|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
|
Date: 12/4/2005 1:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
"Afraid that teaching Creation Theory or saying "God" might make your child doubt thier lack of a faith, and possible "save" them?" NO, because the atheists kids KNOW the difference; they know what science is, and that philosophical questions, opinions, supernatural gods and matters of faith do not belong in a science class...PERIOD. Also, Science is not a simple subject, that's why so many people are ignorant of it. The creationists don't seem to know much about how science operates, and I think they are both lacking in general scientific knowledge and neither have given much thought to, nor would they probably want to see the bible subjected to the same scientific rigour as evolution by natural selection has been. What I can’t believe is that they’re even debating whether or not intelligent design and the theory of evolution should be debated in public schools. Elementary and secondary schools are not the place to debate specifics of science. At that level schools should be teaching the currently accepted principles and practices of the scientific community. As I recall, from my high school days, there was precious LITTLE TIME for the fundamentals of biology, chemistry and physics that even the most commonly accepted theories were mentioned in passing. How can a teacher adequately explain how the conclusion of astronomers that the universe began with a big bang when the entire subject of astronomy is given in about a couple of weeks? Often it isn't until one takes a course in astronomy or in college that they learned more of the nuances and ideas behind the Big Bang theory. You get into designers, and gods (which god? what is a god? what is a designer? and all the thousands of creation stories; answer all the inevitable questions; try to imagine all the TIME it would take up and yet people would still be scratching their heads, and nothing would be accomplished! "afraid"??? Evolutionists? I am afraid you have been duped by creationist propaganda.  |
Date: 12/4/2005 1:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
One is based on facts and scientific pricinples, the other is not. Creationism has no place in a science classroom, since it has no science behind it. It belongs in philosophy, mythology or a class about religions not as part of a science curriculum. I'll ask you "who is the designer/creator and where can I find evidence of him?" you can't use any religious texts to answer that, and you need to have proof, so can you answer that? How does someone teach a testable hypothesis about a creator? How does one go about testing the intelligent designer? It's not about being afraid of anything it's about trying to keep a standard of education, this country has been dumbed down enough already without anymore help.  |
Date: 12/4/2005 2:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
I would say that most people's contention against creationist theory being taught in school has nothing to do with their fear of their children being "saved" (remember, many of these objecters are Christians themselves), though a public school classroom is definitely not an appropriate venue for recruiting new Christians, or for other types of religion, or promoting dogmatism in any sense.  |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 2:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
^^^Excellent analysis^^^Base. It's always hard to take two contradicting beliefs work together. Cognitive dissonance results when this occurs and often people will try to merge them together illogically to avoid it. Science and religion don't conflict in all cases, but to assume a harmony between them is only possible through heavy interpretation after the fact. men of learning have realised the inherent contradictions in the texts IF they are taken literally. For example the resurrection is counter to science; walking on water is counter to science, . Is it to be taken metaphorically? Did Jesus in fact make blind men see and cure lepers, or did he not? Did the Exodus occur, did Moses part the sea, did Aaron's staff really become a snake, did Noah actually gather animals and float around in a big boat, or not? My point is once one goes down the metaphor route, how do we know where to stop? The Bible, in as far as I am aware, is not signposted with bits saying "now don't take this part literally." |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 2:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
You know, maybe those things did occur, maybe they were meant to be taken figuratively. The main thing is, those things are a matter of faith and metaphysics, and are outside the rhealm of scientific inquiry. Science is not a discipline of ultimate answers, it's merely a tool that can be utilized to create theories about the world around us based on empirical methods. For that reason, science and faith can coexist quite peacefully. People need to learn that science is not a threat to their religios faith. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 2:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
pardon me^^^^^..."religious" |
Date: 12/4/2005 2:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
I do not see this post as a debate, but a chance foe one person to use others in an effort to throws barbs at one particular person. Of course, it is not working.  |
| Date: 12/4/2005 3:39:00 PM ( Admin ) Where's eddo in this.. Lol. |
| Date: 12/4/2005 4:10:00 PM ( Admin ) Science is full of facts and they are more than just interesting they are necessary. The things that are discovered are real and there are very little doubts about them. However, for me there is a meaning and purpose behind their existence. I may not understand it but I know, and I have more than faith I have personal truth regarding not only the existence of God but his personal intervention in my life. This is a "personal truth" issue and debating the "scientific facts" cannot change they way people feel. There are some undeniable facts in science that cannot be answered, what happened before the big bang and what caused the big bang that brought everything we know into existence and the best one is science has no real explanation of what life is. They can talk about primordial soup and the chances of pre-protines and DNA recombining but in the end they have no idea why all of this "natural occurrence" of chemicals makes up a living breathing and most important thinking life form. The truth is if you examine every molecule of person, bit by bit you will know by the facts what they are made of, down to their very atoms but you may never know that all of it makes up a person and you would never be able to say what their favorite movie was. And further if you believe that mankind could ever know more than a microscopic part of what makes our tiny universe up it's more likely that you have more faith in a less likely scenario than any religion. |
Date: 12/4/2005 4:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
Well Base, I believe that the argument the parents would have is that we are not talking about college, where a student signs up to learn about science alone. We are talking about elementary school, where every class is a new exposure of the world for the child. Of course, I would not advocate a class teaching intelligent design, but it can be mentioned to the child that many people have their beliefs about the universe, because that is reality. For the school to say "this is the only reality" without any other reference to anything else is to give a partial truth of what the world is like and to undermine the beliefs the child's family may hold. I think it ultimately comes down to the parents being involved in the child's homework, and talking to them about it. If they are religious, they can explain to the child in the home about their religion.  |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 4:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Schools don't teach it as the "only reality" they teach it as the current accepted scientific theory. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding a scientific theory. They do also teach the good and the bad with it. No, they don't bring up religion, but they can bring up scientific evidence for holes in the theory. Saying there is a creator isn't a hole in the theory. Intelligent design is religion in disguise, like Mollycat stated, it's metaphysical. No gradeschool teaches metaphysical aspects. If you let a theory with no scientific basis and meets no scientific standards in, then why even have any standards to begin with? In order for something to meet a scientific theory it must meet stringent criteria, ID doesn't do that, it's that simple. Saying that people have different beliefs in the way the world was created, serves what purpose? They're teaching a scientific theory, is that a scientific theory or a belief system, what does that have to do with science? And this is generally in highschool where science is science and not a melting pot. What does it do other than appease people, should we lower our standards for the purpose of appeasement? Shall we have disclaimers on everything we teach? And how do you teach a way to test the Creator hypothesis, is there a way to test God? Religion is faith, not fact, if God wanted everyone to know he existed without having faith then he could do that. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 7:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
I believe you don't get what I am saying. First, schools don't say it is "only reality" OR "current theory" to the students. I remember learning this in sixth or seventh grade, and they simply taught it. Period. Kids are taught to believe what they are told by teachers. So in that respect and the omission of other ideas of the world, yes, they are told through implication that this is reality and their is no other. Furthermore, this is simply my view of how some parents probably look at it. I am not advocating ID to be taught. If you read my comment to the end, I say that I think parents should take responsibility in teaching their kids their respective beliefs at home instead of trying to bring it into the school. Even though I see and pretty much agree with your point, I didn't with your argument. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 7:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
They do know it's a theory, that's the whole premise of science, that's basic science right there. Newton's theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of relativity, why must they this time explicitly restate or reteach that, when it's already been taught, that makes no sense to me. The teaching of scientific theory and principles comes before you get to evolution. I was taught it was a theory simply because I was taught the basics of science, if people don't know that, then the least problem here is evolution vs. intelligent design but basic science needing to be taught over. The teaching of scientific theory and principles comes before you get to evolution, and those same principles apply to evolution. |
Date: 12/4/2005 8:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Well you need not worry that teaching religion in school is going to "save" kids or whatever if my country is any indication. Most Irish schools were established by Catholics and have religious education classes and my generation is probably one of the most secular you're going to find.  |
Date: 12/4/2005 8:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 14226
I am not chritian but i do believe in a god, but i am a scientist (officially in two years YAY!) and I believe in evolution and the big bang... and I believe 100% in science, I also believe and know science can be wrong but it appears to be the only system that is more than happy to admit (eventually! lol) it is wrong if evidence arises to contradict current thought. That is why science has earned my trust. Anyway, to get to my point author, I believe in both a god and evolution however I am not afraid that teaching children creationism will taint them or anything like that lol. but i do believe creationism should be kept to church and Religious subjects/studies in school.. just as evolution should be kept to Biology/Science subjects.  |
Date: 12/4/2005 8:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Neither Creation or Intelligent Design are scientific theories, creationists can't seem to accept this. Neither has one scrap of evidence, not to mention they aren't testable, the only thing supporting them so far is ignorance, "I can't work it out, God did it!"  |
Date: 12/4/2005 8:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
heres my response, let your kids decide. easy as that, i went from athiest to agnostic back to athiest all the way over to Christian. come on now, its not rocket science and my parents didn't raise me according to strict catholic rules either.  |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 8:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Doesn't work that way, the scientific method decides what are theories, not kids. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Eclipses brings up a valid point concerning science and theories. Science is willing to admit when it is wrong about something. For years, the Big Bang theory has been the most accepted theory concerning the creation of our universe. However, as science has gained the technology to look further into our universe, and become more understaning of the connection between matter and energy, science has made changes in the theory of how the universe came to be. They are not dramatic changes, but moreso refinements of the original theory. As probes explore further into our universe, then more facts will be added, and the theory of how we came to be will be refined even further. Creationism does not accept new data and change it's teachings accordingly, but holds true to the same teachings which have been written for centuries. |
Date: 12/4/2005 9:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
As I always say..if Christians are so enthused by the idea of creationism being taught in science classes, then let us come to your bible schools and teach evolution  |
Date: 12/4/2005 9:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
Gypsyhawk seems to get what I was implying with this post. I am not saying that Creatinon theory should be the only thing taught in school, but it does absolutely deserve at least a mention along with the THEORY of evolution. There is no factual evidence to support Darwins theory of Evolution, but it doesn't stop schools from selling it as the only theory out there.  |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
lol @ Nanaki. There is a diference between private bible schools and public schools, and of course that difference allows liberties to be taken with the curriculim of what the private schools can teach. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
Two Spirit, this was not an attack on one person. But since I wasn't allowed to respond in the post this statement was made in, I decided to make my own post to address it. Maybe not a debate persay, but i figured it might get heated so this would be the best place for it. |
Date: 12/4/2005 9:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 63194
The only way that intelligent design (just a disguised version of creationism) should be allowed to be taught in school- should be outside of the science wing. It has no place in science. It is infact, mythology. Christians (no offense to anyone) cannot accept that thier beliefs are mythology-factually IMHO. not to say a christian worships a false god- but, ALL concepts of religion are indeed mythology, why would one be mythical if not the other? there is no PROOF that the christian theory is THE truth, thus, it would make no sense to teach it. It should however be offered in a class titled "creationism" that would teach EVERY creation story from EVERY faith. There are also private schools where such conservative parents can send their kids. Why would you teach religious theories in a public school? you cannot, public is not a term that represents any specific kind of person or mindset or belief. I am NOT trying to point fingers, but (given that christians are the ones screaming of ID) christians have tunnel vision, in which they believe all people are 1.)christian 2.) Non-believers. Non-believers are ALL alike. They are all doomed to hell. This kind of mindset to me is narrowminded, and this is why many of them - and I will be sure to say NOT ALL- but many of them simply cannot see past themselves and cannot concieve that anyone would believe differently than them.  |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 63194
My little sister once asked me how it is possible for babies to learn french. I had no idea what she was asking me until she explained that there is no way you can learn that as a baby- you can you learn that? It is just jibberish. Wouldnt they learn how I speak first? Isnt that the only way to speak and make sense? I told her that it is simply a language and in the end the same things can be communicated. But she still did not get it. She asked how it was possible for them to learn french as babies if thier parents were speaking french and were unable to translate to the baby what the french words meant in "normal language" as she put it. So, basically- her mind was unable to realize that in france- french is the language. She that that our way of speaking was normal- and that even babies born into french families needed to be told how to speak french by being told the translations through our "normal language". No offense again to any christians- but the big dudes like Pat Robertson, BUSH, the pope- people like that, have the same idea as my little sister. They cannot understand how things can be different from what they know. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 63194
HOLY TYPO'S |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 14226
Yes eddo, I'm afraid there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
The scientific theory of evolution is the ONLY theory explaining biological diversity. Creation does not belong in school, unlike evolution it has no evidence what so ever and is not testable. There is very much factual evidence in support of evolution, genetics, bone/organ structure, observed mutations. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
I'm interested in what creation has shown so far, I mean other than closing their eyes and saying "no it doesn't" |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
Well then Eddo, let's try this another way. If..if if if.. any modern religion were to ever be taught in school, it should stay in mythology courses. Most people fighting to have these things in public schools want them in science, and it just doesn't work like that. The problem here is that most (and I'll only use Christians as an example) most Christians think scientists are using science as another form of "religion", and that just isn't true. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
Oh and just to clear it up, I agree with what you said about public/private schools and what they teach. I was just trying to be cute because honestly I am soooo tired of "debating" religious topics on USM. I just come in here now because I have no life ^.^ |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
I believe in God, it's my religious belief. I know that my religious belief has no place in a science classroom anymore than the people who seriously believe we're an alien experiment. ID is not a testable hypothesis, it's not a scientific theory, just because I believe in God does not mean that my beliefs are somehow entitled to be in a science classroom when they lack scientific merit. I do not expect to be appeased and lower any standards simply because I have some feeling of entitlement. But, I'll ask again, in order to be taught it needs some basic questions answered. Who is the designer/creator and where can it be found? Where is the scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. Who created the designer? There's just a few questions to be answered. |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 9:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
How can I test the hypothesis of a creator? |
|
Date: 12/4/2005 10:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
You can't |
Date: 12/4/2005 10:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I"m tired but have read most of the comments. Radman I liked your answer.  |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 1:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
The Ohio State Board adopted science standards that permit the discussion of Intelligent Design. On December 11, 2002, the Board voted 18 - 0 for objectivity and academic freedom and against censorship of competing scientific views. The students and teachers are permitted to confront and openly discuss the scientific controversies that surround biological evolution. The Ohio Citizens for Science put up a big fuss about the decision, claiming that the program is really designed to discredit evolution science. From what I read, it seemed that they feared that this program would cause the students to favor Intelligent Design. IF evolution teachings has strong enough ground to stand on, then I don't think the students could be swayed from the teachings of evolution. This program has been adopted in other states such as Pa, WV and a few others.  |
Date: 12/5/2005 2:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 30747
Interesting point. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe anyone has found the "missing link" to connect man with apes yet, therefore Darwin's therory is just that....a therory. Yes, scientifically it looks like we evolved that way but there is so much we don't know yet. So that would make your assumtion correct in my opinion. Why not teach ALL theories in school and let the child decide what to believe? My son is an atheist with a very scientific mind. I am a spiritual Christian. We debate these things all the time and I would hope he would find God in his heart but that isn't something I can put in him. It's something we all find for ourselves.  |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 3:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"Why not teach ALL theories in school and let the child decide what to believe?" What other theories? Name another scientific theory that counters evolution. Creationism doesn't, ID doesn't. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 3:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Rusure, lately America has become a laughing stock in its field of science, namely biology. How will students learn about real science when teachers are feeding them this pseudo rubbish? Next parents will want their children getting taught the earth is flat. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 4:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Why do people say there is no factual evidence to support evolution? Science has already proven that life on this planet far exceeds the biblical timeline. And what is evolution? It is the ability of a species or specimen to adapt to it's enviroment. Just a look at the races of people will show that our species has adapted, or evolved, to fit the part of the world that they oroginally lived in. Other species have shown changes over the thousands of years to adapt to ever changing enviroments. If man lives for another ten to twenty thousand years, then I am sure people will see even further proof of species evolving. There are no scientific facts to the idea of creationism or intelligent design. In fact, parts of the ID "theory" actually goes against the laws of physics. For example, simple matter being changed to complex organic matter. Science in schools is supposed to be the teaching of established theories based on scientific evidence. ID and creationism does not fit that standard. If one looks at the states that are allowing ID to be taught in schools, they quickly see that the states adopting that stance are also states with a high religious presence in government. Virginia does have a high presence of religion in government, especially in the way of big time lobbyists. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 4:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Creationists insist on using the uneducated argument evolution is just a theory, while forgeting creation and ID are nothing more than untestable hypotheses that completely fail to measure up to scientific standards; let alone the "alternative" to evolution. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 5:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
It isn't a matter of "fearing" that students are going to favor intelligent design. The problem is, if you just add intelligent design to the science curriculum as a "competing scientific theory", you are going to confuse students on what a scientific theory actually is, since intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory...a theory, yes, but scientific no. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 7:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
"I know what you mean, Firstborn. Boy I sure am glad YOU'VE never done that before." zzzzip! Good one! High ^5 Nanaki ! |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 7:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Creation stories galore: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html Please read the summation on there.  Just think....when you consider we are the most religious of all industrialized nations, and on top of that, we have invented numerous new religions like 7th Day Adventist, Mormonism, and Scientology. Ya think we should teach Scientology in our Public school classes? Because between it and Mormonism, those two religions are modern examples of how humans can take what is obviously ridiculous ideas, and turn them into religions, and then call them 'truth'. If that can happen today in America, just imagine how easy it was to start a bogus religion back in the Bronze Age. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 8:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
"Why do people say there is no factual evidence to support evolution?" Ignorance. Ignorance of what evolution really is, ignorance of what a scientific theory is, ignorance of science itself. |
Date: 12/5/2005 8:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 63172
Why can't they teach both. The big bang is a "fact" simply because you believe it is a fact. Creationism is a FACT simply because others believe it is. I find it hilarious that some people will call christians hypocrites when they are using the exact same arguments in reverse.  |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 8:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 63172
I also LOVE the way people put Bush in every argument. Especially long winded ones. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 8:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 63194
Some facts have more evidence to back them though. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 9:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Melissa, actually there is sceintific evidence to back the big bang theory, and as I stated earlier, new evidence that is being recorded thanks to Hubble and space probes is causing changed in that theory. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 9:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 63172
Two, it is evidence because it is interpreted as such. To me the Bible is evidence that there is a God. It is the worlds oldest history book |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 9:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 63172
Alot of things that were written off as wrong in the bible have been proven. There was a great flood as described is one example. They have also found artifacts from the Bible. I know arguing this is pointless but I can't resist when I see people insinuating that mans science is more reliable than Gods word. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 9:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Creationism is far from fact, the evidence so far doesn't even support the literal genesis account. You can't teach anti-science in science. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 9:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"I know arguing this is pointless but I can't resist when I see people insinuating that mans science is more reliable than Gods word." Science corrects itself, I still see the gods word calling bats birds, windows in heaven makes it rain and a ridiculous cure for leprosy. By all means if gods word is more reliable, don't use medical science; call a priest when sick as the bible says. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 10:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
but 63712, that's just the mistake that everyone is making! The point isn't that science is more "reliable" than religion. The point is that creationism is not a scientific theory, and to just latch it onto a science class is a misrepresentation of science and is going to confuse students further on what a scientific theory actually is (and people are obviously confused enough. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate). What they SHOULD do is include a discussion on the scientific method that would enlighten students on why evolutionism has reached the status of theory while creationism hasn't (it's not because one is a greater truth than the other), so students can finally understand that what is being taught in the science classroom is not a threat to their personal beliefs. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 2:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 30747
Ya know, I'm fed up with people using the word "ignorance" in debates, as if THEY know all and anyone daring to question...or debate...them are stupid. Anyone closed minded enough to use the word "ignorant" when discribing anyone else with an opinion, or a question or a doubt about anything does not belong in a debate. Maybe some playground where they can make themselves feel superior in thier own infintile way but not in a form such as this. Adults respect the minds of others whether they agree with it or not. They don't go around calling names and claiming anyone with a different point of view is ignorant. LOL It just makes me think they don't have any other valid proof of squat. *shakes head* |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 3:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
I think some are missing a point here. People are arguing that we should not teach ID at all because it has no scientific backing. The thing is, I believe it is a beneficial thing to open up to students the reality of what people in the world believe, but not teach the subject itself. Don't say ID is real, but say in school that there are people who believe this as opposed to the theory of evolution, and perhaps have discussions on it, much like the stories Rusure related. No one has to believe anything, but I think students will be smarter if they are exposed to what is really out there. Teach where the teachings come from. Yes, I agree that such discussion MAY not have any relevance in a science room, but another study group could be effective. Actually, it may be up to the school to decide that; since evolution does fly in the face of ID, one could argue that they are related subjects in that they are competing opposites. But my point is that if there is discussion about where teachings come from and even WHAT evidence supports what, I think the only thing that can happen is that the student is further expanded in awareness. As it is now, most schools cannot utter anything about other ideas besides evolution (as far as I know). Like I said before though, no matter what happens in schools, in the end it is the parents' responsibilities to help the student along and teach them their belief. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 4:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
In Edwards v. Aguillard where a law in Louisiana was enacted that ID must be taught along with evolution "the law did not further "academic freedom," as the law itself stated it was meant to do. Nothing in Louisiana law had previously barred critical analysis of evolution, the Court observed, and so the actual impact of the law was to narrow, rather than broaden, the curriculum... It is an allegedly scientific theory that bears a striking resemblance to religious views. When the government mandates that students be taught such a theory, courts are rightly suspicious. At that point, a court should ask whether intelligent design is, in fact, a scientific theory at all. If intelligent design is not science, then the inference is almost inescapable that the state is impermissibly acting for the purpose of fostering a religious viewpoint." It's not science, it doesn't broaden views, it adds no benefit to a science classroom. And still my questions go unanswered... |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 4:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Ignorance has nothing to do with stupidity. Nanaki answered a question someone posed earlier. If someone says there is no factual evidence for evolution, then they don't know the facts that surround it and are ignorant of evolution by their own admission. Ignorance: the state of being ignorant Ignorant: 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> Hmm yep, he used it correctly. Ignorance of the word ignorance, amusing. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 5:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
"Ignorance of the word ignorance, amusing." That's the first time you've ever made me laugh. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 8:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 63194
Soul drifter- the word ignorance fits well within this debate. It is for example- pure ignorance to assume that the christian theory of ID should be taught in schools. It is that closemindedness that is a result of ignorance. Melissa, I would not consider the Bible to be the oldest historical text- also, the bible happens to be one of the later texts to speak of a flood- as that story happened many times before, in many other beleif systems. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 8:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
LOL at thinker, kettle meet pot. |
|
Date: 12/5/2005 10:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 63194
Firstborn, Love you right to death on here, but are you really making age an issue concerning the impact ones opinion has on the debate? |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 1:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Gyspyhawk, by that reasoning we should teach students some people believe the earth is flat |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 1:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
I dont see what teaching untestable hypthoses in science will achieve, other than confusing and possibly deceiving others. There are many such hypotheses, should they become scientific theories if someone whines enough? Complaining doesn't make it anymore testable. |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 3:46:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
RodTod, We can teach kids that the earth is round, because it is a fact. Evolution, on the other hand, is not a fact, yet it is taught by many schools and by many teachers as just that. You guys talk as if God and science are at odds with each other. If God is real, wouldn't it be true that He created science? So then why would it contridict him? Oh, I know! It doesn't. |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 6:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
I don't know any self-respecting scientist who would confuse a theory with a "fact." People seem to think that a hypothesis's status as a theory detracts from its reliability, when it's really the opposite-- a hypothesis has to undergo multiple experiments, which then must be repeated by other scientists before it becomes accepted as a theory. It's not a theory because it has failed to be "proved." Science isn't the business of proving. It's the business of devising theories that best explain all the available evidence and then testing them for weaknesses. |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 7:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
"It's the business of devising theories that best explain all the available evidence and then testing them for weaknesses."..Mollycat, Suppose I saw a shadow on the wall and I would insist that I know what is causing that shadow on the wall. I could truly believe that this shadow on the wall is caused by a person because a person makes such a shadow. If I decide to build a story according to what I assume this shadow to be, then I am building my story according to the way things appears to be. I may have based my story on some real known facts, but my overall story could very well be wrong. If another person came up with another story based on the shadow on the wall, then can I prove that they are wrong? I could only prove them wrong if I saw the actual figure that caused the shadow. No one was present when the 'supposed' mysterious energy caused the Big Bang to form and to explode which eventually lead to life the way we know it now. No one saw the Big Bang forming, and exploding and dispersing matter all through space. Scientists cannot test this theory in a lab nor in any other valid manner. Scientists use a lot of circumstantial evidence to come to their conclusions regarding the Big Bang. We could use circumstantial evidence and draw conclusions that could send a man to his death, but then later find that the circumstantial evidence wasn't what it appeared to be whatsoever. Scientists built their Big Bang theory upon assumptions, shadows on the wall, and circumstantial evidences, and this leaves much room for other possiblilites. If conclusions are built upon such things, then no one has a right to teach others that their way the only way and all others are false. |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 7:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Eddo, creationism is an unsupported claim. You're right if a god did make the universe it should not make contradicting claims about it, so either genesis is not from the creator, or the creator is a notorious liar. Biological evolution is a fact, in the sense it is always observed in the field of biology. |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 7:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Rusure, what does the big bang have to do with evolution? |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 8:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Rod, Mollycat was explaining what a scientific theory is and I used the well known Big Bang Theory as an example...Sue me.. ;p |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 9:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
Rusure, what you've described is the entirety of science, not just the Big Bang theory. A theory is created to explain what cannot be witnessed directly. Unlike the idea of a creator, which is truly untestable (God is outside of empirical experience. That's why they call it FAITH), there are ways of testing the big bang theory based on what the theory would predict. Since light takes more time to travel to our planet the further out you go, the sky serves as a historical document. The further away an object is, the further back in time it is-- we can thus use this as a way of determining what the universe looked like at different stages. Now, in the first moments of the expansion of matter outwards from that first point, the universe would have consisted of intensely hot plasma, which would eventually cool down and begin to take the shape of stars and planets. This means, that if we look into the sky, we should see evidence of this plasma. Sure, enough, scientists have detected a faint wall of radiation forming the backdrop of the sky. And this is just one piece of evidence that can be used to test the theory-- scientists can also detect the universe expanding, based on the movement of objects in the sky, thus suggesting that everything started at the same point and expanded outwards. Scientists once divised the theory of the earth spinnning on its axis based on the movement of objects in the sky (and they were right). Gallileo also predicted the movement and the position of the planets in our solar system this way. The track record should tell you that this is more than a matter of making up theories out of whimsy. |
|
Date: 12/6/2005 11:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Mollycat, I am not saying that ALL theories are invalid, I am saying that scientists use circumstantial evidence to come up with what they think happened regarding the Big Bang. Regardless, I am not saying that there was not a big bang in the beginning. Actually I believe there was a big bang in the beginning, but I do not believe that it happened without an intellect behind it. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 5:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
I'm saying that ALL scientific theories are devised indirectly. And, while it's possible there's an supreme being behind it, science will never be able to support or disprove it, ever ever. Hence, it's outside the realm of science. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 9:07:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
RodTod, how is the Genisis accout of creation a lie? Can you prove it? |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 9:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Do you have any evidence for genesis? |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 9:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
The evidence shows many billion years passed between the forming of the earth and the first life let alone humans, nor do snakes have the ability to talk as the genesis story has people believe. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 10:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
"Do you have any evidence for genesis?" DUH. The bible. The bible is evidence of the bible, remember? |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 1:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
billions of years is just a theory, and an unprovable on at that. Without having something (anything) that is absolutely verified to be billions (or even millions, heck even tens of thousands) of years old, there is absolutely no way to compare anything else to it and get a similar age. You THINK the earth is billions of years old. Can't prove it though. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 1:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
and the fact that we are here proves that we were created. Everything has to come from something. Now that doesn't prove the genisis account of creation, but it does provide a viable theory of how we got here. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 2:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 63194
viable? - is that a term that makes mythical true? |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 3:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
"nor do snakes have the ability to talk" ..I have evidence that my dog talked. She would say things such as "Mom, Mike, No, etc, and she could say such things that could easily be understood. Certain parrots can talk if they are taught..etc, etc. Who is to say that within the (supposed) 65 billion years that certain animals were smarter than they are today? Can you be positive that they were not? Were you there? Do you personally know anyone from that time period that could have been an eyewitness? |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 3:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
Not to mention Rusure, that it wasn't exactly an ordinary snake. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 9:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
A unproven theory? Ha no its very much fact the earth is atleast 4 billion years old, there IS actually testable evidence for it unlike the 6000 yr claim. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 10:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Making excuses is one thing, backing them up is another. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 10:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
That fact we are here proves we exist, nothing about being created. |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 10:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
"That fact we are here proves we exist, nothing about being created."..I wonder if that is what that pea sized mass thought just before it exploded and threw out all that non-created stuff? |
|
Date: 12/7/2005 10:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
We are formed of pre-existing enegry and matter, created suggests we were made from nothing. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 8:23:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
so where did the "pre-existing enegry and matter" come from. And how can you be sure that the earth is 6 billion years old. Like I said before, without a verifible constant, there is no way to prove that. It's just a theory. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 8:30:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
and who's to say that when God created the earth, he didn't build some age into it? According to Genesis, God created Adam as an adult, so it makes sense that he would create the earth with age already built into it as well. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 8:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
You asked where we came from, and I answered pre-existing matter and energy; before humans the earth is existed. For Uranium-238 to turn to Lead-206 it takes 4.5 billion years, therefore the earth has to be atleast 4.5 billion years to find lead-206. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 8:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Who's to say it wasn't created last week, and we've all been given false memories? |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 9:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
Oh yes rod tod, its much easier to believe in some matrix type theory. geeze |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 9:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 63194
In the matrix, I would totally be "the one" |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 9:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 63194
I just need me a good trinity |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 9:59:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
I agree that before people, the earth existed. But where did that matter come from? How do you get life from a rock? How do you know that it takes 4.5 billion years for Uranium-238 to turn to Lead-206? Have you been around for 4.5 billion years to watch it? Has anyone else? Again, if God created the planet, he gave it age, and that creation would include the Lead-206. More theories... |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 10:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Rod, If only someone could explain to me as to where all that pre-existing matter and energy came from? Either something always was or it had a beginning. Observation, etc, shows that on earth that everything has a beginning and has a 'parent' of some sort. How would scientists know that some supernatural event did not take place in space which caused the pre-existing matter and energy? Evidence points toward the supernatural. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 10:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 63194
Perhaps an easy solution to the whole thing would be that- the earth did not always exist as it does today- perhaps it is a piece of a larger chunk-o-rock. PERHAPS if GOD does exist- the earth is VERY OLD, but history as far as mankind is concerned, is only 6,000 years old (though that is not true, but perhaps as far as the people of the christian god are concerned.... or perhaps, that is how long the christian god has made himself known to man) Maybe god had many trial and errors- so the vessel on which we live is just the same place he kept starting over on, though, I dont think he perfect it yet lol |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 12:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
"Evidence points toward the supernatural. " No, it doesn't. If you 2 are going to use the argument "where did the matter come from?" Then we could just as easily ask where did god come from? But Christians have a way out of that "He just WAS!". |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 12:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
Yes Eddo, they are theories because we can't observe those things directly. Once again, just because something is a theory doesn't detract from its authority. That's rather the whole point of science. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 4:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
"where did god come from?"..Nanaki, Couldn't He had come from the same place that scientists claim the pre-existing matter and energy came from? Where's that? We don't know!! |
Date: 12/8/2005 4:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
I was taking a class in human anatomy. There were strict christians in the class that thought that men have one less rib then women because the bible says that woman was created from Adams rib. That was taught to them by their church. Sometimes the facts that you learn in church aren't correct. Churches should stick to religion and not get into science unless they're willing to become scientists first.  |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 5:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
"thought that men have one less rib then women because the bible says that woman was created from Adams rib"..There are many believers and non-believers who come to their own conclusions, (however ridiculous) because they fail to study to see what is really taught. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 6:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
"Churches should stick to religion and not get into science".. Churches are made up of people..people who have rights to question and to look for answers to "Where did this universe come from? Where did we come from?,etc..There are many people who attend churches who are scientists. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 10:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Firstborn, its called sarcasm. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 10:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Based on the decay rate it would would take 4.5 billion years. Again you're using baseless claims as to what god could've done. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 10:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Rusure, so far there is proof for matter and energy, but not for a god of gaps. |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 10:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Rusure what evidence do you have of this supernatural event? |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 11:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
"so far there is proof for matter and energy, but not for a god of gaps"..Of course there is evidence for matter and energy. It's all around us. We don't need to be an Einstein to figure that one out. .."what evidence do you have of this supernatural event?"..More than what they have for their Big Bang theory.."all matter and energy come from a small mass which exploded and began all things"..Our argument is that this all came from an "Intellectual Energy" whom we call God. We cannot see evidence of anything, anywhere of a chaotic mess causing anything but a jumbled confused mess. What made the beginning so different that it would cause such a splendid world as we have? |
|
Date: 12/8/2005 11:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Baseless claims aren't evidence, what can you not understand? Instead of saying "I don't know", you're saying "God did it". The first is honest, and the second isn't an answer its smoke and mirrors. |
Date: 12/9/2005 7:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
O.K. I do not know where "Christian God" is being used simultaneously with Intelligent Design. From what I have read regarding those states attempting to institute a policy of "teaching" I.D. is a simple disclaimer of the theory of evolution in which the science teacher states a small blurb about there being a school of thought that states that evolution all came about due to an Intelligent Design, and books are recommended for reading to those whom have an interest in FURTHER LEARNING that are not the Christian Bible. That's ALL. There is no rush to get kids to Christ in the public schools. It is solely an impetus to get kids to THINK on their own without having the force-fed curriculum of CURRENT scientific theory as the be-all and end-all of science class. How do we expect NEW and EXCITING DISCOVERIES to be sparked without giving kids the green light to proceed in another thought pattern other than current theories? The science being taught today gives no reason for kids to think beyond the "answers" their textbook provides. As far as all this other "heated" discussion going on: RT'd YOU CLAIM TO BE GOD. Yet you claim God does not exist. Therefore, I can logically infer from that that you do not exist and these comments are nothing but the figment of some poor thinking person's limited imagination. God Bless.  |
|
Date: 12/9/2005 9:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
I claim to be god? Right.. Everyone is their own god in the sense they themselves are the most important person in their own lives and the ones with the most control of it. I don't know what you've been smoking. |
|
Date: 12/9/2005 11:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
Deb, it is misinformative to tell students that ID is yet another scientific theory, because it is NOT. What students actually need to be taught is the difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory like ID. |
|
Date: 12/9/2005 11:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
How do we expect new and exciting discoveries to be made if students don't understand the basic concepts of the scientific method? |
|
Date: 12/10/2005 8:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Rt'd, if you feel that way, then the "g" should not be capitalized. How can "free thinkers" in ANY capacity be stimulated if you hold them down to the constraints of what they are only able to see with their own eyes, and not what they can discern from their own brain? God Bless. |
|
Date: 12/10/2005 9:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 47218
It's not a promotion of "free thinking." It's a promotion of misinformation. |
|
Date: 12/10/2005 6:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
And WAAAAAY back then they thought promoting the idea that the earth was round and not flat as "misinformation". Ideas change due to the atmosphere that permeates the reception of change. All those that dispute the idea of "Intelligent Design," just WHAT IS YOUR OWN free thinking thoughts as to how we are all here, right now, right here in the world we are today? God Bless. |
|
Date: 12/10/2005 11:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Deb, "Intelligent design" does not have evidence; evidence is constrictive. |
|
Date: 12/10/2005 11:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
The misinformation aspect lies not in the concept of intelligent design itself (i.e. everything was created by a superior being), but in the teaching of it as a scientific theory. It's not that the theory (as in the case of the theory of the shape of the earth) is so mind-blowing that it's a controversy, it's that the information that is being pushed to be taught in science classrooms in promotion of the theory is simply incorrect and a misrepresentation of science and is going to muddle students rather than enlighten them. ID is not a scientific theory and it never will be-- it's intrinsically impossible for it to be a scientific theory. Confusing people is not going to open anyone's mind. |
|
Date: 12/11/2005 8:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Oh, for crying out loud. I think you need to research as to just what is being pushed by ID advocates. It is but a one sentence DISCLAIMER stating that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, and that there is a school of thought which responds to the evolutionary theory as having been designed by an intelligent force of some kind and if any of the students are interested in delving further into that, here is recommended reading. WHICH MEANS that a science teacher is NOT TAKING any more than a minute or so out of the regularly instituted curriculuum to give students the opportunity to go beyond the box of what is being taught in school and INVESTIGATE and RESEARCH on their own. Period. THAT"S MISINFORMATION???!!! To encourage kids to think on their own beyond the classroom???!!! Mind police, thought control, intelligence stifled. Yeah . . . those are good things. God Bless. |
|
Date: 12/11/2005 9:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Speaking of doing some research; evolution is a scientific theory, please look up the definition of a scientific theory. There is a big difference between thinking and playing make-believe, teaching them ID which is not a scientific theory is misinformation. |
|
Date: 12/11/2005 1:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
RT'd, there is absolutely not one jurisdiction here in the U.S. of public instruction attempting to TEACH that I.D. is a scientific theory. NOT ONE. That is not what this argument is about -- it is about questioning or allowing for alternative thinking re: the scientific theory that IS TAUGHT, i.e., the evolution theory. PERIOD. God Bless. |
|
Date: 12/11/2005 9:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
The "DISCLAIMER stating that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory," = misinformation. Aside from the fact that there isn't "one" theory of evolution (try a collection of theories about the origin of life and the source of diversity among lifeforms. Which theory are we talking about here?) Evolution isn't "just" a theory. It is a well-supported and highly productive theory that is utilized in many disciplines (a sign of a very strong theory). This statement confuses the concepts of fact and theory in the scientific sense. Science is not about proving facts beyond a doubt-- leave that up to math and logic. The scientific process only works to disprove hypotheses, it doesn't work in the other direction. Therefore *everything* is a theory. When you tell students that something is *just* a theory, you are giving them the false impression that science is about proving things beyond a doubt and that if there is any amount of uncertainty, then a concept lacks credibility. It doesn't work that way. There is always some amount of uncertainty. Its just that some theories are better than others. The second piece of misinformation is the presentation of ID as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory. It isn't. At least, not within the realm of science. So you're telling students that evolution isn't a strong theory and that ID is a possible alternative to it. Not true and not true. Even if you demonstrate weaknesses in evolutionary theory, ID would never be a candidate for it's replacement because it is NOT a scientific theory. The only disclaimer that is appropriate in a science classroom is one that explains why ID is not taught in a science classroom. All else is misleading. |
|
Date: 12/12/2005 9:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
My bad. Let's get rid of that misinformative "just": "Students, evolutionary theories are taught to you in science class, but as with all sciences we are not attempting to prove any facts, but put forth probabilities. As we look at the probability re: evolutionary theory of the ORIGIN OF LIFE, there exists schools of thought that an Intelligent Design was responsible for the earth and its lifeforms. If you are interested in learning more along these lines of thought, here is a book that is recommended reading. Since you are not required in the U.S. public school system to take classes such as Philosophy, Religion, Astronomy, etc. this is the only required class that is going to delve into such things but this is the extent of that delving. . . the rest is up to you." There. Did that take you more than a minute to read? If so, then your public schooling was probably as vague as that DISCLAIMER. God Bless. |
|
Date: 12/12/2005 10:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 63194
I agree with what you are saying Deb, but I do also think that students are NOT discourage from learning on their own. Sure I say let them have recommended reading, so long as it is not specific to any ID theory. |
|
Date: 12/12/2005 6:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
That still gives the false impression that ID is somehow a competing theory with evolution and doesn't clearly distinguish between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory. If you went a step further and said something like the following, I'd be okay with it: "the reason why we don't teach this theory in a science classroom is because it doesn't meet the following criteria that would make it a scientific theory: blah, blah, blah. This is not to detract from its merits as a theory. It's simply an idea that lies outside the realm of science. Science wasn't designed to supply definite answers to metaphysical questions such as the existence of a higher power. It's merely a very useful tool for whittling down the possible answers to a question based on observations about the world around us. The question of whether or not life was created by a higher power is therefore something that we cannot answer in this class. For that, you need to go to philosophy or theology." As for the suggested reading, I think books about the philosophy of science would be more appropriate. Better yet, let's devote a unit to it and make it a requirement. |
|
Date: 12/12/2005 10:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 63194
YES, but, when teaching evolution, Children are likely to ask or wonder what began the whole proccess, that is why they should introduce these other theorys in the class room only by suggested reading. |
Date: 1/4/2006 5:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
I'll bet some "twit" posted this....  |
|
Date: 1/11/2006 3:28:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 52155
you know it! |
|
Date: 1/11/2006 5:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Yep!! And there he is^^ |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
