Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[raedyn]

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]

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]

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]

====================
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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