russian Science and a Chinese science and a Communist science and a Capitalist science...etc

Are all of these worlds equally valid or are there natural laws that pervade all of them?  

Guess what, evolution pervades all of them.


----------



## Tgace

Just goes to show that everybody will turn dictator when the issue is right.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a a college professor who taught pretty much what some of us teach--letters, and science--and a liberal by the standards of his day. Certainly, he supported the Union cause, and opposed slavery, whatever the mores of local communities.

One wonders what he'd have thought about the abandonment of reason, and the idea of human progress, in favor of an affirmative action and political correctness that valorizes the notions and the whims of a minority group of Christian wackos--who, by the way, can be traced directly back to the "strict constructionists," of Genesis who used their accounts of human origins and God's purposes to justify slavery.

Carl Sagan, cited bizarrely above as a legitimation of know-nothingism, would've got along just fine with Chamberlain, a personal hero of mine. Jerry Falwell and the rest of the Bible-thumping ignoramuses would not...whoops, one should've cited Bob Jones, a staunch supporter of Creationism and the ban on inter-racial dating at his, "University."

But hey, Savonarola sends a big shout out to the rest of the book-burners.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> Just goes to show that everybody will turn dictator when the issue is right.



I suffer under the dictatorship of reason and I am ever thankful for it's _flame _ to burn away my ignorance.


----------



## Flatlander

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I suffer under the dictatorship of reason and I am ever thankful for it's _flame _to burn away my ignorance.


For me, reason is more like a council than a dictatorship. 

:asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Tgace said:
			
		

> Just goes to show that everybody will turn dictator when the issue is right.


How is saying creationism isn't scientific a dictatorial thing?  Science is a process that relies on particular things. Creationism does not fulfil these things to be considered a science.  It can be something else, but not science. 

Again, as I've said before, it doesn't mean I'm going to go to a creationist and say "your beliefs are wrong".  I will, however, try to keep people from teaching it to kids AS A SCIENCE, because that is doing those kids a disservice.


----------



## Tgace

Im talking about the "we cant let them" tone Ive been seeing; and the "democracy is a two edge sword" stuff. Im not "for" creationism. Im against circumventing the public will without very good reasons, and some sort of process.


----------



## Tgace

Flatlander said:
			
		

> For me, reason is more like a council than a dictatorship.
> 
> :asian:


Exactly.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

Flatlander said:
			
		

> For me, reason is more like a council than a dictatorship.
> 
> :asian:



That is a better way to put it, because it takes into account different points of view...but in science, which was where my comment was directed, evidence trumps POV...yet POV are important.  See what I'm saying?


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im talking about the "we cant let them" tone Ive been seeing; and the "democracy is a two edge sword" stuff. Im not "for" creationism. Im against circumventing the public will without very good reasons, and some sort of process.



Do you think preserving science in our society is a worthy enough cause?  I don't like to circumvent the public will...but I can imagine the world they imply.  It would be a huge step back for our country.  In the end, I can't circumvent the public will anymore then you can.  We live in a democracy and I we vote.  If I lose, then I lose.  My children will learn what I think is appropriate and they will be better prepared for scientific carreers then their Christian peers.

The interesting thing is that science education used to stink in this country.  Before WWII Biology was memorizing lists of animals.  After Sputnik, our leaders made the decision to fund science education to a level it has never yet surpassed.  Cold war paranoia fueled it all.  In our schools, we have 40 and 50 year old equipment lying storage closets that no one uses anymore...and there is some cool **** among the junk.  Cyclotrons, Cloud chambers, van de graff generators, untold numbers of huge coils...and I now know how to use it...but the point is imagine what we could have in our classrooms today if science were really supported in this country.  

Evolution vs Creation is just part of a picture that is broad based.  Science and education in this country have been neglected by a series of leaders who had other things on their mind...like robbing the national treasury.  I find it ironic that the paranoia in the "War on Terror" has illicited the opposite response.


----------



## heretic888

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That is a better way to put it, because it takes into account different points of view...but in science, which was where my comment was directed, evidence trumps POV...yet POV are important.  See what I'm saying?



Sometimes, though, the delineation between the two can be a little blurry.

Myth of the given, and all that.

 :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im talking about the "we cant let them" tone Ive been seeing; and the "democracy is a two edge sword" stuff. Im not "for" creationism. Im against circumventing the public will without very good reasons, and some sort of process.



It just occurred to me that our "founding fathers" circumvented the public will for the good of the nation.  They did it with the Bill of Rights and then they made the Constitution incredibly difficult to amend.  So, is the Light of Reason important enough to protect with a Constitutional amendment?  Our country was founded in the Age of Enlightenment and the Constitution is based on those principles.  Have we reached a point in our country where we need to protect science from those it challenges?  What would an amendment protecting science look like?


----------



## heretic888

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It just occurred to me that our "founding fathers" circumvented the public will for the good of the nation.  They did it with the Bill of Rights and then they made the Constitution incredibly difficult to amend.  So, is the Light of Reason important enough to protect with a Constitutional amendment?  Our country was founded in the Age of Enlightenment and the Constitution is based on those principles.  Have we reached a point in our country where we need to protect science from those it challenges?  What would an amendment protecting science look like?



Well, it _is_ true that the American founding fathers circumvented the public well for the "good of the nation". By all accounts, a war against England seemed to be a rather unpopular prospect for most of the populace --- and it is quite unlikely the majority supported anything resembling Separation of Church and State (as opposed to Freedom for All Protestants).

However, I myself am a bit leary about a constitutional amendment that specifically protects a particular ideology and philosophy. One of the purposes of the existence of the Democratic State is to not promote nor support any favored version of the Good Life. Although, a background encouragement may be acceptable --- but, this most assuredly does _not_ entail the establishment of new laws or amendments.

Unless, of course, you are referring to protecting the institutional practice of science itself. In which case, the first amendment seems to have most of the bases covered.

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace

heretic888 said:
			
		

> However, I myself am a bit leary about a constitutional amendment that specifically protects a particular ideology and philosophy. One of the purposes of the existence of the Democratic State is to not promote nor support any favored version of the Good Life. Although, a background encouragement may be acceptable --- but, this most assuredly does _not_ entail the establishment of new laws or amendments.


Well put. My thought on this whole thing too.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Ah. Consensus is vital, when it comes to teaching scientific method (again, it isn't merely evolution that's at stake: it's the accurate teaching of the nature of science)...but presumably not at all vital, when it comes to launching dubious wars based on inadequate or even falsified evidence, despite the direct, clear opposition of about half of the American public. 

This is precisely the sort of consequence one can expect, when the reasoned evaluation of information, the generation of rational hypotheses, and the testing of those hypotheses against reality, is replaced by catering to the faith-based, blind prejudices of a group of fundamentalist zealots who actively refuse to examine Nature.

It's Lysenkoism come back again, and pushed by a central government dominated by ideologues.

One would be curious to read the responses to a repeatedly-asked question: what makes Creationism--latest in a series of desperate attempts to maintain ideas that are in complete defiance of scientific method and physical reality--any different from a) Lysenkoism, b) "faith-based," arguments in favor of slavery, c) Islamic fundamentalist arguments in favor of women's oppression, d) the assorted bizarre ideas enforced by the government of North Korea?


----------



## Satt

Satt said:
			
		

> I just wish schools would teach kids how to get a job. LOL.


I agree with myself!!!


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> However, I myself am a bit leary about a constitutional amendment that specifically protects a particular ideology and philosophy. One of the purposes of the existence of the Democratic State is to not promote nor support any favored version of the Good Life. Although, a background encouragement may be acceptable --- but, this most assuredly does _not_ entail the establishment of new laws or amendments.
> 
> Unless, of course, you are referring to protecting the institutional practice of science itself. In which case, the first amendment seems to have most of the bases covered.
> 
> Laterz.


I agree Herrie.  I read through the original text and there is no specific statement that clearly states that creationism must be taught in Science class in the Wisc. case.  The only clear cut statement is that alternate/various theories need to be represented.  That means it could be negotiated/worked out that Creationism would be put in Soc.St. or ELA class.

I am leary of a fundamental idea that only Science can have depth of meaning or value to teaching people 'reality' in the world.  Granted, teaching Creationism as science isn't my cup of tea either - but this is not a case of censorship of Science.  They are NOT saying that science and the scientific method is "EVIL" - and they are applying a scientific method to making their case and organizing their argument.  

That only in science is debate or contraversy aloud or acceptable.  There is a history - as Herrie has mentioned - of religious based groups that permit and encourage questioning and discovery.  Government approved "science" was the basis for the race line for the Nazi party during WWII.  They used science to defend their political agendas and subjected others of 'different' points of view (artisans, teachers, musicians, Jews....) to some pretty horrible things - all because these people didn't fit into the Nazi's "scientific" view of the world...

The price of a democracy is tolerance and pluralism...whether we personally agree with it or not.  Lobby, vote, be active - that is all we can do.

Pretty 'liberal' for a 'staunch Republican' (as I have been called on occasion).

I wonder how people in general - and UpNorth specifically - reconcile their faith values with their scientific rationale.  Why should we have the right to impose our personal or sub-culture values on others who reconcile their faith/science values differently - other than through the constitutionally protected civil liberty preserving process that is in place now.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That only in science is debate or contraversy aloud or acceptable. There is a history - as Herrie has mentioned - of religious based groups that permit and encourage questioning and discovery. Government approved "science" was the basis for the race line for the Nazi party during WWII. They used science to defend their political agendas and subjected others of 'different' points of view (artisans, teachers, musicians, Jews....) to some pretty horrible things - all because these people didn't fit into the Nazi's "scientific" view of the world...
> 
> The price of a democracy is tolerance and pluralism...whether we personally agree with it or not. Lobby, vote, be active - that is all we can do.
> 
> Pretty 'liberal' for a 'staunch Republican' (as I have been called on occasion).
> 
> I wonder how people in general - and UpNorth specifically - reconcile their faith values with their scientific rationale. Why should we have the right to impose our personal or sub-culture values on others who reconcile their faith/science values differently - other than through the constitutionally protected civil liberty preserving process that is in place now.


I would not try to impose a particular worldview on others - my perspective of the world is probably very different than most people I meet.  

Science, like faith, can be used as a bludgeon - as a tool for authority by one group over another.  Both systems are vulnerable to abuse in that way.

The core of science is that it is a process - not that you have gathered certain pieces of data, or that you have a degree from somewhere - but you follow a process with a critical eye.  Often in the history of science, and scientists, people have lost this vision in pursuit of a different goal - and, in the case of Nazis, racism and genocide.  I think I've mentioned it before, by SJ Gould's The Mismeasure of Man traces some "interesting" science performed by people determined to demonstrate that certain people - of a race, or gender, or whatever - are less intelligent than the typical European white male.  

I would not stand up in a school and tell a student that their religious beliefs are wrong, even if I disagree with them.  But I would tell them, in a science class, when something is following the process of science, and when it is not.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Exactly. Pushing creationism--and make no mistake; all this nonsense about "diversity," and "open-mindedness," is simply the latest tactic adopted by fundamentalist Protestantants to impose their views on everybody else--in science classes is exactly like walking into a room where everybody's playing Monopoly, and demanding that the game include Parcheesi rules.

Nobody's even talking about "imposing beliefs." We're talking about teaching people what science actually is, how scientific method works, and what the results are of looking at the natural world from a scientific standpoint.

Now if one wishes to teach ALL "alternative," notions of creation, that's just fine--though again, the fundamentalists who push this stuff never are talking about that. Theirs is the only alternative to consider, apparently. But teach 'em all-and then explain them, much as I was originally taught, as the pre-scientific superstititions and interesting symbols that they are. 

The only way that fundamentalist Creationism and "intelligent design," can be taught in a real science classroom is as myths that we just need to get over. And make no mistake--the Creationist guys are out to do away with scientific and humanist thought. That's explicitly what they say--and it's probably best to take them at their word.

Incidentally, this will mean doing away with the scientific and humanist accounts of women--it's back to the kitchen, girls, to Fulfill God's Plan. It says so, right in the Bible...and again, scope out the various creationist websites, if you think this is far-fetched. It's exactly what they say.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

> Pushing creationism--and make no mistake; all this nonsense about "diversity," and "open-mindedness," is simply the latest tactic adopted by fundamentalist Protestantants to impose their views on everybody else--in science classes is exactly like walking into a room where everybody's playing Monopoly, and demanding that the game include Parcheesi rules.


 lol!


----------



## loki09789

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I would not stand up in a school and tell a student that their religious beliefs are wrong, even if I disagree with them. But I would tell them, in a science class, when something is following the process of science, and when it is not.


And I agree with you on this point. But, if the school board votes on the curriculum that, generally speaking is reviewed or even written by the faculty within, includes creationism or other models/theories of origins of life I would say that it would have to be taught responsibly so that no one is 'judged' less or more 'real' in presentation at the very least as a demonstration of respect for the people who make up that culture.  There was already a discussion about teachers abusing their authority role in the class by pushing their personal values instead of simply teaching the content....is it right for a teacher of Science to reduce a set of personal values shared by a school district as 'superstitious nonsense' or simply teach the content area?

Look at how many times people here are hand slapped for not playing nice in the process of 'telling the truth' and yet 'facts' are still toted as more important that people in discussions like this.  So which is it?  Do we respect other POV and present/recieve them with an understanding mind or do we fight for 'truth and reality?'

If someone asks me what I think about the origins of life during one of these lessons, I would talk positively about what I believe and not bash what someone else believes.

I see a lot of 'those people' and 'ignorant' comments about those who choose to see the origins of life in the fundamentalist way - as a gesture of faith. Please remember that the idea of creationism is not a departure from the scientific method or science as a whole. It is a conscious choice to believe that there was a creator so powerful that he could bend the laws of nature to his will in order to create life. This belief is a gesture of faith. It is a willful belief that God is powerful enough to defy 'nature.' It is the belief that this act of creation should be witnessed as a 'sign' of God's might and power...doesn't mean that everyone has to believe that way. Just means that they choose to and also want that faith represented in their culture.

There are extreme believers that refuse medical intervention, won't see doctors at all or what ever because they want to live in a 'thy will be done' kind of way but the general population are not like that. They still see science, medicine, technology as things that are created based on God's gift of intelligence and creativity - and should be used in a responsible way and not abused.

It is interesting how resistant to being respectful or open to other perspectives folks can get when you hit certain topics....this is the double trouble because it is politics about religion. It is hard to believe that some of the strongest commentors about quarrenting dissent are not on the other side of civil liberities issues and even dancing on the edge of revolutionary/anarchist permissiveness in the name of a chosen 'faith' in science....

Science and Faith are not meant to be compared in the same petri dish. I don't believe they belong in the same classroom and it does not say that explicitly in the original text. I do believe that, as Americans, these people have the right to vote and use proper channels to lobby and institute their local values on their school district. I don't think that they are talking anarchy or rebellion.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Sigh.

If a science teacher teaches the content area strictly, they probably shouldn't be teaching "creationism," at all. They certainly shouldn't be teaching creationism as an equally-valid scientific theory, or indeed as any kinbd of scientific theory at all. 

The fact that somebody wouldn't know this is a sad indicator of the state of science education in our schools. If things weren't a mess, folks would know what science is, and how it works--and they certainly wouldn't get evolution confused with somebody's mere opinion. The simplest thing about science is this: science is a way to SEPARATE opinions from realities.

But what the hey, let's teach creationism, and its attendant network of crackpot ideas. Let's teach people that the Earth is only around 10,000 years old, despite the geological evidence. Let's teach 'em that the "Big Bang," never happened, and that the background radiation we can observe radiating anisotropically isn't there, despite our repeated observations of it. Let's teach them that the Grand Canyon was dug out overnight in a Great Flood for which there's no hard evidence. Let's teach them that evolution does not take place around us every day, that the extended fossil record is meaningless, that DNA's mechanisms are not real, that the work done on tracing back our ancestors is just some stuff pointy-head nerds made up. Dinosaurs? Not real. Noah's Ark--real; we saw it on FOX, didn't we?

In brief, let's by all means teach students that the whole beautiful framework of science, built up over the last couple thousand years, is just doody. Let's by all means teach them that a whacko doctrine, taught by a smallish crowd of right-wing fundamentalists and unsupported by any mainstream religious group in this country, is just as good as anything that people like Linnaeus and Darwin and Barbara McCourt and Gregor Mendel and Watson and Crick struggled to figure out.

Great idea. Then, let's git the rest of thet damn secular humanism. Which books ya wanna burn first?


----------



## heretic888

> Please remember that the idea of creationism is not a departure from the scientific method or science as a whole. It is a conscious choice to believe that there was a creator so powerful that he could bend the laws of nature to his will in order to create life. This belief is a gesture of faith. It is a willful belief that God is powerful enough to defy 'nature.' It is the belief that this act of creation should be witnessed as a 'sign' of God's might and power...



Actually, the Biblical "creation science" being discussed here is a very extreme departure from the scientific method. It directly contradicts existing evidence, providing no worthwhile counterevidence in its place. 

Belief in a God, Intelligent Designer, or Supreme Being is not anti-science, of course --- but the belief that said Being somehow made the universe in a week some 7,000 years ago most assuredly is.

Also, to note, the doctrine of "intelligent design" is rather harshly criticized even in philosophy classes. Aquinas attempted to use the argument to prove the Christian-Catholic God existed (or, as he put it, "it is rational to believe") --- but, even at its best, the argument can only approximate that an intelligent Other (which may be Zeus, the Buddha, Allah, or an advanced alien civilization) worked at a couple of things.

Its really simple, really. What you are calling "God" --- if it is to understood to have any substantive reality at all (as opposed to being a projection of one's own superego) --- is ultimately transrational. You will not find evidence for such a being in the prerational, physical world of materialism. You will not find evidence for such a being in the rational, logical world of humanism. There is none, zilch, nada.

Any "evidence" for "God" will be found in the appropriately transrational world --- of illuminations, nada, satoris, contemplation, awakenings, and so on. Its not gonna be found by geologists or other hard scientists, and its not gonna be found by people really good at Socratic method. 

People really need to stop pretending they have any physical or even rational evidence for this kinda stuff, when it just ain't there.


----------



## qizmoduis

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And I agree with you on this point. But, if the school board votes on the curriculum that, generally speaking is reviewed or even written by the faculty within, includes creationism or other models/theories of origins of life I would say that it would have to be taught responsibly so that no one is 'judged' less or more 'real' in presentation at the very least as a demonstration of respect for the people who make up that culture.  There was already a discussion about teachers abusing their authority role in the class by pushing their personal values instead of simply teaching the content....is it right for a teacher of Science to reduce a set of personal values shared by a school district as 'superstitious nonsense' or simply teach the content area?



You keep bringing this idea up as if it has any relevance to the discussion.  It doesn't.  This isn't about cultural diversity or points of view or personal values.  It's about science, and the attempts of christian fundamentalists to force schools to teach christianity in science class.  Nothing more or less.  Quite simply put:  the school board, regarless of local majority support, does not have the authority to teach religion in any setting.  The constitution explicitly forbids it.  Period.  End of sentence.

Note that this does allow (and I would say require) schools to to teach ABOUT religion and religions (<-- plural) in their various historical and cultural contexts.  But again, this point is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.



> Look at how many times people here are hand slapped for not playing nice in the process of 'telling the truth' and yet 'facts' are still toted as more important that people in discussions like this.  So which is it?  Do we respect other POV and present/recieve them with an understanding mind or do we fight for 'truth and reality?'



Reality always wins over beliefs and 'POV'.



> If someone asks me what I think about the origins of life during one of these lessons, I would talk positively about what I believe and not bash what someone else believes.



I have several problems with this.  First, the sincerity of one's beliefs does not excuse those beliefs from crititicism.  Frankly, this whole idea of personal religious beliefs somehow being sacrosanct is ludicrous and points out yet another problem with religion as a whole.  This kind of thing doesn't happen in science.  Beliefs, data, experiments, observations, speculations, hypotheses, theories, etc. all exist to be attacked, repeatedly, mercilessly, in order to get better.  What good is a belief if it isn't subject to criticism?  Heck, I'd go so far as to say that students are in school to have their beliefs challenged.  Beliefs by themselves are not automatically worthy of respect.

Second, it's still not relevant to the discussion, which is about attempts to supplant the teaching of science with the teaching of one particular minority version of christianity, which again, is forbidden by the Constitution.



> More in the same vein...



You either don't get it, or are deliberately trying to argue a completely different topic.  Next thing you know, you'll be advocating the teaching that pi = 3 in math class for the sake of "cultural diversity".  After all, that's in the bible as well, and is actually supported by a small group of fundamentalists in this country.  They believe that the value 3.1415926... is an atheistic conspiracy against their religion.

Your argument would require that math teachers teach that point of view in math class, *even though the math can be shown to be trivially incorrect* 

But wait!  Believe it or not, you have a way out of this mess you've gotten yourself into.  If you want to teach pi = 3 in math class, show that it's correct.  If you want to teach creationism in science class, support it scientifically.  Right now, the body of "creationist literature" consists entirely of psuedo-scientific screeds against the various bodies of scientific knowledge (biology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, cosmology, geology and anthropology).  Every single argument advanced by the supporters of creationism has been rejected, rightfully so, as being non-scientific in addition to being plainly wrong.  In other words, creationists need to actually get off their lazy, bible-soaked, hyper-political asses and do science.  They need to support their ideas with data and experiments and scientific models and stop whining about "the vast, atheistic conspiracy" against them.

That day will never happen, of course, because they're not really interested in doing science anyway.


----------



## Melissa426

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, the Biblical "creation science" being discussed here is a very extreme departure from the scientific method. It directly contradicts existing evidence, providing no worthwhile counterevidence in its place.
> Its really simple, really. What you are calling "God" --- if it is to understood to have any substantive reality at all (as opposed to being a projection of one's own superego) --- is ultimately transrational. You will not find evidence for such a being in the prerational, physical world of materialism. You will not find evidence for such a being in the rational, logical world of humanism. There is none, zilch, nada.
> People really need to stop pretending they have any physical or even rational evidence for this kinda stuff, when it just ain't there.


 
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.  This is what the ancients were commende for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."  Hebrews 11: 1-3

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

The first two points note that basically nothing should be accepted on faith, all human problems should be answered thru critical reasoning, scientific inquiry, etc.

These are  in such opposition that there never will be an acceptable way to reconcile the two points, IMO.

I believe that creation story is Biblical, a reference to God's involvement in the lives of his Creation. If we can't pray in school, we probably shouldn't be teaching biblical beliefs in school--- the old separation of Church and state argument.

My two cents,
Melissa  

 P.S.
(and this probably belongs on another thread)  where are all the charitable organizations that secular humanists started to bring "fulfillment, growth, and creativity to all individuals and humankind in general."  For example, the Salvation army, Samaritan's Purse, the United Way, etc.


----------



## Flatlander

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> You keep bringing this idea up as if it has any relevance to the discussion. It doesn't. This isn't about cultural diversity or points of view or personal values. It's about science, and the attempts of christian fundamentalists to force schools to teach christianity in science class. Nothing more or less. Quite simply put: the school board, regarless of local majority support, does not have the authority to teach religion in any setting. The constitution explicitly forbids it. Period. End of sentence.


Just to clear something up here, allow me to post an excerpt from the original article that Rich linked to spark the discussion:


> Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught, but school districts are free to create their own curricular standards, said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction.


 It seems that as long as curricular standards are the responsibility of the school district, cultural diversity will play a role.  If you have a community full of fundamentalists, and a majority of fundamentalists on the board, expect that to be reflected in the curriculum.  In order to prevent that, laws need to change.


----------



## loki09789

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> 1.  You keep bringing this idea up as if it has any relevance to the discussion. It doesn't. This isn't about cultural diversity or points of view or personal values. It's about science, and the attempts of christian fundamentalists to force schools to teach christianity in science class. Nothing more or less. Quite simply put: the school board, regarless of local majority support, does not have the authority to teach religion in any setting. The constitution explicitly forbids it. Period. End of sentence.
> 
> 2.  Note that this does allow (and I would say require) schools to to teach ABOUT religion and religions (<-- plural) in their various historical and cultural contexts. But again, this point is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.
> 
> 3.  Second, it's still not relevant to the discussion, which is about attempts to supplant the teaching of science with the teaching of one particular minority version of christianity, which again, is forbidden by the Constitution.
> 
> .


1.  Scientifically speaking, these people are a cultural group based on their shared values and ideas.  It doesn't have to be 'foriegn' to be culture.  There are scientific discussions of the 'culture of schools/military/business/.....' all the time.  It is about culture.  What I am seeing is a lack of scientific objectivity in this discussion from the science defenders in general.

2.  This is exactly my point.  Teaching about creationism within the appropriate content - which could be ELA or Soc St. (and again, the class was not specifically stated as Science in the article nor was any specific curriculum/format mentioned about the Wisc school case) along side other POV is fine with me.  

3.  THe article is NOT about subplanting science with Creationism.

4.  The Constitution, like the Bible, is a document that people interpret all the time.  The 'majority' don't have the right to 'subplant' a minority simply because they don't agree with them or disapprove of them....like people have discussed about ethnic/racial/religious minorities all the time here.

5.  Change the 'culture' to Muslim faith (which is already discussed in Soc/Global classes along with Buddhism and other world views).  What if a group of Muslims in the local school districts were petitioning/lobbying and following the democratic process to get their culture represented in the local curriculum?  How many here would be so openly hostile about it?

I understand and agree that Creationism is not rational.  I don't subscribe to it personally, but we as fellow citizens of 'those people' don't have the right to block their lifestyle.  As long as they don't break the law.  They don't circumvent the legitimate political process they are within their rights.

The opposition is just as in the right to lobby/petition/vote to counter these actions.  The school board, school union, administration can negotiate rationally, fairly and respectfully to work out how and where these ideas are presented within the school philosophy and mission....

Herrie, in far more eloquent fashion than I, basically said - as far as I understood - that no matter what you want to do to rationalize or support your 'faith,' by its very nature it can not be supported completely with evidence.  Comparing or examining creationism or any faith issue through a scientific design is going to be setting it up for failure...

I am not evaluating or defending creationistic theories.  I AM talking about the fact that as citizens these people have the right to be represented and are actively exercising it.

I notice no one really wants to touch the idea of how they either personally or through their own faith group reconcile those 'irrationallities' that they choose to believe even within this scientific world.

In this school district the community imposed their philosophical idea on the school district on the curriculum by passing an issue of homework.  It was mandated that students be given at least 5-8 hours of homework a week.  The local 'cultural value' about work ethic and teaching was influencing the school/teachers and the curriculum because of it.  This was before my time, but personally I think that is ridiculous to impose.  I am not a big 'homework' giver as a teacher.  If I had been here (and tenured ), I would have been against it.  But, if it was passed, I would have to do it or it might be grounds for dismissal.

As citizens of a democracy, we all have free will....oh wait that is the religious term....we all have freedom.  I didn't mean to overlap my national values with my religious influence on them....I mean...there I go again.....


----------



## loki09789

Flatlander said:
			
		

> In order to prevent that, laws need to change.


Thanks for the post Flat,

My concern is that if a democratic/freedom based nation starts passing laws that bar certian ideological groups/cultures from equal representation isn't that even MORE unconstitutional than any church/state issues with this?


----------



## Flatlander

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the post Flat,
> 
> My concern is that if a democratic/freedom based nation starts passing laws that bar certian ideological groups/cultures from equal representation isn't that even MORE unconstitutional than any church/state issues with this?


Another problem being that this closes the door to an "exit" if you find that the community you are in is moving in a curricular direction that you are uncomfortable with or otherwise not wanting your children exposed to.  Forcing homogeneity of curriculum could have the side effect of being "not quite what you had in mind".


----------



## heretic888

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1.  Scientifically speaking, these people are a cultural group based on their shared values and ideas.  It doesn't have to be 'foriegn' to be culture.  There are scientific discussions of the 'culture of schools/military/business/.....' all the time.  It is about culture.  What I am seeing is a lack of scientific objectivity in this discussion from the science defenders in general.
> 
> 2.  This is exactly my point.  Teaching about creationism within the appropriate content - which could be ELA or Soc St. (and again, the class was not specifically stated as Science in the article nor was any specific curriculum/format mentioned about the Wisc school case) along side other POV is fine with me.
> 
> 3.  THe article is NOT about subplanting science with Creationism.
> 
> 4.  The Constitution, like the Bible, is a document that people interpret all the time.  The 'majority' don't have the right to 'subplant' a minority simply because they don't agree with them or disapprove of them....like people have discussed about ethnic/racial/religious minorities all the time here.
> 
> 5.  Change the 'culture' to Muslim faith (which is already discussed in Soc/Global classes along with Buddhism and other world views).  What if a group of Muslims in the local school districts were petitioning/lobbying and following the democratic process to get their culture represented in the local curriculum?  How many here would be so openly hostile about it?
> 
> I understand and agree that Creationism is not rational.  I don't subscribe to it personally, but we as fellow citizens of 'those people' don't have the right to block their lifestyle.  As long as they don't break the law.  They don't circumvent the legitimate political process they are within their rights.
> 
> The opposition is just as in the right to lobby/petition/vote to counter these actions.  The school board, school union, administration can negotiate rationally, fairly and respectfully to work out how and where these ideas are presented within the school philosophy and mission....
> 
> Herrie, in far more eloquent fashion than I, basically said - as far as I understood - that no matter what you want to do to rationalize or support your 'faith,' by its very nature it can not be supported completely with evidence.  Comparing or examining creationism or any faith issue through a scientific design is going to be setting it up for failure...
> 
> I am not evaluating or defending creationistic theories.  I AM talking about the fact that as citizens these people have the right to be represented and are actively exercising it.
> 
> I notice no one really wants to touch the idea of how they either personally or through their own faith group reconcile those 'irrationallities' that they choose to believe even within this scientific world.
> 
> In this school district the community imposed their philosophical idea on the school district on the curriculum by passing an issue of homework.  It was mandated that students be given at least 5-8 hours of homework a week.  The local 'cultural value' about work ethic and teaching was influencing the school/teachers and the curriculum because of it.  This was before my time, but personally I think that is ridiculous to impose.  I am not a big 'homework' giver as a teacher.  If I had been here (and tenured ), I would have been against it.  But, if it was passed, I would have to do it or it might be grounds for dismissal.
> 
> As citizens of a democracy, we all have free will....oh wait that is the religious term....we all have freedom.  I didn't mean to overlap my national values with my religious influence on them....I mean...there I go again.....



Okay, there are a few things I'd like to emphasize yet again:

1) Once again, the people lobbying for "creation science" are not concerned with multiculturalism, tolerance, diversity, or any of that other liberal/postmodern yumminess (which can turn into politically correct nonsense and nihilism at its extremes). What they _are_ concerned about is force-feeding their religious fundamentalism to the rest of the world. As Mr. Robertson pointed out, just peruse some of these guys' websites for ample proof of this agenda. Its easy to see why some of the "science defenders" are a little uppity about stuff like that.

2) Creation myths and legends are already taught in comparative religion, social studies, theory of knowledge, philosophy, and cultural anthropology (although a class exclusively dedicated to discussing "origins of man" might be interesting) --- in fact, the number of classes and fields that cover "creationism" far outweigh those that cover the theory of evolution. So, there really is no point in arguing for them to be "represented" in the school curriculum. No, this is about them trying to get the Bible forced into a classroom.

3) I think most of us would be just as alarmed if a Moslem fundamentalist group tried to push their myths onto the rest of us as we are with Protesant fundamentalism. This, I'm afraid, was a misassumption on your part.

4) As a student myself --- with hopes to be a college teacher one day --- I find the notion that having to cirumvent the established and accepted positions in any given academic field at the behest of the "public will" is equivalent to intellectual malpractice. Such individuals that willingly distort their curriculum and contradict the accepted notions in a given field --- at least at an introductory level class --- are seriously violating their responsibilities as educators.

5) As "eloquent" as I may or may not be (  ), the point I was trying to get across is that reason and rationality can tell us no more about "God" than geology and physics can tell us about the human ego. This isn't necessarily a matter of "faith" (as mystics directly experience the Divine on an almost continuous basis), nor am I advocating a rigid dichotomy between "science" and "religion" (I would suggest Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and Soul_ as a more meaningful and practical alternative to Gould's NOMA). But, the simple truth is that the Divine (or Spirit or Buddha Mind or God or Tao or Shiva or Brahman or whatever) is properly _transrational_. Which means, basically, that any attempts to describe It (including my attempt right now) are doomed to failure, since It is "beyond" the subject/object duality inherent in rational, Aristotlean thought.

6) Calling "free will" a religious idea isn't entirely accurate. You will find that notions of predeterminism, fatalism, and "undeniable fate" generally dominated the Western intellectual atmosphere during most of the Dark Ages. With the Renaissance, and even moreso with the Age of Reason --- when science and secular humanism really began to guffaw about the stupidity of fundamentalism, we see ideas like deism, determinism, and "free will" really begin to show up.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Okay, there are a few things I'd like to emphasize yet again:
> 
> 1) What they _are_ concerned about is force-feeding their religious fundamentalism to the rest of the world.
> 
> 2) So, there really is no point in arguing for them to be "represented" in the school curriculum. No, this is about them trying to get the Bible forced into a classroom.
> 
> 3) I think most of us would be just as alarmed if a Moslem fundamentalist group tried to push their myths onto the rest of us as we are with Protesant fundamentalism. This, I'm afraid, was a misassumption on your part.
> 
> 4) As a student myself --- with hopes to be a college teacher one day --- I find the notion that having to cirumvent the established and accepted positions in any given academic field at the behest of the "public will" is equivalent to intellectual malpractice.
> 
> 5) As "eloquent" as I may or may not be (  ), the point I was trying to get across is that reason and rationality can tell us no more about "God" than geology and physics can tell us about the human ego... since It is "beyond" the subject/object duality inherent in rational, Aristotlean thought.
> 
> 6) Calling "free will" a religious idea isn't entirely accurate....
> Laterz. :asian:


1. What 'they' are concerned about and what is going on in this article are two different things. I am discussing what is within the context of the article at hand. I do agree that there is a larger agenda being pushed in total. Unfortunately, or fortunately, 'they' are not trying to block, censor or replace evolution in this case so the larger agenda isn't really the issue.

2. I tend to agree with you academically. I don't agree with you in a political sense. They are working within the system and being active, there is no civil grounds to block them - unless they are talking about creationism as an agende as described in #1 but since that is not what is being described in the article, non issue.

3. Again, though I see and agree with the 'larger plan' that is not what is being presented in this case.

4. So, private/corporate donations to colleges/universities that suddenly have programs that spring up in relation to the business area of the 'philanthropists' doesn't happen? Curriculum changes for the public will all the time. Consider the values/educational philosophy of Vigotsky vs. others. Social values will always influence what is considered acceptable curriculum.

5. Theology is a subset of philosophy, IMO, so I agree with the idea that Science/Religion/'God' issues really don't hold up in comparison. Apples and oranges - thus my point about not teaching this stuff in science.

6. There may be other places/historical contexts that teach 'free will' as well. It may not have been a part of religious teachings early on either. It is/was part of the religious education that I recieved and was mentioned in my Bible as Lit classes. It may not be a complete explanation, but it isn't inaccurate to say that free will is part of the current 'Christian' education.


----------



## rmcrobertson

One still doesn't see what this has to do with blocking anybody's, "lifestyle." it has to do with teaching science rather than fundamentalist versions of creation.

One remains interested in a) why ONLY the fundamentalist Protestant view deserves special recogition; b) why we should overlook their express mission of removing science from public schools; c) why in the world sschools should teach superstitions as truths.

Freedom of religion, my foot. That's the last thing this is about.


----------



## heretic888

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1. What 'they' are concerned about and what is going on in this article are two different things. I am discussing what is within the context of the article at hand. I do agree that there is a larger agenda being pushed in total. Unfortunately, or fortunately, 'they' are not trying to block, censor or replace evolution in this case so the larger agenda isn't really the issue.
> 
> 2. I tend to agree with you academically. I don't agree with you in a political sense. They are working within the system and being active, there is no civil grounds to block them - unless they are talking about creationism as an agende as described in #1 but since that is not what is being described in the article, non issue.
> 
> 3. Again, though I see and agree with the 'larger plan' that is not what is being presented in this case.
> 
> 4. So, private/corporate donations to colleges/universities that suddenly have programs that spring up in relation to the business area of the 'philanthropists' doesn't happen? Curriculum changes for the public will all the time. Consider the values/educational philosophy of Vigotsky vs. others. Social values will always influence what is considered acceptable curriculum.
> 
> 5. Theology is a subset of philosophy, IMO, so I agree with the idea that Science/Religion/'God' issues really don't hold up in comparison. Apples and oranges - thus my point about not teaching this stuff in science.
> 
> 6. There may be other places/historical contexts that teach 'free will' as well. It may not have been a part of religious teachings early on either. It is/was part of the religious education that I recieved and was mentioned in my Bible as Lit classes. It may not be a complete explanation, but it isn't inaccurate to say that free will is part of the current 'Christian' education.



1. Okay.

2. Okay.

3. Okay.

4. Because it happens often does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. Besides, I don't think philanthropic influencing is the same thing as willingly teaching something contrary to a given field's accepted positions and truths (although, it does depend on the circumstances).

5. The point I was trying to make is that "science" and "religion" are not necessarily apples and oranges (as very few involved in religion are actually concerned at all with approaching the transrational), but that "God" is neither a physical nor a rational qualia. There are "sciences" to approach transcendental qualia, but they are not in biology (at least not directly).

6) Yes, "free will" and "determinism" are derived from things like secular humanism, rationalism, and so forth. The reason they are so commonly popular in Christianity today is because most Western Christians practice a form of quasi-deism, as I have said before, and not the more historically-prevalent fundamentalism that the traditionalists do.

Laterz.


----------



## qizmoduis

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Just to clear something up here, allow me to post an excerpt from the original article that Rich linked to spark the discussion:
> It seems that as long as curricular standards are the responsibility of the school district, cultural diversity will play a role.  If you have a community full of fundamentalists, and a majority of fundamentalists on the board, expect that to be reflected in the curriculum.  In order to prevent that, laws need to change.



Actually, my point stands.  The Constitution trumps any local attempts to modify curricula to include religious instruction.  This has been hashed out repeatedly over the past few decades and confirmed every time by the Supreme Court.


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 4. Because it happens often does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. Besides, I don't think philanthropic influencing is the same thing as willingly teaching something contrary to a given field's accepted positions and truths (although, it does depend on the circumstances).
> 
> 5. The point I was trying to make is that "science" and "religion" are not necessarily apples and oranges (as very few involved in religion are actually concerned at all with approaching the transrational), but that "God" is neither a physical nor a rational qualia. There are "sciences" to approach transcendental qualia, but they are not in biology (at least not directly).
> 
> 6) Yes, "free will" and "determinism" are derived from things like secular humanism, rationalism, and so forth. The reason they are so commonly popular in Christianity today is because most Western Christians practice a form of quasi-deism, as I have said before, and not the more historically-prevalent fundamentalism that the traditionalists do.
> 
> Laterz.


4.  It isn't as upfront, but it is there and similar.  I would rather have these kinds of issues clearly and openly worked out like in this Wisc.  issue than have someone 'donate' a science wing to a school/college...that was conditional on using it to teach robotics/nuclear/bio/chemical science....and then having MOOG or DuPont suddenly using that institution as a recruiting pool - which was the end run desire.

5.  Well said.  I agree.  On this point we have already discussed which classes would be better suited for "God" topic discussions.

6.  Yup.  On a human/culture level of religion, it was bound to happen because of basic competition.  Either find a way to incorporate it into what you do or loose a number of your following to other ideologies.

On a less jaded level, this is good because it acknowledges the 'many doors to one room' idea IMO.  Of course, the institution won't present it that way .  

On a more jaded level, this is no different than the use of technology to create gadgets and tricks that keep people showing up to your temple because it has the best gratification/novelties.  Automatic doors that visitors will believe are the gods responding to prayers, coin operated holy water dispensors, singing mechanical birds manipulated by priests (or at least the interpretation of what the singing means...).


----------



## loki09789

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Actually, my point stands. The Constitution trumps any local attempts to modify curricula to include religious instruction. This has been hashed out repeatedly over the past few decades and confirmed every time by the Supreme Court.


And, quite honestly, the fact that Creationism over Evolution isn't the form of this curricular decision.   They may have modified it to lobbying for inclusion instead of replacement because they were being shot down previously.  If that is the case, good.  That means that either the gov., opposing interest groups or a combination are actively participating in the democratic process.

This issue in Wisc. is instituted right now.  I wonder if there is any action about taking it to a higher court to be changed or thrown out?


----------



## loki09789

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One still doesn't see what this has to do with blocking anybody's, "lifestyle." it has to do with teaching science rather than fundamentalist versions of creation.
> 
> One remains interested in a) why ONLY the fundamentalist Protestant view deserves special recogition; b) why we should overlook their express mission of removing science from public schools; c) why in the world sschools should teach superstitions as truths.
> 
> Freedom of religion, my foot. That's the last thing this is about.


Please read the original article, it is not about 'rather.'

a.    It doesn't, but it is the group that is actively seeking representation in the curriculum.  Other groups have the opportunity afforded them to do the same thing if they choose to:  Lead, follow, get out of the way.  No one is going to these people and saying "here, do you want to do this?"  They are actively participating.  Same option that anyone has if they choose to use it.

b.  We are not overlooking it, and as was mentioned by another poster, the supreme court has shot down cases of subplanting or replacing evolution with creationism in the past.

c.  No one said to teach 'superstitions' as truth - or at least I didn't.  We teach some very toxic ideas/concepts to our children all the time in school:  

Science/recipies and 'how to' possibilities for technological and bio/chemical nasties that can become drug labs or bomb factories.

Nazism/Facism

Fitness/sports that teach group cooperation that can transform into 'gang' mentallity....

Teaching another POV about the origins of the world isn't any different - as long as it is taught responsibly and objectively.

We teach or study violence and physical force and don't automatically become murderers or thugs do we?


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Paul, I appreciate the point you have been making - that, in this particular case, there is a group of people in the local community who want representation for their pet issue.  I've made replies, as have others, addressing the creationism-versus-science issue, whereas you have been focusing more on the what-are-their-rights? issue.

I think one of the reasons people - particularly, if I may say so, some scientists - may be so reactive about this topic is the general trend in this country - and is, in part, due to changes on the national level - moving away from science-based decisions, and more to faith-based decisions - even when the topic at hand should be addressed scientifically.  

For example, an issue near and dear to my heart - global climate change.  Scientists - the vast majority of them - are standing on their heads, trying to get the Administration to acknowledge what is going on.  The Administration deliberately chooses to take a non-scientific approach.

This was not at all meant as a thread gankage, but may explain why people - like me - are so concerned with science education and the scientific process being respected.  Like all human endeavours, it is not perfect.  But I fear that, in more than one arena, it is under attack by faith-based explanations.  

I am also someone who thinks spirituality and faith are very important parts of our identities as people.  But currently, in our country, we seem to be undergoing a conservative-christian-protestant backlash, and it worries many.

My thoughts.


----------



## rmcrobertson

"Cultural diversity." Ludicrous. Creationism began--and remains--the fundamentalist mythology invented, maintained, and promulgated by an almost-exclusively white group of Protestants in this country, who have made it very clear indeed that they intend to remove evolution from science classes, sex ed from health classes, any mention of gay people from history, and any book of which they disapprove--there's an extremely-long list--from school libraries. And oh yes--they tie forcing creationism onto science curricula directly to forcing their prayers down students' throats, and reinstituting paddling. Read their websites: that's what they explicitly say.

They're our very own homegrown version of right-wing mullahs, intellectually speaking, and you want to force their ideas down everybody's throats in the name of, "cultural diversity."  

Which does have the virtue of bringing up the matter of race--useful, given the racism inherent in Creationist doctrine. Fundamentally, these folks have a little problem: the science says that the human race--all of it--originated in Africa. Oops; one understands their problem. They rest their ideas on a literalist reading of Scripture--oh good; that's exactly the kind of reading that was used to justify slavery, on the grounds that black people were descendants of Noah's son, Ham, ordained by God to serve. They insist on each state's right to...oh wait; where've we heard THAT one before? Oh yes...Lester Maddox at the Pickrick restaurant. 

Tell you what. Let's put creationism in bio textbooks exactly as it was done back when I was in, oh seventh grade--you know, back when according to these folks American education worked, back when we did the Pledge every day, back when they did indeed have paddling and prayer and all the rest of the nonsense. When I was a kid, in about 1966, CREATIONISM WAS TAUGHT AS A PRE-SCIENTIFIC, SUPERSITITIOUS DOCRTRINE THAT BELONG WITH OTHER QUAINT DOCTRINES SUCH AS THE ONE ABOUT THE EARTH RESTING ON THE BACKS OF TURTLES. Then, my teacers went on to explain the differences between religious viewpoints, and scientific ones. 

Anybody think that doing things exactly the way we did them back, oh, thirty or forty years ago, which the likes of Jerry Falwell define as the good old days, will satisfy these clowns? 

The point is this: these guys don't want to go back to tradition. They want a radical, revolutionary change in our schools, so that they work the same ways religious schools work in Iran. 

That's why this is dangerous nonsense. It isn't simply the complete ignorance of the last 500 years of scientific development. It's the agenda, pushed on behalf of a smallish group of white men who believe that their country's been overrun by...you know...them.

But support it, by all means.


----------



## heretic888

> the science says that the human race--all of it--originated in Africa



While I agree with the majority of your previous post, Robert, this claim here isn't entirely accurate.

Currently in basic paleoanthropology, there are a few different hypotheses on how humans evolved: the "replacement" model (which is usually, but not always, centered in Africa by theorists --- southwest Asia and Mesopotamia are popular locales, too); the "multiregional" or "regional continuity" model (which also tends to place Africa as one of the many places that humans evolved contemporaneously in); and a sort of "middle ground" model (which combines elements of both).

It is true that the "replacement" model is currently the most popular one (and it almost always centers the action in Africa), but it is not the only model taken seriously in academic circles.

I would agree, however, that there is a fair amount of racist and sexist themes underlying the arguments put forward by "creationists".


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I would agree, however, that there is a fair amount of racist and sexist themes underlying the arguments put forward by "creationists".


Same could be said about evolutionary theories.


----------



## Melissa426

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Same could be said about evolutionary theories.


Can you give an explanation or example of what you mean by this?

Is this a reference to the "survival of the fittest" idiom by which rich white men sought to justify their ascendency to social/political/economic kingship?  (I don't want to put words in your mouth:idunno: ) 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## MisterMike

Maybe it has something to do with blonde haired, blue eyed Germans around the 1940's?


----------



## qizmoduis

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Same could be said about evolutionary theories.



Uh...no.


----------



## Makalakumu

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Currently in basic paleoanthropology, there are a few different hypotheses on how humans evolved: the "replacement" model (which is usually, but not always, centered in Africa by theorists --- southwest Asia and Mesopotamia are popular locales, too); the "multiregional" or "regional continuity" model (which also tends to place Africa as one of the many places that humans evolved contemporaneously in); and a sort of "middle ground" model (which combines elements of both).
> 
> It is true that the "replacement" model is currently the most popular one (and it almost always centers the action in Africa), but it is not the only model taken seriously in academic circles.



One thing that I would like to point out is that the disagreement in this case has nothing to do with opinion, point of view, or democracy.  It has to do with the evidence.  One side is showing evidence and providing an argument and another side is doing the same.  Currently, the afrocentric theories are winning out because of the wealth of evidence people have found in africa to support the theory.  If the other side is able to use more evidence to support their theory, then the paradigm shifts.  

Science is not a game where everyone can play.  Science is a brutal competition of ideas and if your idea does not have the evidence to back it up, then it is not taken seriously.  This is how science is done and if fundamentalist christians want to change this, then they are redefining science.

This type of change won't have a great impact if only a few local areas do it, but on a statewide basis or a nationwide basis, the ramifications of redefining science to include _all viewpoints regardless of the evidence _ would be immense.  (by the way, the above is a coded statement by fundamentalists, what it really means is inclusion of their viewpoint)  Should this be _allowed _ to happen?  We live in a democracy and people could very well vote for this type of change...for good or ill.

The article itself talks basically about casting doubt on evolutionary theory, yet further reading clearly shows that this is just part of the fundamentalist agenda.  Casting doubt on the theory of evolution in science class makes alternatives seem more probable...ie Creationism suddenly becomes more attractive to people ignorant of the evidence.  

The reality of the situation is that this is a stepping stone.  The Right needs to make baby steps with its agenda because the big picture would scare too many people.  _They _ are being patient and calculating, make no mistake.  _They _ have also learned to manipulate through ignorance.  _They _ are also highly organized.  Crackpots or not, the appropriate response is to organize and educate on a widespread basis.  Scientists can no longer just trust that the evidence is so clear that the choice is obvious.  If creationists want to play scientists then they need to be prepared for the appropriate attacks.  No beliefs are sacrosanct in science.  Reality trumps everything.

Creationism is a weed of unreason that very much resembles Lysenkoism and it bodes to cause the same type of damage as that fraudulent ideologic science.  Convincing people to see this on a widespread basis is probably the only way something like this can be defeated in our society.  Present the evidence and the choice is obvious.  The key is PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE...which is another thing fundamentalists would like to curb...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Same could be said about evolutionary theories.



Not with any degree of evidential certainty which is why those theories were thrown out.  This is another way that science is different then religion.


----------



## RandomPhantom700

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Can you give an explanation or example of what you mean by this?
> 
> Is this a reference to the "survival of the fittest" idiom by which rich white men sought to justify their ascendency to social/political/economic kingship? (I don't want to put words in your mouth:idunno: )
> 
> Peace,
> Melissa


"Survival of the fittest", at least in terms of biological evolution, has no racist or political undertones or agendas whatsoever.  I believe what you're referring to is Social Darwinism, a rhetorical stance which misapplies Darwin's evolution to a social sphere, where it doesn't belong.


----------



## Makalakumu

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Can you give an explanation or example of what you mean by this?
> 
> Is this a reference to the "survival of the fittest" idiom by which rich white men sought to justify their ascendency to social/political/economic kingship?  (I don't want to put words in your mouth:idunno: )
> 
> Peace,
> Melissa



Hitler killed our threw out all scientists who espoused evolutionary theory in Germany unless they pressed a crackpot notion that Jews and colored folk were inferior to whites.  The evidence didn't matter and even at that time, the evidence in this case was clearly against such a postulation.  

The Nazis also pushed something that was called "human natural selection" in which they reasoned that mentally retarded or physically disabled people were "unfit" to reproduce.  Millions of people were forcebly sterilyzed or murdered because of this.  

Real evolutionary theory says that the more genetic difference a species has in its gene pool, the healthier that species is.  This is backed up by genetic observation and population observations in which species with narrow gene pools and large gene pools are subjected to environmental change.  Those species with the greatest amount of difference are able to better deal with the change and in many cases, survive where the narrow gene pool species does not.

If we turn this into a value discussion to compare the differences between evolutionary theory and Nazi ideology, evolutionary theory _values_ the diversity of a species recognizing the fact that it is integral to that species survival.  

Difference is strength.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Satt

Wow, no wander so many of my friends are trying to home-school their kids now. My younger brother just graduated high school recently. It is kind of funny, because he can talk you blue in the face about evolution vs. creationism, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY JOB HUNTING SKILLS!!!!!!! Sad. I still love him though.


----------



## heretic888

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One thing that I would like to point out is that the disagreement in this case has nothing to do with opinion, point of view, or democracy.  It has to do with the evidence.  One side is showing evidence and providing an argument and another side is doing the same.  Currently, the afrocentric theories are winning out because of the wealth of evidence people have found in africa to support the theory.  If the other side is able to use more evidence to support their theory, then the paradigm shifts.



Well said.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Science is not a game where everyone can play.  Science is a brutal competition of ideas and if your idea does not have the evidence to back it up, then it is not taken seriously.



Well, not unless you are talking about the "Historical Jesus" debates. *ducks*

Its rather incredible how so many people acknowledge a position that has practically zero evidence to support it --- be it "creationism" or the "historical Jesus". *ducks again*

The main difference is that, for whatever reasons, the "historical Jesus" is intellectually vogue at this time. "Creationism", on the other hand, is not. *ducks yet again*

Heh, sorry. Couldn't help myself. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The article itself talks basically about casting doubt on evolutionary theory, yet further reading clearly shows that this is just part of the fundamentalist agenda.  Casting doubt on the theory of evolution in science class makes alternatives seem more probable...ie Creationism suddenly becomes more attractive to people ignorant of the evidence.
> 
> The reality of the situation is that this is a stepping stone.  The Right needs to make baby steps with its agenda because the big picture would scare too many people.  _They _ are being patient and calculating, make no mistake.  _They _ have also learned to manipulate through ignorance.  _They _ are also highly organized.  Crackpots or not, the appropriate response is to organize and educate on a widespread basis.  Scientists can no longer just trust that the evidence is so clear that the choice is obvious.  If creationists want to play scientists then they need to be prepared for the appropriate attacks.  No beliefs are sacrosanct in science.  Reality trumps everything.
> 
> Creationism is a weed of unreason that very much resembles Lysenkoism and it bodes to cause the same type of damage as that fraudulent ideologic science.  Convincing people to see this on a widespread basis is probably the only way something like this can be defeated in our society.  Present the evidence and the choice is obvious.  The key is PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE...which is another thing fundamentalists would like to curb...



Exactly.


----------



## heretic888

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> "Survival of the fittest", at least in terms of biological evolution, has no racist or political undertones or agendas whatsoever.  I believe what you're referring to is Social Darwinism, a rhetorical stance which misapplies Darwin's evolution to a social sphere, where it doesn't belong.



The term "survival of the fittest" actually _comes from_ Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin himself never used the term. This is a rather common misassumption many people have.

And, rest assured, Social Darwin is one of the 19th century "evolutionist"* positions that is biggoted, racist, sexist, and scary in every sense of the word. 

*Note: please recall the differences between "evolutionism" and the biological theory of evolution.


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The term "survival of the fittest" actually _comes from_ Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin himself never used the term. This is a rather common misassumption many people have.
> 
> And, rest assured, Social Darwin is one of the 19th century "evolutionist"* positions that is biggoted, racist, sexist, and scary in every sense of the word.
> 
> *Note: please recall the differences between "evolutionism" and the biological theory of evolution.


And justified, reinforced, inspired many an ugly action on the planet - similar to the 'evils' that were justified by faith based motives such as the Crusades and other religiously motivated (at least in the propagandized versions).

Give it enough time in civilization and 'science' as the new religion will be the motive and justification for just as many - if not more because of the brutal efficiency of technology and how it is a force multiplier - 'evils' as religions have been given credit for over history.

As far as explaining my Evolutionary theories comments and racism and such.

These ideas are not thrown out.  They exist and are believed in varying degrees - just like there are varying 'factions' within religious beliefs....

Science, like religion, has its range of disciples - lay people, the 'masses', the 'experts/priest/scientists' and has it's hierarchy and 'sects' (Catholicism, Judeism, Muslim....) and even has it's variations within (Chemical biologists, Paleobotanist.....) 

There are those who are 'scientists' that are far from altruistic and use it to make personal profit/status/reputation....and abuse it to rule over people.

In Science and Religion as discipline, there are disciples.  These disciples follow leaders.  There are some very 'scientific religious leaders' and there are some very 'religious (can I say dogmantic) scientific leaders' and so on.  Then there are the rest that fall somewhere in the middle...

Where in science do values/morals/ethics fit?  Where is the scientific rationale for ethical practices?  It is simply 'cohabitation/consensus?' or is it more 'community.'

The reason that characters like the infamous "Ex Mrs. Frasier Crane/Lilith" are so funny is because of how she struggles to be so scientific/rational but has to balance that with her intuitive/emotional and spiritual side...as we all do.

Maybe it needs to be a tangental thread, but no one has touched how/where they balance their scientific/faith views on the world but seem to feel free bashing others for where they put that line to mark where it is for them.


----------



## kenpo tiger

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Maybe it needs to be a tangental thread, but no one has touched how/where they balance their scientific/faith views on the world but seem to feel free bashing others for where they put that line to mark where it is for them.


Go for it.  You apparently have thoughts on that subject.

[As an aside, I don't know that everyone bashes others for their 'line in the sand' concerning scientific/faith views.  Mostly, one will continue to believe what he believes, despite proof to the contrary.  Contrary is what humans can be.]


----------



## rmcrobertson

One is quite well aware of the competition between "out-of-Africa," and other hypotheses. However, they don't change the basic concept that our origins trace back to that continent.

Well-trained students shouldn't need all that much specialized work on job-hunting, though I do recollect getting a lot of that. They need it now because schools have had more and more ridiculous claptrap jammed on them by groups like Creationists.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Maybe it needs to be a tangental thread, but no one has touched how/where they balance their scientific/faith views on the world but seem to feel free bashing others for where they put that line to mark where it is for them.


I think that, perhaps, in part because this balance involves some kind of faith, has a lot to do with life experiences, and involves How You Think The World Is, some people can be happy to sit back and say, "we see it differently, and that's OK", whereas others think everyone should share the same view - or else you are wrong, and/or threatening them.


----------



## loki09789

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> ...whereas others think everyone should share the same view - or else you are wrong, and/or threatening them.


 
Or threatening to infringe on their civil liberties because of a difference... or even condoning 'revolution' because of it.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Or threatening to infringe on their civil liberties because of a difference... or even condoning 'revolution' because of it.


lol - so far, I don't think I've tried to threaten anyone's civil liberties.  

And revolution would come not from one person's unhappiness with the "line in the sand", but from many, right or wrong.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Personally, I'd never interfere with anyone's God-given right to be as dumb as dirt and ignorant as all hell.

We've simply been arguing that nobody should have the right to force their religious fantasies down everybody else's throats, nor to walk into science classes and force their little fairy tales into the curriculum.

However, if one DOES choose to remain dumb and ignernt, then they've pretty much surrendered their ability to argue about evolution in a meaningful fashion. That's why they so often resort to Bible-thumping and bullying...


----------



## Tgace

What if its the few pro-evolution scientists that want to shove their theory down the throats of the (majority) "bible thumpin" crowd?? Thats the issue I see him making.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Yes, it would be truly terrible if we were to live up to the standards espoused by Joshua Lawr. Chamberlain among countless other reputable educators, and teach the best we have in knowledge.  

Funny how some oppose political correctness in favor of what they incessantly call the actual facts, until some pointy-head is so inconsiderate as to point out actual facts about science, about history, about culture.

Then, by gum, we're all in favor of being as p.c. as possible.

Still waiting on answers to inconvenient questions: 

1. So we should teach things we know to be scientifically false?
2. So we should lie to students about what science is?
3. So we should only teach Protestant fundamentalist ideas?
4. So we should ignore the express desire to remove evolution from schools?
5. So we should do exactly what they do in Iran, in other words?


----------



## Tgace

Hmmm...has anybody said evolution shouldnt be taught? Would it be possible for the citizenry to add or remove a religious belief in Iran?

Seems this is more about keeping an idea/belief some people dont like out, regardless of what the majority of taxpayers in that district want, than any other reason. Its being disguised as "preservation of scientific theory" but come on...its really because of a distaste for religion, evangelists, Bush policy, etc. etc. etc.

Im pretty certain that these educators are smart enough to figure out a way to please the bible thumpers by including creationism (in social studies, science class or wherever..) while still teaching the current scientific theories. They just dont want to.

Personally I could care less if my kids are taught creationism in school. I dont "believe" in the biblical interpretation (perhaps in a metaphorical interp.) anyway. And if I did I would teach them it at home or through Church. If the school decided to teach it, Id be fairly confident it would be as PC/nondenominational as possible. "Many religions believe in a creation model, the native Americans believe......"

Anxiously awaiting a snide reply.....


----------



## rmcrobertson

Yes, indeed. Please read the actual Creationist websites, upon which they make it very clear that they consider getting rid of the false doctrine of evolution to be essential. For them, Darwin is tied directly to the decline of morality in this country, the rise of homosexuality, attacks on Americanism, and a host of other fantasized ills. 

For the fourth time: some of us WERE taught about Creationisms in biology class, just as we were taught about other pre-scientific beliefs, and about the differences between religious and scientific world-views.

For the sixth time: the problem is that religious and scientifc approaches to reality--though quite possibly equally valid--are fundamentally different. 

Hey, here's a concept: why aren't folks demanding that places like Bob Jones' "Liberty University," teach evolution? They get public funds...which is why they were forced to drop their ban on inter-racial dating recently.

Oh, and incidentally--wouldn't you agree that an educator's loyalty ought to be to the truth, without fear or favor? Or do you prefer an affirmative actionism of ideas, and enforcing a right-wing political correctness? Are you militating for quotas for ideas?


----------



## kenpo tiger

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yes, indeed. Please read the actual Creationist websites, upon which they make it very clear that they consider getting rid of the false doctrine of evolution to be essential. For them, Darwin is tied directly to the decline of morality in this country, the rise of homosexuality, attacks on Americanism, and a host of other fantasized ills.
> 
> For the fourth time: some of us WERE taught about Creationisms in biology class, just as we were taught about other pre-scientific beliefs, and about the differences between religious and scientific world-views.
> 
> For the sixth time: the problem is that religious and scientifc approaches to reality--though quite possibly equally valid--are fundamentally different.
> 
> Hey, here's a concept: why aren't folks demanding that places like Bob Jones' "Liberty University," teach evolution? They get public funds...which is why they were forced to drop their ban on inter-racial dating recently.
> 
> Oh, and incidentally--wouldn't you agree that an educator's loyalty ought to be to the truth, without fear or favor? Or do you prefer an affirmative actionism of ideas, and enforcing a right-wing political correctness? Are you militating for quotas for ideas?


Would you be willing to test whether _your_ university would keep you if your 'truth' isn't their 'truth'?  (Not a personal attack -- you know better than to play that card if I'm the one who's asking.  It's a valid question based upon your posts.)

After reading some more of the replies from this afternoon, it seems to all come down to economics -- again/still/however you'd like to express it -- and the most vocal and politically/economically forward in the community have their say.  It's not about political correctness, either.  It's about who's in charge and who can shout the loudest.  Why is it necessary to include a theoretical approach to something which already has been shown to have a scientific basis?  Because all viewpoints should be included?  And that's because... ?


----------



## Tgace

Exactly KT! 

Is it really the "idea" thats at issue, or the politics of the "idea"???????????


----------



## heretic888

Tgace said:
			
		

> Exactly KT!
> 
> Is it really the "idea" thats at issue, or the politics of the "idea"???????????



You say that as if there's a difference.


----------



## Tgace

point taken....


----------



## rmcrobertson

Bad news--no place I've ever taught has let out so much as a peep about the intellectual/political content of what's taught. It's what's called, "intellectual freedom," and it's a central academic value.

The problem--for the nth time--with the Creationist types is that, indeed, they are bullies. They aren't willing to simply examine the ideas, the hypotheses, the facts--they insist that their way, and only their way, is the Truth.

SCIENCE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT. Science, in fact, is a way of adjudicating who's right and who's wrong--and in scientific terms, the creationsts are wrong. In fact, they're wacko wrong, lacking--as has several times been pointed out--facts of any sort. What's more, they aren't even employing scientific methods to reach their conclusions.

It's interesting that repeated questions don't get answered, in order to harp continually upon the, "diversity of ideas," false trail. (Which is a false trail because Creationist ideas are well-represented in all sorts of places.) At this point, that looks a lot like what other threads have brought out--these folks are out to repress their ideas, and they are quite willing to adopt the "politicall correct," language of the Left, if that's what it takes.

Have you folks looked at their statements? They make their agendas clear. That's why this is Lysenkoism, nutbar biology pushed on behalf of a weird ideology and supported by various political groups--including, unfortunately, our current President.

"In 1871, Chamberlain was elected president of Bowdoin by the trustees of the college. His presidency, which would conclude in 1883, found him introducing progressive and occasionally unpopular ideas to the conservative institution. He endorsed studies in science and engineering, which were relatively unheard of at the time, and also had students participate in military drills in preparation for the possibility of war."


----------



## Flatlander

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> For the fourth time: some of us WERE taught about Creationisms in biology class, just as we were taught about other pre-scientific beliefs, and about the differences between religious and scientific world-views.


So, I have to ask, has this hindered your intellectual development?  Has it altered your idea of reality?  If so, then I can understand how it supports your position.  If not, then what are you saying?


----------



## loki09789

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Bad news--no place I've ever taught has let out so much as a peep about the intellectual/political content of what's taught. It's what's called, "intellectual freedom," and it's a central academic value.
> 
> The problem--for the nth time--with the Creationist types is that, indeed, they are bullies. They aren't willing to simply examine the ideas, the hypotheses, the facts--they insist that their way, and only their way, is the Truth.
> 
> SCIENCE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT. Science, in fact, is a way of adjudicating who's right and who's wrong--and in scientific terms, the creationsts are wrong. In fact, they're wacko wrong, lacking--as has several times been pointed out--facts of any sort. What's more, they aren't even employing scientific methods to reach their conclusions.


Bad news, Mac Man, since the actual details of this curriculum isn't about squashing anyones 'intellectual freedom' but including material that the community wants....what is your point specifically about this issue?  I think at higher learning the idea of 'intellectual freedom' would mean inclusiveness and tolerance when the issue of creationism would be presented as an academic topic...that is the difference here.  It is being presented as an academic topic NOT evangelical mission.  And in actual practice, there are still 'moral/ethical' limits on this idea of intellectual freedom - can't teach chemists how to make a nuclear bomb as a class experiment (if they find it on their own by using the discipline you taught them it is not the same).  Can't bring hookers in for human sexuallity classes (though it would be the most attended class!).


YES, I know that the fundamentalists are evangelical and want to spread their beliefs, but in this case it is a community that already has a fundamentalist community.  They are not out to convert the converted.

Bullies....hmmmmmmm, I think they exist in fundamentalism/intellectialism , science....  Just because you adhere to a certain mental construct does not mean that you automatically are going to be a bully or not.  I have met some pretty bullyish people from all different walks of life, directly and through various mediums.

When you use terms like 'right' and 'wrong' it really concerns me when your talking about science.  "right/wrong" issues are moral (philosophical science) that are defined differently between different philosophical disciplines.

Now if you had said 'valid' or 'invalid,' or 'supportable/evidencially sound'.... it would support your 'scientific' support.


----------



## kenpo tiger

Robertson said:

"Bad news--no place I've ever taught has let out so much as a peep about the intellectual/political content of what's taught. It's what's called, "intellectual freedom," and it's a central academic value."

Yes, all that is true, but it doesn't answer _my_ question to you.  

Assuming _arguendo_ that 'intellectual freedom' is a 'central academic value', then why shouldn't all points of view be taught?  The points made above concerning the morality of teaching chemistry students specifically how to make a bomb is a good point and backs up what I said earlier about merely presenting all sides.  That gives one all the information available in order to make an informed choice.

Same goes for us martial artists.  We're given the tools in kenpo (since it's our art - yours and mine) to be able to kill an attacker -- if necessary.  We are not taught to kill.  The admonition is made very clear in the kenpo creed that we are to employ other avenues to avoid the fight and only fight if necessary.  Even then, we do not fight to kill, unless it is a matter of kill or be killed.

Same for this argument of allowing creationism to be part of the curriculum.  Someone else stated upthread that he would teach his children the creationism view of life through their religious training.  That's pretty much how we all learn it, isn't it?  I honestly can't remember if I was taught creationism in school.  I _do_ remember reciting the Lord's Prayer and singing Christmas carols until around fifth grade.  Do I remember the prayer?  Nope.  My religious training overrode it, and I _chose_, from the information available to me, to pray in my own manner.  Same reason I pursued studying Charles Darwin and his theory (also had a prof who took it a step further - great seminar on Darwinism in lit and other courses stemming from it).

My point here:  people will choose to believe what they want to believe, regardless of what they might be taught.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> YES, I know that the fundamentalists are evangelical and want to spread their beliefs, but in this case it is a community that already has a fundamentalist community.  They are not out to convert the converted.



They are out to justify their own faith, in which they view evolution as a direct attack.  Therefore strengthening their faith positions means weakening the evolution position.  Fundamentalist Christians have a huge problem when it comes to the teaching of evolution in biology.  The _science _ is _grounded _ in *facts * and _learning _ these facts _leads _ people away from this belief set.  Again and again and again, even at Christian colleges like Wheaton, when students learn the facts, overwhelmingly they turn their belief in the bible from a literal interpretation to an allogorical.  



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Bullies....hmmmmmmm, I think they exist in fundamentalism/intellectialism , science....  Just because you adhere to a certain mental construct does not mean that you automatically are going to be a bully or not.  I have met some pretty bullyish people from all different walks of life, directly and through various mediums.



Would comparing the two theories to the evidence and showing that _creation science_, as a theory, is totally insufficiant to compete with evolution make me an intellectual bully?

Am I being non-inclusive and predjudicial when I lay an effective logical attack on creationism based on observable evidence about the world around us?

As a scientist, can I even present a vastly inferior theory based on the observable evidence presented at this time?

Bullying in science is not a democratic process.  It is based on the evidence.  A minority of scientists can present a vastly unpopular theory and if they have the evidence to support that theory, then the opposition has no alternative but to accept it.  This does not mean that they will roll over and not try to find holes in the theory, it means that in science, reality always trumps ideology...



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Now if you had said 'valid' or 'invalid,' or 'supportable/evidencially sound'.... it would support your 'scientific' support.



As a scientist and a teacher, if the local school board required me to teach creationism in my classes, I would do it.  Ask and thou shalt recieve.  Kids would learn the facts and judge for themselves.  Yet, I would have no choice but to present evolution as a vastly superior theory based on the evidence.  I think it would be a good lesson on how science is done, yet I know it would not be a popular lesson by any means.  The words valid and invalid based on supportable evidentially sound information would be used quite frequently though...

As far as their civil liberties go, a community of fundamentalist christians has the right to mobilize and redefine science.  I have the right to disagree.  I have the right to mobilize.  I also have the right to attack their beliefs now that they threw their ball into my court.  

Does the fact they they have the right to do so suddenly make it right for them to do so?  I don't think so, because as I've stated above, reality trumps point of view and if creationism is suddenly science, then a fundamentalist reading of the bible suddenly becomes _reality_ and all else is false...


----------



## qizmoduis

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Robertson said:
> 
> "Bad news--no place I've ever taught has let out so much as a peep about the intellectual/political content of what's taught. It's what's called, "intellectual freedom," and it's a central academic value."
> 
> Yes, all that is true, but it doesn't answer _my_ question to you.
> 
> Assuming _arguendo_ that 'intellectual freedom' is a 'central academic value', then why shouldn't all points of view be taught?  The points made above concerning the morality of teaching chemistry students specifically how to make a bomb is a good point and backs up what I said earlier about merely presenting all sides.  That gives one all the information available in order to make an informed choice.



Because, again, this isn't about the presentation of "Points of View".  This is about teaching non-science in science class.  Schools exist to educate children and turn them into functional adults.  Teaching them nonsensical "alternatives" that are pure gibberish does not advance that purpose at all.  Creationism is pure gibberish.

There's another, even more practical aspect to this.  We don't spend enough time as it is educating children properly in school.  Where are we going to find the time to throw all this "alternative" crap into the mix?  It's a total waste of time, money, and children's brains.  Teach them what works.  Teach them critical thinking skills.  If they then want to fill their brains with delusions, they can do it on their own time.  Same thing for their parents.  They can fill their kids' heads to as much silliness as they want, so long as it doesn't affect my daughter's education.  They can keep their religion and their "alternative" gibberish to themselves, where it belongs.

Heck, if we're going to teach these alternatives, let's teach them all.  Here's a handy-dandy list:

www.crank.net

Let's toss the following into science classes:

Velikovsky's electrical universe
Astrology
Expanding Earth Geology
Flat Earth
Geocentrism
Planet X and Sitchinism
Creationsim/Intellligent Design
etc.

Maybe, just maybe, after all those "alternatives" are taught, we'll be able to address F = ma.  I doubt it, though.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. They are out to justify their own faith, in which they view evolution as a direct attack. Therefore strengthening their faith positions means weakening the evolution position. Fundamentalist Christians have a huge problem when it comes to the teaching of evolution in biology. The _science _is _grounded _in *facts *and _learning _these facts _leads _people away from this belief set. Again and again and again, even at Christian colleges like Wheaton, when students learn the facts, overwhelmingly they turn their belief in the bible from a literal interpretation to an allogorical.
> 
> 2. Bullying in science is not a democratic process. It is based on the evidence. A minority of scientists can present a vastly unpopular theory and if they have the evidence to support that theory, then the opposition has no alternative but to accept it. This does not mean that they will roll over and not try to find holes in the theory, it means that in science, reality always trumps ideology...
> 
> 3. As a scientist and a teacher, if the local school board required me to teach creationism in my classes....I would have no choice but to present evolution as a vastly superior theory based on the evidence.
> 
> 
> 4. As far as their civil liberties go, a community of fundamentalist christians has the right to mobilize and redefine science. I have the right to disagree. I have the right to mobilize. I also have the right to attack their beliefs now that they threw their ball into my court.
> 
> 5. Does the fact they they have the right to do so suddenly make it right for them to do so? I don't think so, because as I've stated above, reality trumps point of view and if creationism is suddenly science, then a fundamentalist reading of the bible suddenly becomes _reality_ and all else is false...


1. As you and everyone else is out to justify your own beliefs, whether science, faith, martial arts or otherwise.

2. Bullying is in the word choice and the tone of discussions. "Those people" and statements about how 'inferior' their values are (when it is clearly stated that faith and science can not be compared reasonably side by side on this issue). Bullying is what happens in the scientific community, in the faith community, in schools....when someone tries to impose his/her will on another person unfairly to demonstrate 'power' over them - that can be mugging someone for lunch money or shooting down a theory in science/faith that contrast the status quo...

3. You do have a choice, that is my point. You are choosing to present Science as superior, in another community someone will be presenting Creationism as superior (if it is actually force into the science class -which is not what is clearly stated in this case)....is it right in either case? The point, as you said, is to present the information and let them see for themselves - that is if you are even capable of doing a fair presentation of both theories...
why should you need to even present one or the other as 'superior.' As has been mentioned in martial arts and credibility - quality speaks for itself.

4. You have the right to disagree....'attack' as a term does not sound very objective or 'unbias' as an observer, thus my bullying comment. And, no you don't have the right to 'attack' another person's ideas/POV - you do have the right to free speech just like these folks.

5. And, again, I have made the point that Science does not define reality, it only makes observations, measurements and draws theoretical conclusions...notice theoretical....about what is 'real' based on how well things can be observed. Technology alone has changed the face of science so that the stuff that some people still hold on to as 'true' today is really about as 'real' as the modern scientist would consider 'creationism.'


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> They are out to justify their own faith, in which they view evolution as a direct attack. Therefore strengthening their faith positions means weakening the evolution position. Fundamentalist Christians have a huge problem when it comes to the teaching of evolution in biology. The _science _is _grounded _in *facts *and _learning _these facts _leads _people away from this belief set. Again and again and again, even at Christian colleges like Wheaton, when students learn the facts, overwhelmingly they turn their belief in the bible from a literal interpretation to an allogorical.


College years are full of those type of transitions, whether political, religious, philosophical, personal..... that is the nature of that period in life. That is why terms like Sophomore translate to '*SOPH*isticated *MOR*on' and such. Just enough material to 'know about' things but not enough processing/experience to really know what it means to you or how it all fits together.

How many people return to more respect/appreciation of faith ideas as life goes on after college?

I was very good friends with a Bible college grad and we had many great conversations about this stuff. Like in all religions/ideological views, there are those who are truly and sophisticatedly educated in their views - Heretics deep and historical understanding of religion and philosophy for instance vs. the majority of our varying degrees of 'elementary level' education on the same issue. As person who has really explored the deep and sophisticated ideas behind his 'fundamentalist' views, he still believes. He, as a fundamentalist, said that it didn't matter what anyone - including him - said about faith, god and so on - it mattered that I understood...doesn't sound too agendized to me.

My strong opinion on this is that the media and these interest groups are like the 'Muslim' thing in regards to terrorism: It is NOT a representation of the majority of 'those people' but because of the media focus on that extreme, subscription selling/viewer grabbing/advertising time selling small percentage... the average person gets the impression that it IS a representation of the majority.


----------



## kenpo tiger

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Because, again, this isn't about the presentation of "Points of View". This is about teaching non-science in science class. Schools exist to educate children and turn them into functional adults. Teaching them nonsensical "alternatives" that are pure gibberish does not advance that purpose at all. Creationism is pure gibberish.
> 
> There's another, even more practical aspect to this. We don't spend enough time as it is educating children properly in school. Where are we going to find the time to throw all this "alternative" crap into the mix? It's a total waste of time, money, and children's brains. Teach them what works. Teach them critical thinking skills. If they then want to fill their brains with delusions, they can do it on their own time. Same thing for their parents. They can fill their kids' heads to as much silliness as they want, so long as it doesn't affect my daughter's education. They can keep their religion and their "alternative" gibberish to themselves, where it belongs.
> 
> Heck, if we're going to teach these alternatives, let's teach them all. Here's a handy-dandy list:
> 
> www.crank.net
> 
> Let's toss the following into science classes:
> 
> Velikovsky's electrical universe
> Astrology
> Expanding Earth Geology
> Flat Earth
> Geocentrism
> Planet X and Sitchinism
> Creationsim/Intellligent Design
> etc.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, after all those "alternatives" are taught, we'll be able to address F = ma. I doubt it, though.


Point taken.  However, isn't repression of ideas a *bad* thing?

BTW - What's wrong with astrology?


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 1. As you and everyone else is out to justify your own beliefs, whether science, faith, martial arts or otherwise.



I don't need to _justify _ my _beliefs _ in scientific postulations, the evidence does it for me.  That is the *POINT * of science.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 2. Bullying is in the word choice and the tone of discussions. *"Those people" and statements about how 'inferior' their values are * (when it is clearly stated that faith and science can not be compared reasonably side by side on this issue).



You are taking these words out of the context in which they have been placed.  "Those people" only refers to a group of people who share a particular belief set.  There is nothing sinister nor degrading about it and you are not being honest to the ideas presented by implying that there is.  Secondly, inferior refers to the scientific realm.  Creationism, judged under the auspices of scientific scrutiny is an obviously inferior theory.  We are not talking about any form of totalitarianism or anything sinister, we are only talking about a set of criteria that defines WHAT SCIENCE IS and then trying to judge based on that criteria.  Your conclusions do not follow from what has been written.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Bullying is what happens in the scientific community, in the faith community, in schools....when someone tries to impose his/her will on another person unfairly to demonstrate 'power' over them - that can be mugging someone for lunch money or shooting down a theory in science/faith that contrast the status quo.



In the scientific realm, where creationism is supposedly being asked to come and play, there is no such thing as "fairness" or "imposition of belief" or even "faith" as we see it in a religious sense.  In the scientific community, the evidence trumps reality.  The evidence tips the scales.  The evidence demonstrates "power" over one theory or another.  This is not like mugging someone for their lunch money and it most certainly is not a blind shooting down of any theory that contrasts with the status quo.  In fact, the term "bullying", really has no meaning in science.  There are theories that describe the world and then there are theories that describe the world better...determination of this is based on the evidence and making this determination is in no way bullying.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 3. You do have a choice, that is my point. You are choosing to present Science as superior, in another community someone will be presenting Creationism as superior (if it is actually force into the science class -which is not what is clearly stated in this case)....is it right in either case? The point, as you said, is to present the information and let them see for themselves - that is if you are even capable of doing a fair presentation of both theories...why should you need to even present one or the other as 'superior.' As has been mentioned in martial arts and credibility - quality speaks for itself.



The quality DOES speak for itself...which is why in this case the fundamentalist christians are trying to cast doubt on evolution.  In a science class, it is entirely proper for me to present evolution as a superior theory because the theory of evolution has way more evidence behind it.  By presenting both theories and talking about the evidence behind each of them and helping students see which theory has more evidence backing it, I am teaching students how to do science.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 4. You have the right to disagree....'attack' as a term does not sound very objective or 'unbias' as an observer, thus my bullying comment. And, no you don't have the right to 'attack' another person's ideas/POV - you do have the right to free speech just like these folks.



"Attack" is what the evidence does.  I present.  There is no bullying involved.  Also, if a person wishes to contribute ideas to the scientific realm, then their POV and their ideas will be subject to "attack" from all comers.  It is expected.  Science is a brutal competition of ideas based on the evidence, the rigor involved is not easy to deal with and does not embrace diversity of opinion unless that opinion is backed by an equal amount of evidence.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> 5. And, again, *I have made the point that Science does not define reality*, it only makes observations, measurements and draws theoretical conclusions...notice theoretical....about what is 'real' based on how well things can be observed. Technology alone has changed the face of science so that the stuff that some people still hold on to as 'true' today is really about as 'real' as the modern scientist would consider 'creationism.'



Science DOES define reality.  That is the point of doing science.  Technology has only provided scientists with tools to better observe and define reality.


----------



## kenpo tiger

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't need to _justify _my _beliefs _in scientific postulations, the evidence does it for me. That is the *POINT *of science.
> 
> Until someone else disproves it with more/better science.
> 
> "Attack" is what the evidence does. I present. There is no bullying involved. Also, if a person wishes to contribute ideas to the scientific realm, then their POV and their ideas will be subject to "attack" from all comers. It is expected. Science is a brutal competition of ideas based on the evidence, the rigor involved is not easy to deal with and does not embrace diversity of opinion unless that opinion is backed by an equal amount of evidence.
> 
> See above.
> 
> Science DOES define reality. That is the point of doing science. Technology has only provided scientists with tools to better observe and define reality.


Reality by whose definition?  (tiger is playing devil's advocate here.)  Those people who believe in Creationism truly believe it's the way we got here.  No amount of scientific evidence will change their minds.  Therefore, the point is really:
1) define the science used to arrive at 'your' theory;
2) present 'your' scientific rebuttal as to why 'their' theory is incorrect;
3) present a _convincing_ argument as to why 'your' *scientific* theory should be taught as gospel (*chuckles* sorry -- couldn't resist that one).


----------



## qizmoduis

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Point taken.  However, isn't repression of ideas a *bad* thing?
> 
> BTW - What's wrong with astrology?



First, ideas aren't being repressed.  Pseudoscientists are free to express themselves as much as they want, and people are free to read (and often pay lot's of $$$$ for) their ideas.  A quick perusal of the Internet or the nonsense sections of your local library and bookstores should suffice to support that.  Public schools, however, have a very important, even critical, responsibility to educate our children.  The decision to NOT present "alternative ideas" is not equivalent to repression of those ideas.  It's the school's responsibility to teach that PI = 3.1415926.... because it produces correct results.  It is NOT the school's responsibility also teach that PI = 3 (because it's in the bible) or PI = 3.146264 as advocated by supercrank Ralph Rene http://www.rene-r.com/circle_squared.html, who has quite a following among hyper-conspiracists.

Second, the real question should be:  What's right with astrology?  The answer:  Nothing.  Astrology is pure bunkum that has no basis in reality.  It is exactly like creationism in that respect, and yet, there are millions of people that believe in it, including groups that would like to have it taught alongside astronomy in public schools.  Astrologers in this country, fortunately, don't have the political power that their creationist counterparts have.

More ideas that we could teach in science class:
Phlogiston Theory
Aetheric Vacuum
Hot Comets
Electric Stars, which is loosely associated with Velikovskyism

The list is almost literally endlless, and every cranky idea out there has it's supporters.  We should only teach what has been *demonstrated *to work, and that is what we do (not well enough, unfortunately).  There's no need whatsoever to teach that which doesn't work.

I want to emphasize my use of the word *demonstrated* above.  That's EXTREMELY important.  In fact, it's paramount.  Demonstration is irrelevant to belief and point of view.  As martial artists, that's something we should ALL be familiar with.


----------



## PeachMonkey

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> BTW - What's wrong with astrology?


 As a bit of a laugh over a cuppa when reading the paper, nothing.  As anything more substantive, everything.

 See: http://www.skepdic.com/astrolgy.html


----------



## Tgace

I find the impassioned defense of the purity of science here very similar to the defense of religious belief.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> I find the impassioned defense of the purity of science here very similar to the defense of religious belief.



The defense of a religious belief usually turns out to be a defense _against _ the evidence, whereas science is a defense _of _ the evidence.  They are actually very dissimiliar.


----------



## Tgace

Whos talking about the "belief"? Im talking about the people.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Tgace said:
			
		

> Whos talking about the "belief"? Im talking about the people.


 The only thing you're accomplishing (other than sniping) is being wrong; the defenses people are making of scientific procedure are actually backed up by process and logic.  Perhaps a stronger background in actual science would advance your understanding of the issue.

 Faith is an entirely different matter.

 And, as heretic will happily point out, there's always the scholarly, scientific approach to the religious experience itself.


----------



## MisterMike

Sniping???  :idunno:


----------



## Tgace

Point is, everybody has their angle on "reality" and will resort to very human emotions and attacks on the opposition while defending it...

I think that the fear that fundamentalist religion is going to turn the US to a scientific "dark age" is kind of a stretch. If it does I think its a sign that science isnt answering some sort of need in the people that religion is. How to fix that? I have no idea.


----------



## Melissa426

Tgace said:
			
		

> Point is, everybody has their angle on "reality" and will resort to very human emotions and attacks on the opposition while defending it...
> 
> I think that the fear that fundamentalist religion is going to turn the US to a scientific "dark age" is kind of a stretch. If it does I think its a sign that science isnt answering some sort of need in the people that religion is.


Amen, brother!:asian:

Agree or disagree, the illogical, irrational, and against all the evidence need for some people to have the creation myth taught in public schools demonstrates their impassioned compulsion to spread their deep-seated beliefs regarding their core spiritual values to an unbelieving world, in the presumption that the message will reach the hearts, minds, and souls of the desperate, hopeless, unredeemed peoples of their community, country, and earth who after seeing the light will no doubt step up and become fully committed members of the family of God, even if those people didn't realize that they had a void that needed filled.

(Hmmm.
I don't think I 've written a sentence that long since grad school 15 years ago. It's almost Faulkner-ish. )

It's paternalistic and intolerant and will not succeed, IMHO.

Personally, I still think it should stay out of the classroom. I think I know better ways to reach those people who need to hear the message.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Amen, brother!:asian:
> 
> Agree or disagree, the illogical, irrational, and against all the evidence need for some people to have the creation myth taught in public schools demonstrates their impassioned compulsion to spread their deep-seated beliefs regarding their core spiritual values to an unbelieving world, in the presumption that the message will reach the hearts, minds, and souls of the desperate, hopeless, unredeemed peoples of their community, country, and earth who after seeing the light will no doubt step up and become fully committed members of the family of God, even if those people didn't realize that they had a void that needed filled.
> 
> (Hmmm.
> I don't think I 've written a sentence that long since grad school 15 years ago. It's almost Faulkner-ish. )
> 
> It's paternalistic and intolerant and will not succeed, IMHO.
> 
> Personally, I still think it should stay out of the classroom. I think I know better ways to reach those people who need to hear the message.
> 
> Peace,
> Melissa


Melissa, I think you make a very good point, which hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread, I think - that trying to merge creationism into classrooms is probably one of the least sucessful ways of actually proseltyzing!


----------



## michaeledward

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Agree or disagree, the illogical, irrational, and against all the evidence need for some people to have the creation myth taught in public schools demonstrates their impassioned compulsion to spread their deep-seated beliefs regarding their core spiritual values to an *unbelieving world*, in the presumption that the message will reach the hearts, minds, and souls of the desperate, hopeless, unredeemed peoples of their community, country, and earth who after seeing the light will no doubt step up and become fully committed members of the family of God, even if those people didn't realize that they had a void that needed filled.


An 'unbelieving world'?

As I understand it, approximately 95% of the population of the world believes in a power greater than themselves. 

If this premise is true, then the issue is more about people not believing the 'right' information, as opposed to their 'unbelief'.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson

OK, goin' to all caps, in the hopes this will cause some folks to actually read and respond.

1. SCIENCE IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, A BELIEF SYSTEM. Science, as every damn historican of science will tell you, is a method of hypothesizing, testing through experiment and observation, re-testing, and further developing theories. SCIENCE IS A WAY OF SEPARATING WHAT'S MERELY BELIEVED FROM WHAT IS IN FACT TRUE ABOUT NATURE. The clear fact that some folks don't know this is evidence of the damage done to science education over the last thirty years.

2. BECAUSE SCIENCE IS AN EMPIRICISM, IT CANNOT BE USED TO EVALUATE METAPHYSICAL ISSUES. At best, science-like logic and science-like methods can be used to offer some strong suggestions about which beliefs are likely to be just plain nuts. Conversely, METAPHYSICS CANNOT TELL US MUCH ABOUT SCIENCE.

3. CREATIONISTS DO NOT WANT ALL BELIEFS TAUGHT EQUALLY, AND THEIR BELIEFS SUBJECT TO THE DEMANDS SCIENCE MAKES FOR PROOF. They explicitly state that they want ONLY THEIR beliefs taught, and they want science either completely suppressed as godless humanism, or warped until their ideas are supported. They will NOT, REPEAT NOT, tolerate having their claims examined.

4. CREATIONIST BELIEFS REST UPON CLAIMS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, AND ABOUT THE SCIENCES THAT ARE NOT MERELY WRONG--THEY'RE ABSURDLY WRONG. For example, creationists insist that the earth is "young," certainly less than 100, 000 years. To entertain this weird notion, it is necessary to assume that nearly everything we know about not only paleontology and geology, but physics, chemistry, biology and astronomy is wildly wrong. Keeping one's mind open is one thing--letting one's brain fall out is another.

5. CREATIONISM, AT PRESENT, IS INTIMATELY CONNECTED TO A CONCATENATION OF IDEAS THAT OUGHT TO MAKE ANYBODY WITH A BRAIN WORRY. Creationists announce, in no uncertain terms, that the teaching of evolution is tied to God's punishment of this country, our moral decline, the collapse of the family, the rise of homosexuality, the abolition of prayer and the Pledge. They announce, in no uncertain terms, that their attack on evolution is part and parcel of their attack on godlessness, our supposed moral decline, feminism/women's rights, gay people, contraception, and all the rest. Into the bargain, they announce, explicitly, that they also want certain Evil Books removed from libraries.

6. CREATIONISM IS ALSO DIRECTLY TIED TO A CONCATENATION OF DEMANDS FOR 'REFORM,' IN SCHOOLS THAT INCLUDE ENFORCED FUNDAMENTALIST PRAYER AND THE RECITATION OF THE PLEDGE, CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, THE ABOLITION OF MEANINGFUL SEX ED, AND THE REMOVAL OF ANY TEACHER OR ADMINISTRATOR ESPOUSING DIFFERENT VALUES OR HAAPPENING TO BE GAY. In supporting them, you are supporting what they explicitly call a crusade. 

7. Most of the improvements humanity has made in the last 500 years--public health and sanitation, general literacy and education, democratic rights, women's rights, civil rights in general, the spread of books and art, and a very long list of others, are directly tied to the rise of secular humanism and the decline of religious fundamentalism. Perhaps some of us can be pardoned for getting a bit het up about the nationwide, orchestrated attempt to roll back that clock--and anybody who thinks this is an exaggeration would do well to check into "The 700 Club," the Promise Keepers organization, the ACLJ, and the rest of these guys. They aren't kidding. They mean it.

8. SO IF we're going to demand that fundamentalist wackoism has to be made  part of every public school kid's education, on the politically-correct grounds of diversity, WHY CAN'T EVOLUTION BE MADE PART OF EVERY HOME SCHOOL AND CHRISTIAN SCHOOL EDUCATION IN AMERICA?

9. What are these people so afraid of? The Catholic Church isn't afraid; the Nat'l Council of Churches isn't; none of the various Jewish organizations are; none of the ecumenical groups are. What's the big fundamentalist Protestant worry over science? Why the rejection of the traditional Christian humanist idea that examining the universe in all its diversity and beauty and history was part of God's Plan? What are you so skeered of?


----------



## Tgace

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Personally, I still think it should stay out of the classroom. I think I know better ways to reach those people who need to hear the message.
> 
> Peace,
> Melissa


Personally,if my kids school was trying to push out evolutionary theory with creationism, Id fight against it. If I were out voted I suppose I would switch to private schools (do Catholic schools teach evolution?). I just dont quite understand what the ultimate point here is. Should the federal government step into this school districts business??? Or is this just another "bashing" of a backward thinking, bible thumping, Bush voting, red state???

Was Wisconsin a red state? :idunno: Either way I think you get my point.


----------



## Cruentus

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personally,if my kids school was trying to push out evolutionary theory with creationism, Id fight against it. If I were out voted I suppose I would switch to private schools (do Catholic schools teach evolution?). I just dont quite understand what the ultimate point here is. Should the federal government step into this school districts business??? Or is this just another "bashing" of a backward thinking, bible thumping, Bush voting, red state???
> 
> Was Wisconsin a red state? :idunno: Either way I think you get my point.



The Catholic Church excepts evolution as a viable scientific theory. Since Catholics are not "biblical literalists" it isn't vital to the belief system for the earth to have been created in 7 24 hour days. Genisis and the creation story is taken metaphorically...meaning the belief is that it can be "true" if looked at the way it was intended. THis is where the "what if a day to God was a billion years" types of arguements come to play.

Sorry...back to our scheduled program... :uhyeah:


----------



## rmcrobertson

These "State's Rights," arguments have a long, and in many cases ignoble, history in this country. Unfortunately, the Federal Government--at which level those pesky things like the Bill of Rights obtain--has had to step into all manner of "local," issues. They've had to enforce voting rights, guarantee civil rights, crack down on local corruption when local cops are infested, and a whole host of other "interferences," including environmental regulations, employment and housing laws, etc. etc. 

And they also do set standards in education, in large part because it is from the Feds that the Almighty Dollar cometh. Funnily enough, ranchers and sheep farmers, people living in flood plains/fire zones/hurricane areas, dam and highway builders, contractors and local pols who want a slice of the new sports megaplex, and a whole long list of others never object to the Feds stepping in to award money. 

But let the government desegregate the military, or step in to stop lynchings, or guarantee everybody's right to an equal education, or set rational standards for teaching kids, and oh my! They're poking into my bidness.

Incidentally, the Feds generally do not get into local business unless they absolutely have to.

And Wisconsin simply proves that yahooism is not the special property of the South.


----------



## michaeledward

I was just reading the 'Daily Outrage' on the Nation's website. It was good to get the blood boiling. But, best of all. ... was this:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/giraffe1.htm

Enjoy.


----------



## Melissa426

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If this premise is true, then the issue is more about people not believing the 'right' information, as opposed to their 'unbelief'.
> 
> Mike


You got it.

Melissa


----------



## Makalakumu

Tgace said:
			
		

> Was Wisconsin a red state? :idunno: Either way I think you get my point.



Wisconsin was a blue state.  "Bush Bashing" is an interesting way to describe the argument...considering our President's beliefs fall neatly in line with the group of people in question.  Is this "bashing" warrented?


----------



## kenpo tiger

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> First, ideas aren't being repressed. Pseudoscientists are free to express themselves as much as they want, and people are free to read (and often pay lot's of $$$$ for) their ideas. A quick perusal of the Internet or the nonsense sections of your local library and bookstores should suffice to support that. Public schools, however, have a very important, even critical, responsibility to educate our children. The decision to NOT present "alternative ideas" is not equivalent to repression of those ideas. It's the school's responsibility to teach that PI = 3.1415926.... because it produces correct results. It is NOT the school's responsibility also teach that PI = 3 (because it's in the bible) or PI = 3.146264 as advocated by supercrank Ralph Rene http://www.rene-r.com/circle_squared.html, who has quite a following among hyper-conspiracists.
> 
> Second, the real question should be: What's right with astrology? The answer: Nothing. Astrology is pure bunkum that has no basis in reality. It is exactly like creationism in that respect, and yet, there are millions of people that believe in it, including groups that would like to have it taught alongside astronomy in public schools. Astrologers in this country, fortunately, don't have the political power that their creationist counterparts have.
> 
> More ideas that we could teach in science class:
> Phlogiston Theory
> Aetheric Vacuum
> Hot Comets
> Electric Stars, which is loosely associated with Velikovskyism
> 
> The list is almost literally endlless, and every cranky idea out there has it's supporters. We should only teach what has been *demonstrated *to work, and that is what we do (not well enough, unfortunately). There's no need whatsoever to teach that which doesn't work.
> 
> I want to emphasize my use of the word *demonstrated* above. That's EXTREMELY important. In fact, it's paramount. Demonstration is irrelevant to belief and point of view. As martial artists, that's something we should ALL be familiar with.


Hmm.  So ----- the school district here on Long Island which not only banned but destroyed books it *demonstrated* to be disturbing was correct, according to your logic.  (That's Island Trees, folks, and it happened back in the 60s or early 70s).  I guess we're not completely immune to the fundamentalist insanity here in the East after all.  Maybe this isn't scientific demonstration, but I do believe that one of those books spoke to Darwin and evolution... 

Peach!  Thanks for the link.  Very interesting, and I do agree that Astrology is good for a laugh here and there.

Where's Herrie in all this mess?


----------



## rmcrobertson

Hmmm. According to the just-expressed standards, any book that is felt to be disturbing or in any way violating of somebody's moral standards, is scientifically proven to be worthy of burning.

Science does not rest on feelings. It does not rest on a sense of moral violation.

The theses fundamental to evolution are demonstrable; the observations and experiments are repeatable; the results do not depend on individual biases. The theses fundamental to creationism are NOT demonstrable; there are no repeatable observations and experiments to back them up; it does indeed matter what the individual believes.

This doesn't mean it's wrong, or inferior, or any such thing. It means it ain't science.

One continues to be a bit--disturbed--by the general lack of knowledge about the basics of science, as well as the skimpy understanding of some very basic, extremely important ideas about empiricism, religion, and humanist thought.

It's a shame more folks don't attend catholic schools, which do a very good job of instilling all these things. It's a shame we've let public education collapse like this.


----------



## Nightingale

The Roman Catholic Church officially accepts evolution.  Most Catholic schools teach evolution.  Some don't, but they don't teach creationism either.  Usually, if they don't address evolution, they don't address any kind of origin of life theory at all.


----------



## kenpo tiger

Nightingale said:
			
		

> The Roman Catholic Church officially accepts evolution. Most Catholic schools teach evolution. Some don't, but they don't teach creationism either. Usually, if they don't address evolution, they don't address any kind of origin of life theory at all.


That's very interesting.  One of my friends is a religious Catholic and she told me the other day that a lot of the fire and brimstone we *think* is the official stance of the church really isn't  -- that after my mentioning that I am considered by Catholics to be going straight to Hell because I'm not.  She said that it wasn't what she was taught nor does the church teach that.  However, I'd like to know _why_ the church accepts evolution and why it's taught, since it does seem to be in opposition to what Catholicism is.  *tiger looks around for certain monkeys and heretics to spring from the bushes*


----------



## michaeledward

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> However, I'd like to know _why_ the church accepts evolution and why it's taught, since it does seem to be in opposition to what Catholicism is.


I can only offer a guess in response to this question ... but, it could have to do with the overwhelming amount of evidence available. 

Seems to me that Galileo Galilei was imprisoned because he proposed that the universe was not earth-centric. This was contradictory to the teaching of the bible. But, once you can show people that the planets (wanderers) have phases, the explanation that the solar system (at least) is sun-centric is hard to dispute.

I think that if the Pope continued to have people killed for speaking such things (in the presence of evidence), he would have made the church obsolete. 

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away. Perhaps someday, the fundamentalists pushing creationism will marginalize themselves. One of the issues is how much damage do they do before then.

Mike


----------



## qizmoduis

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Hmm.  So ----- the school district here on Long Island which not only banned but destroyed books it *demonstrated* to be disturbing was correct, according to your logic.  (That's Island Trees, folks, and it happened back in the 60s or early 70s).  I guess we're not completely immune to the fundamentalist insanity here in the East after all.  Maybe this isn't scientific demonstration, but I do believe that one of those books spoke to Darwin and evolution...



You're going to have to explain how you arrived at this conclusion, because it makes no sense to me.  Nothing I posted could be reasonably seen to support book banning because a book feels "disturbing".


----------



## loki09789

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Hmm. So ----- the school district here on Long Island which not only banned but destroyed books it *demonstrated* to be disturbing was correct, according to your logic. (That's Island Trees, folks, and it happened back in the 60s or early 70s). I guess we're not completely immune to the fundamentalist insanity here in the East after all. Maybe this isn't scientific demonstration, but I do believe that one of those books spoke to Darwin and evolution...
> 
> Peach! Thanks for the link. Very interesting, and I do agree that Astrology is good for a laugh here and there.
> 
> Where's Herrie in all this mess?


Most 'book banning/burning' that occurs is because of literary ignorance because too much is read into the text or people aren't even reading the book.  That can be 'fundamentalist' from a philosophical stance of any kind - not just christian types.

In the main, you will find teachers in schools laughing at the 'banned books' that are put on lists by moral organizations.  Schools usually select books because of the skill/age level appropriateness of the difficulty, the content lends itself to teaching the skills that teachers need to see being used/possibly link to other subject areas in that grade (Social studies is doing American history so ELA covers American Lit...), and they are 'appropriate' for a broad community base/diversity.

I would love to be able to teach Tom Clancy novels, but the general educational community doesn't recognize the literary significance of the work on the average (and I am not tenured to push it harder ).

Again, this issue of creationism in the school isn't a censorship or replacement issue - it really isn't even a 'science class' issue because the schools are free to set up the curriculum as they see fit.  In all honestly, I imagine there are even school districts in Wisc that can already say that they have it covered because of the way they are teaching global studies/ancient civilizations and such.....


----------



## heretic888

"It's one thing to interfere with a person's beliefs. But it's more unsettling to disturb the very foundations and props that got the beliefs up and running in the first place." Alan Campbell

Heh, I love anthropology --- one of the many areas where creation mythology should be appropriately taught. Note it is not a biology classroom.

Oh, and on a side note, I'm gonna go with Ken Wilber on this one...

1) If a religion makes empirical claims about the empirical world, they should be put to the test. If they say the world is on the back of a big turtle, the world was created in 6 days, the planet is a big ol' egg that came from Vishnu --- then put those to the empirical test. Now, you are free to believe them all, of course, but if'n they fail the empirical test (which they all have) then you can't claim they are supported by good science.

2) If a religion makes personal claims about individual spiritual experiences --- and claims these experiences are _repeatable_ --- then they should be put to the phenomenological test. If they say doing this practice will result in this satori, chanting this prayer in such a way will generate this flash, this meditation will disclose this Reality, then put it all to the test. 

Now, religion by and large has been shown to be a big load of dookey as far as a point 1 is concerned. But, in point 2, certain religious strands (Transcendental Meditation, Zen practice, Christian contemplative prayer, Sufi mysticism, and so on) have overwhelmingly given the scientific method the one-two.

If you wanna mix up religion and science --- then point 2 is your best bet. Point 1 is a friggen' dead end. Sorry.


----------



## PeachMonkey

heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, in point 2, certain religious strands (Transcendental Meditation, Zen practice, Christian contemplative prayer, Sufi mysticism, and so on) have overwhelmingly given the scientific method the one-two.



If I'd realized that you would bring up Transcendental Meditation as an example of "scientifically proven" religious practice, my good man, I would have looked at you with a bit more skepticism.

Speaking of skepticism:

http://www.skepdic.com/tm.html


----------



## Cruentus

Couple-a things...

#1. Contrary to popular B.S., it is actually against the Catholic Church doctrine to condemn ANYONE to hell...that would be considered God's job.

#2. There is nothing about evolution that is "against" Catholic doctrine. This all depends on how one interprets scripture. Genesis is not taken literally by the Catholic belief.

#3. Before anyone decides to state any further misconceptions regarding Galileo, read my post regarding it here a little ways down the page: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5653&page=13&pp=15&highlight=Galileo

There...now have fun.


----------



## Makalakumu

> Tulisan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #3. Before anyone decides to state any further misconceptions regarding Galileo, read my post regarding it here a little ways down the page: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5653&page=13&pp=15&highlight=Galileo
> Paul, if you have time, could you PM me the sources for that information on Galileo?  I'd like to see them and see if they are good enough to use in my science classes.  It would be interesting to present an alternative point of view.
Click to expand...


----------



## Satt

Thanks Paul. That was a really good post. I appreciated that. I especially like the part about how "science tries to explain how things work, and the church tries to explain why things work." IMHO if everyone would stop trying to prove themselves right over everyone else and just try try to help prove each other's theories, we might just get somewhere in science and belief systems together. As far as school goes, I still think they should worry more about "life skills" (finding a job, money management, etc..) over why or how the universe was formed. Again IMHO.


----------



## loki09789

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Couple-a things...
> 
> #1. Contrary to popular B.S., it is actually against the Catholic Church doctrine to condemn ANYONE to hell...that would be considered God's job.
> 
> #2. There is nothing about evolution that is "against" Catholic doctrine. This all depends on how one interprets scripture. Genesis is not taken literally by the Catholic belief.
> 
> #3. Before anyone decides to state any further misconceptions regarding Galileo, read my post regarding it here a little ways down the page: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5653&page=13&pp=15&highlight=Galileo
> 
> There...now have fun.


Be careful with that idea in #1 and #2.  There are different organziations under the Catholic blanket that are just as 'fundamentally passionate' about their ideas and values.  The diocisine or Non Order community is generally as you describe it, but if you were to ask Judist (YOODIST) Order priests, Fransican priests.... there might be just as hard line a POV as people are ascribing to 'Fundamentalists.'  The other thing to remembe is that there are Orthodox Catholics that would argue tooth and nail about seemingly trivial practices to Diocisine/Roman Catholics.

The "Universal Church" has its own internal factioning to deal with as well.

I wouldn't worry about this thread becoming a Catholic bash fest though, the target right now is the Christian fundamentalists....


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Heh, I love anthropology --- one of the many areas where creation mythology should be appropriately taught. Note it is not a biology classroom.
> 
> .


 
Amen, put the topic of creationism into an Anthro elective.  It is an appropriate scientific format and a way of presenting the 'multiple theories/models' as the Superintendent mentioned he wanted to see in his district.

The sticking point for many of the criticisms I have read here hinge on the idea that creationism MUST be taught in a biology type science class to satisfy the Fundamentalist 'agenda' (actually it MUST replace is the 'agenda').  Yet, this is a fabricated issue in regards to the article and thread starter.  Each district is free to set up the curriculum, and there is no specific mention of creationism being a requirement in the hard science curriculum.  That is the most objective way that I can view the information and form an educated analysis without injecting too many of my own personal bias.....oops how scientific of me .


----------



## rmcrobertson

"Life skills." Sigh. By all means, let's reduce the world students live in to something even smaller--that way, the Creationist types can have even freer rein, and capitalism can run forth with even less check.

Incidentally, I was taught all that stuff. Back when evolution was simply taught in biology classes as the Way Things Are, and creationism appeared as the quaint, outmoded superstition it is.

Apparently, the rise of unreason is directly tied to the rise of impracticality in education.


----------



## qizmoduis

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The sticking point for many of the criticisms I have read here hinge on the idea that creationism MUST be taught in a biology type science class to satisfy the Fundamentalist 'agenda' (actually it MUST replace is the 'agenda').  Yet, this is a fabricated issue in regards to the article and thread starter.



Yes, actually this IS the agenda espoused by the creationists and the ID'ers.  This isn't even remotely a fabricated issue.  They are most emphatically NOT satisfied when various mythologies are placed alongside one another in a neutral academic atmosphere.  You REALLY need to do some research into this subject.  I've been following it for quite a few years, and I can tell you that you are 100% wrong on their motives and their objectives.


----------



## heretic888

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> If I'd realized that you would bring up Transcendental Meditation as an example of "scientifically proven" religious practice, my good man, I would have looked at you with a bit more skepticism.
> 
> Speaking of skepticism:
> 
> http://www.skepdic.com/tm.html



Meh, TM was a bad example --- and it really doesn't address the point I was trying to make. TM is too caught up in the New Age "meditation is great for stress and your hormones!" stuff --- i.e., an almost wholly materialistic approach to a transcendental practice, ironic as it sounds --- to really be that useful.

Still, there is some good research and data here and there. By no means is it all good science, and the researchers definately ignored negative repercussions that can occur from meditative practice (something many people don't seem to know too much about). But, this isn't all-or-nothing here.

More validated, accessible examples would be the research devoted to Zen practice.


----------



## PeachMonkey

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Meh, TM was a bad example --- and it really doesn't address the point I was trying to make. TM is too caught up in the New Age "meditation is great for stress and your hormones!" stuff --- i.e., an almost wholly materialistic approach to a transcendental practice, ironic as it sounds --- to really be that useful.



It also doesn't help that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is an insane abusive cult leader.


----------



## raedyn

But the REAL question is - will this thread ever die?


----------



## RandomPhantom700

raedyn said:
			
		

> But the REAL question is - will this thread ever die?


Took a while, but the thread's finally starting to tangent from creationism in biology classrooms to Transcendental Meditation and cult leaders.  The unravelling has begun.


----------



## loki09789

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Yes, actually this IS the agenda espoused by the creationists and the ID'ers. This isn't even remotely a fabricated issue. They are most emphatically NOT satisfied when various mythologies are placed alongside one another in a neutral academic atmosphere. You REALLY need to do some research into this subject. I've been following it for quite a few years, and I can tell you that you are 100% wrong on their motives and their objectives.


You REALLY need to understand that contextually, the article and the decisions are NOT what you are discussing when you mention the grand scheme of fundamentalists to take over the world....but I am.

Use to go to a fundamentalist church.  I was told that eastern Meditation practices 'let in the devil' and were wrong.  I was told that as long as I was 'saved' once as an act of choice that no matter what I did after that moment, I was forever 'saved' even if I committed murder.  I lived it from the inside for a few years - I know that there is an evangelical 'mission' in fundamentalism - thus the idea that they should spread across the globe.  Generally speaking, the dynamics of 'those people' were no different from any other group:  Majority fell somewhere in the middle with the extremists at the ends and in smaller proportion - just like a union meeting, social club, high school....


----------



## PeachMonkey

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, the dynamics of 'those people' were no different from any other group:  Majority fell somewhere in the middle with the extremists at the ends and in smaller proportion - just like a union meeting, social club, high school....



While the picture you paint here is very sweet and reassuring, Paul, this comfortable, middling majority of fundamentalists is not the shrill group that is trying to dictate a religious agenda in education, the media, and politics, and in particular, the issue of biological creationism.


----------



## Tgace

No different from any other special interest groups. The fringes get the attention simply due to their extremity.


----------



## PeachMonkey

These fringes do more than get attention, however... they aggressively campaign to destroy the progress civilization has made in science and education.


----------



## raedyn

The fringes get more attention because they are the ones making the noise, generally. The silent majority in many cases just don't care near as much as the fringes on either side.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Thrad not dying; thread evolving.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The sticking point for many of the criticisms I have read here hinge on the idea that creationism MUST be taught in a biology type science class to satisfy the Fundamentalist 'agenda' (actually it MUST replace is the 'agenda').  Yet, this is a *fabricated * issue in regards to the article and thread starter.  Each district is free to set up the curriculum, and there is no specific mention of creationism being a requirement in the hard science curriculum.  That is the most objective way that I can view the information and form an educated analysis without injecting too many of my own personal bias.....oops how scientific of me .



Paul, while you are being true to the Socratic method of picking apart this article, I think that you are failing to see the background information regarding this issue.

I don't think this myopia is helpful in understanding what is actually happening socially on a larger scale.

Your word choice, "Fabrication" is completely invalid when the larger picture of the literature is examined.  Check out some of the other literature that has been posted.  Read a little of the stuff by Ken Ham.  Check out the Institute of Creation Research.  

There is an obvious agenda espoused by Fundamentalist Christian Groups and this agenda seems to have gained political will power...

We'll see what happens...


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> You REALLY need to understand that contextually, the article and the decisions are NOT what you are discussing when you mention the grand scheme of fundamentalists to take over the world....but I am.



The Fundamentalist Agenda in regards to this issue, when informed by a larger body of literature then the article, is NOT to take over the world.  It is to weaken evolution (and science in general) so that a _literal interpretation of the Bible_ becomes more valid.

THAT is the big picture and this case happens to fall neatly into that picture.


----------



## heretic888

Gee, kyosa, and you haven't even brought up the horrid atrocities committed by missionary groups throughout South America and Africa yet either.

Did you know the Inquisition is still active in some parts of the world??

Strange, but true. Sad, but true.


----------



## rmcrobertson

The good part of the, "long result," to borrow again from Raymond Williams, is that unreason is slowly, slowing losing. 

Of course, then we can get on to the other minor problem--the way "reason," all too often, really speaks for nightmares.


----------



## kenpo tiger

...my boyfriends are back and there's gonna be trouble...

How _did_ you get onto TM and that tangent?

All this talk about the Fundamentalists and their agenda has made me think (uh oh) about whether we all are playing right into their hands by making such an uproar over this topic.  They got us talking about creationism and their point of view, didn't they?


----------



## heretic888

> How did you get onto TM and that tangent?



It was a slight side issue pertaining to the relationship (if any) of "science" and "religion".


----------



## loki09789

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> While the picture you paint here is very sweet and reassuring, Paul, this comfortable, middling majority of fundamentalists is not the shrill group that is trying to dictate a religious agenda in education, the media, and politics, and in particular, the issue of biological creationism.


No the 'middling' group is not who is pushing the agenda...that is my point in the long run.  The smaller extremist factions are the ones doing it.  And, quite honestly, those extreme wings of fanatics are not going to get the approval/support from the 'middling' to accomplish their goals, therefore I am not too worried about the 'grand fundamentalist scheme' to take over the country, teach creationism as 'truth' instead of evolution or any other 'agenda.'


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The Fundamentalist Agenda in regards to this issue, when informed by a larger body of literature then the article, is NOT to take over the world. It is to weaken evolution (and science in general) so that a _literal interpretation of the Bible_ becomes more valid.
> 
> THAT is the big picture and this case happens to fall neatly into that picture.


Yes, the elementary teacher/mother and her lawyer/husband, their neighbor/doctor and his nurse practitioner/wife that live in the strongly christian community my school district....are all going to shed their good paying jobs that provide food, home and quality of life (not to mention a sense of doing 'gods work' or personal fulfillment) for themselves and their children in order to join the new order......

If I was going to worry about any issue that has a serious impact, negatively or positively on education I would be looking at "No Child Left Behind" myself.


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Gee, kyosa, and you haven't even brought up the horrid atrocities committed by missionary groups throughout South America and Africa yet either.
> 
> Did you know the Inquisition is still active in some parts of the world??
> 
> Strange, but true. Sad, but true.


This idea reminds me of why things like separation of church and state became an issue.

These types of attrocities occur/occured primarily when the religious body is also a political power/trade power....  Given enough time, governments, using scientific efficiency and techonology will trump historically 'religious' attrocities easily - and in half the time!


----------



## heretic888

Oh, "reason" has certainly had its share of historical and moral bungles --- as Robert pointed out before. But, they still pale in comparison to those of the theocracies.

This assumption of yours, I believe, seems to be relying on an insistence that "human nature" is a so-and-so way or that "political institions" are "naturally" a so-and-so way. Both of those assumptions are devoid of any basis in reality.

I would personally suggest picking up something by Jurgen Habermas for a more accurate point-of-view.


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oh, "reason" has certainly had its share of historical and moral bungles --- as Robert pointed out before. But, they still pale in comparison to those of the theocracies.
> 
> This assumption of yours, I believe, seems to be relying on an insistence that "human nature" is a so-and-so way or that "political institions" are "naturally" a so-and-so way. Both of those assumptions are devoid of any basis in reality.
> 
> I would personally suggest picking up something by Jurgen Habermas for a more accurate point-of-view.


I may not have taken the time to support my assumptions with citations, but I think that some of the other points in political threads (The Hawaii occupation for example, even discussions about Manifest Destiny/Native American treatment) are already there anecdotally to back up my point.

I wasn't making any comments about politics or human nature actually.  That is an assumption on your part.  I was theorizing that now that religion has lost its clout as a political power over history, the future 'attrocities' like you were referring to will be done by government bodies - and done with greater efficiency than before due to scientific efficiency.


----------



## PeachMonkey

loki09789 said:
			
		

> ...therefore I am not too worried about the 'grand fundamentalist scheme' to take over the country, teach creationism as 'truth' instead of evolution or any other 'agenda.'


 I certainly hope you're right.  I think it takes vigilance to prevent these sorts of minorities from doing real damage.


----------



## loki09789

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I certainly hope you're right. I think it takes vigilance to prevent these sorts of minorities from doing real damage.


Yup, vote, lobby, run for office, participate in local government....the basics.  Remember that you already identified why I am not all that worried - minority of the 'those people' group again.


----------



## Makalakumu

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I may not have taken the time to support my assumptions with citations, but I think that some of the other points in political threads (The Hawaii occupation for example, even discussions about Manifest Destiny/Native American treatment) are already there anecdotally to back up my point.
> 
> I wasn't making any comments about politics or human nature actually.  That is an assumption on your part.  I was theorizing that now that religion has lost its clout as a political power over history, the future 'attrocities' like you were referring to will be done by government bodies - and done with greater efficiency than before due to scientific efficiency.



Whether the government is a theocracy or a secular state, science is inheritly involved in atrocity.  Science and war are intrinsically tied.  Those with the best science, win.


----------



## Makalakumu

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I certainly hope you're right.  I think it takes vigilance to prevent these sorts of minorities from doing real damage.



Do not be so certain that you are dealing with a "minority" group.  Take a look at the numbers of people in the Christian Coalition and other groups like that.  Karl Rove estimates that 80 million Fundamentalist Christian voters reside in the US.  And this number is growing!  

The fastest growing denominations in the US are the charismatic conservative nondenominational "christian" churches.  These are the churches where people are "speaking in tongues" or are "slain by the spirit", these are churches whose services specifically utilize methods of altering consciousness in order to bring about a spiritual experience.  This personal relationship with Jesus or God that Fundamentalists are talking about is intrinsically tied to these experiences. 

Therefore, I don't think that this is a situation where time will eventually burn out the energy of this group.  I believe that people have got to start taking the evidence out there and DIRECTLY challenging these beliefs.  I believe that as far as science is concerned, these beliefs in question *should * be challenged with the rigor of science and that the results should be widely spread by those who have seen the evidence.  

I believe that a biology teacher is obligated to publically debunk creationism as a scientific theory.  And that this should be done in order to show the historical significance of the paradigm shift that occured in Darwin's time.  I believe that a science teacher's role in the public schools is to be a proponent of enlightenment.


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do not be so certain that you are dealing with a "minority" group. Take a look at the numbers of people in the Christian Coalition and other groups like that. Karl Rove estimates that 80 million Fundamentalist Christian voters reside in the US. And this number is growing!
> .


Growing how, by registered membership? So what. How many 'registered Democrats/Republicans' really are as involved as you are positing 'those people' will be in this political party?  How many of them actually vote?  How many of them only vote 'party interests?'  

I am a 'registered Republican' but I don't sign petitions, lobby, run for elected office...my in laws are members of the NRA and therefore by default members are listed as 'registered members' of that interest group... How much do you want to be that the 'growing number' that you are talking about are 'registered party members' because they didn't even realize that they were registering for that political party when they registered to join a church? That is even if the estimates are based on 'registered voters' and not just a phone poll or something....

This idea of 'growing population' corresponds to the rise in church attendance post 9/11 as well. Back then, people thought it was a good thing that people were trying to connect to a value, community...now it is 'evil?'


----------



## kenpo tiger

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Growing how, by registered membership? So what. How many 'registered Democrats/Republicans' really are as involved as you are positing 'those people' will be in this political party? How many of them actually vote? How many of them only vote 'party interests?'
> 
> I am a 'registered Republican' but I don't sign petitions, lobby, run for elected office...my in laws are members of the NRA and therefore by default members are listed as 'registered members' of that interest group... How much do you want to be that the 'growing number' that you are talking about are 'registered party members' because they didn't even realize that they were registering for that political party when they registered to join a church? That is even if the estimates are based on 'registered voters' and not just a phone poll or something....
> 
> This idea of 'growing population' corresponds to the rise in church attendance post 9/11 as well. Back then, people thought it was a good thing that people were trying to connect to a value, community...now it is 'evil?'


And people were much much nicer to one another right after 9/11. Is it still so? I don't see flags flying from every car I pass these days. In fact, it's far more _de rigeur_ to have those magnets affixed to every available surface of one's vehicle and to wear 87 bazillion different color bracelets -- sometimes bought from sources which *do not* benefit the particular charity each is supposed to. I don't think it was (or is) trying to connect to a value or a community. It's what "they" are doing right now -- and we all have to be like "them" so "they" think we are good people too (sic).


----------



## heretic888

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I may not have taken the time to support my assumptions with citations, but I think that some of the other points in political threads (The Hawaii occupation for example, even discussions about Manifest Destiny/Native American treatment) are already there anecdotally to back up my point.



"Manifest Destiny" was an explictly religious principle.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I wasn't making any comments about politics or human nature actually.  That is an assumption on your part.



Actually, your "theorizing" is based on particular assumptions about "human nature" --- whether intentionally believed or not.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I was theorizing that now that religion has lost its clout as a political power over history, the future 'attrocities' like you were referring to will be done by government bodies - and done with greater efficiency than before due to scientific efficiency.



Okay, this is just silly. You think "religion" has lost all its political power?? Don't suppose you've paid attention to our presidential administration in the past four years??

This might be a shock, but just because a bunch'a French intellectuals started slamming on religion in the 1700's doesn't mean it vanished off the face of the earth in a few decades. It doesn't rule the world anymore, but its still here --- and still motivating people. 

Only this time, it has the tools of reason (including industrial-level technology) to do it.

And, if'n you don't think religiouis attrocities are still being conducted by the mainstream Western powers of Church --- then ask your local anthropologist professor what he thinks about missionary work in Africa and South America. I'd say the wholesale destruction of entire self-contained cultures is about as bad as it gets (second only to literal genocide).

Ta ta.


----------



## Makalakumu

heretic888 said:
			
		

> And, if'n you don't think religiouis attrocities are still being conducted by the mainstream Western powers of Church --- then ask your local anthropologist professor what he thinks about missionary work in Africa and South America. I'd say the wholesale destruction of entire self-contained cultures is about as bad as it gets (second only to literal genocide)



And then one has to take into account the proliferation of American Made Weapons to nasty little dictators who do our dirty work...

But I digress...


----------



## heretic888

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And then one has to take into account the proliferation of American Made Weapons to nasty little dictators who do our dirty work...
> 
> But I digress...



Meh. Off-topic, maybe??

Or, were we on-topic to begin with??


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 1. "Manifest Destiny" was an explictly religious principle.
> 
> 2. Okay, this is just silly. You think "religion" has lost all its political power?? Don't suppose you've paid attention to our presidential administration in the past four years??
> 
> 3. This might be a shock, but just because a bunch'a French intellectuals started slamming on religion in the 1700's doesn't mean it vanished off the face of the earth in a few decades. It doesn't rule the world anymore, but its still here --- and still motivating people.
> 
> 4. And, if'n you don't think religiouis attrocities are still being conducted by the mainstream Western powers of Church --- then ask your local anthropologist professor what he thinks about missionary work in Africa and South America. I'd say the wholesale destruction of entire self-contained cultures is about as bad as it gets (second only to literal genocide).
> 
> Ta ta.


1. It had religious overtones, but was put into action by a political machine.

2. Didn't say "all" in my statement. It has lost its political clout, that is all I said. There is still a separation of church and state in affect. We don't have a national church that gives you a 'higher status' as citizen. Relatively speaking, Mid East religious based political powers are the only true Political/Religious structures that I am aware of.

3. Yup, it is still there, but it isn't stamped on the flag, we don't have a king/President that is appointed 'by God' as part of our national philosophy...so it ihas lost its clout.

4. I totally agree, there are still attrocities being conducted by religiously motivated people. BUT, industry/technology/'scientific' motives have done far worse if you compare the level of attrocity in the modern day and will do more in the future because of 'progress' IMO than religion will.

I don't see people boycotting chocolate even though it has been a HUGE contributor/backer of child slavery issues in Africa. The environmental attrocities that have destroyed cultures, eco systems....have been done in the name of 'progress' supported by scientific/techonological efficiency.

Even when it was 'religious groups' doing the attrocities, it could be said that it was 'political/industrial/reason' motivating the attrocities in part. What exactly were those pesky monks in the southwest doing with those enslaved Native Americans? Making them work on constructing buildings, stockades, brewing beer, making product for trade.....it is very hard to simply separate 'religion' from 'politics' when you are talking about these things BECAUSE Church/Religion were so intertwined in the past. THere is still a link, but it isn't nearly as blatant - or approved of as it was before.

What kind of 'culturalization education' were the Native Americans getting at the Carlisle schools?  That was attrocity motivated by "Americanizing" these children, it may have involved christianity as part of their education, but it was part of making them more 'American' not just 'Church people.'


----------



## loki09789

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And then one has to take into account the proliferation of American Made Weapons to nasty little dictators who do our dirty work...
> 
> But I digress...


Now was that 'religon' that did that or 'science' that created the knowledge of firearms?  What it 'religion' that distributed those arms or was it 'government?'


----------



## Melissa426

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Okay, this is just silly. You think "religion" has lost all its political power?? Don't
> And, if'n you don't think religiouis attrocities are still being conducted by the mainstream Western powers of Church --- then ask your local anthropologist professor what he thinks about missionary work in Africa and South America. I'd say the wholesale destruction of entire self-contained cultures is about as bad as it gets (second only to literal genocide).
> 
> Ta ta.


****OFF TOPIC COMMENT from me****

Darn.
I thought the reason I spent two weeks on a mission trip in a third world country bringing medical supplies and laying pipes to supply fresh clean water to outlying villages was because I didn't see any secular humanists doing it. 
Thanks for clarifying that. 

Melissa


----------



## loki09789

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> ****OFF TOPIC COMMENT from me****
> 
> Darn.
> I thought the reason I spent two weeks on a mission trip in a third world country bringing medical supplies and laying pipes to supply fresh clean water to outlying villages was because I didn't seen any secular humanists doing it.
> Thanks for clarifying that.
> 
> Melissa


 
Rut Row Raggie, don't address the issue of how much attention is devoted to tabulating and exposing the 'evils' but so little credit is given to the good done by religiously inspired and organized groups around the world.....


----------



## loki09789

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Or, were we on-topic to begin with??


Not even close....


----------



## PeachMonkey

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> ****OFF TOPIC COMMENT from me****
> 
> Darn.
> I thought the reason I spent two weeks on a mission trip in a third world country bringing medical supplies and laying pipes to supply fresh clean water to outlying villages was because I didn't see any secular humanists doing it.
> Thanks for clarifying that.
> 
> Melissa


 I'm sure UNESCO, and Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, and UNICEF, and the ACLU, and the Rainforest Action Network, and the Worldwatch Institute, and the bloody *PEACE CORPS*, and dozens and dozens of other organizations, would love your assertion that no secular humanists are out there in the trenches trying to help people.

 But I guess you don't see them because they're not also trying to convert people to your particular skygod while they're doing it.  And because they're actually interested in human rights and modern science in the process.


----------



## PeachMonkey

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Rut Row Raggie, don't address the issue of how much attention is devoted to tabulating and exposing the 'evils' but so little credit is given to the good done by religiously inspired and organized groups around the world.....


 On the contrary, the media makes sure that the nightly news, the newspapers, and the magazines all spend sound bites, interviews, and photo ops with the churches every holiday season so we can see the heartwarming tales of yuppies taking a valuable hour out of their year getting their hands dirty serving dry turkey to people they otherwise wouldn't cross the median to hit with their SUVs.

 And, of course, every time someone from the "Moral Majority" has an issue with some *gasp* titilliating affair during the opening to Monday Night Football, you can be sure that their complaint will be crammed down our throats on every talk show, and the FCC will harrumph, harrumph, harrumph until their puritanism steps up to protect us from our prurient sides.

 This may come as a shock to some people, but religion does good in most people's lives because _that's what it's supposed to do_, and because of that, _that's not really newsworthy_, particularly in our savage media climate where if it bleeds, it leads.


----------



## Melissa426

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I'm sure UNESCO, and Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, and UNICEF, and the ACLU, and the Rainforest Action Network, and the Worldwatch Institute, and the bloody *PEACE CORPS*, and dozens and dozens of other organizations, would love your assertion that no secular humanists are out there in the trenches trying to help people.
> 
> But I guess you don't see them because they're not also trying to convert people to your particular skygod while they're doing it. And because they're actually interested in human rights and modern science in the process.


Just as, I am sure, the hundreds of Christian and other religious relief agencies would be thrill by Heretic's comments that our purpose is to destroy sub-cultures of Africa and South America.

Distributing medical supplies (which is one of the things I did on my trip), gee, is that not being interested in modern science? 

Would you believe it if I told you that myself and my group, although sponsored by a religious organization, didn't with-hold our services and supplies from any individuals who did not express( or  even expressed a definite disinterest) an interest in hearing about our "particular skygod" ? That I didn't even mention the reason my faith unless I was specifically asked?

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## heretic888

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Just as, I am sure, the hundreds of Christian and other religious relief agencies would be thrill by Heretic's comments that our purpose is to destroy sub-cultures of Africa and South America.



While the medical and humanitarian aid these groups are giving is surely to be commended, it does not justify destroying the cultural integrity of an indigenous people.

The very act of "converting", or even of teaching a non-literate, self-sustained culture a written language, is an act of fundamentally changing and controlling the way they think --- their worldview and values --- into a mode that the groups doing the "teaching" find more acceptable. 

It is, at root, a means of controlling 'dem damn Injuns' --- while tacking on material aid as a consolation prize for a shattered culture.

Trust me, this is exactly the kinda stuff that anthropologists find disgusting. For a discussion of this, I would suggest reading _Getting to Know Waiwai_ by Alan Campbell.


----------



## PeachMonkey

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Just as, I am sure, the hundreds of Christian and other religious relief agencies would be thrill by Heretic's comments that our purpose is to destroy sub-cultures of Africa and South America.


 Missionaries' purposes are to help people, and to convert their religion and culture. By doing the latter, you destroy their cultures. I wouldn't feel too badly about the latter... people of all sorts have been doing just that for millennia.  You were probably so caught up in a religious, "I'm being so helpful" fervor that you couldn't possibly realize the damage you were doing.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Distributing medical supplies (which is one of the things I did on my trip), gee, is that not being interested in modern science?


 No, but classic missionary work -- such as that of the lauded Mother Theresa, who doomed millions to poverty and suffering by telling them that their place was to be poor -- that of missionaries who teach abstinence rather than using modern birth control techniques, thus contributing to population explosions and the AIDS epidemic -- *THAT* is not being interested in modern science. That is being part of the problem.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Would you believe it if I told you that myself and my group, although sponsored by a religious organization, didn't with-hold our services and supplies from any individuals who did not express( or even expressed a definite disinterest) an interest in hearing about our "particular skygod" ? That I didn't even mention the reason my faith unless I was specifically asked?


 I do believe you. I also believe that you went down there to help show people the way to your particular skygod, and prayed that people would see your good works and would be led to him/her/them through your works. I refer you to the definition of the word "Missionary":

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=missionary

 I apologize for ganking yet another thread, but the idea that secular humanists don't get out there and help people in the world is so ridiculous that it nearly made me vomit.


----------



## heretic888

To be technical, its not a skygod its a sungod.


----------



## rmcrobertson

Just a note--the career of Col. Oliver North, Marine, Iran-Contra player, political candidate, and now Bible-thumper, is instructive.

While Christian missionaries from all sects have done wonderful things (well, excepting events like the Conquest of the Americas), if I saw Ollie coming, Bible in one hand and '16 in the other, I'd grab the kids and whatever money I could get my hands on right away, and I'd run like hell.

One recommends reading up on his pious citations of Jesus, at a time he was a) selling arms to Iran, b) using the money to help right-wing death squads in Latin America.

And oh yes...because of the Bush admin's policies, American aid workers have been required to lie to the locals about issues like contraception, AIDS and abortion for several years now. 

How's this linked to creationism? Because there's a consistent, clear set of attacks on rationality throughout all these issues.


----------



## Flatlander

*MOD NOTE:*
I haven't seen a post for quite a while that dealt with the actual topic of this thread.  Please, start a new thread, or threads, that specifically deal with the tangential issues that have arisen, and return to the original topic, if there is anything further that anyone has to contribute.  Thank you for your attention.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-


----------

