65% of Americans support teaching creationism in public schools - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kutulu · 02-14-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I was trying to point out that difference between ID and religion. Religion is faith based, ID is based in some evidence. Check out an interesting article on ID evidence in physics at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aege...prfcosmos.html.

Is my sarcasm filter not working today or did you actually post that and believe it?

The article you posted begins and ends with Biblical quotes and offers no actual proof of anything. It waves some scientific facts in front of you and talks about how things would be different if these things were not facts. After that is calculates a probability for this happening and calls it a mathematical proof. Junk science at it's worst.

Quote:

5. The Electromagnetic Force

If the electromagnetic force (exerted by electrons) were somewhat stronger, electrons would adhere to atoms so tightly that atoms would not share their electrons with each other ---and the sharing of electrons between atoms is what makes chemical bonding possible so that atoms can combine into molecules (eg, water) so that life can exist. However, if the electromagnetic force were somewhat weaker, then atoms would not hang onto electrons enough to cause any bonding between atoms, and thus, compounds would never hold together. In addition, this fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force must be even more stringent if more and more elements are to be able to bond together into many different types of molecules.

THE PROBABILITY: Considering the range of electromagnetic force that might have occurred, it is reasonable to say that the probability of the electromagnetic force being balanced at the right level for many thousands of compounds to function for the making of chemical compounds necessary for life, is one chance out of 100.

Rekna · 02-14-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

What kind of rewards are you talking about ? Are the rewards that you and your friends attribute to faith in God, similar ? A belated "happy birthday" to you,
BTY.

Thanks Host,

Rewards in the form of people around me who do amazing things, lead amazing lifes, have amazing fortune. Here is an example our church is 25k in credit card debt. In addition we got a probably eviction notice in one of our buildings so now we need to find a new place with no money and no way to take loans. So our pastor decided to have amazing faith. He wrote down on paper "God I need 50k for the church today" He sent his kids outside to wait for the mail because he new he would get it. Well that day 2 letters came a check for 25 and a check for 26. Nothing else came that day. So our pastor said to God. It's ok God I know you work on your own time so I'll let you be a day late, I expect the money tomorrow" So the next day rolls around and some guy that he doesn't know calls him up and says let's go have lunch. Our pastor says sure. Over lunch the guys says I heard about the church being evicted and I own a construction company. I have a bunch of extra lumber and i'm willing to give it to you along with some labor to help handle it. So they figured out the amount it was worth and it was around 20k in lumber and 5k in labor. Our pastor was amazed God had supplied half of what he asked for! A few minutes later the guy says "I understand the church is in credit card debt" our pastor says "yes" He says "do you know how much?" My pastor "says i'll go find out". He gets an exact number and tells it to the guy. The guy says ok and writes him a check for the full amount.

Now most of you will probably think big deal this is just a coincedence. But when this kind of stuff happens all the time you stop believing in shear coincedence. Or maybe you think it is a lie (which it isn't, our church now has the money and lumber).

I have seen amazing things from christian people, and while so many of you frown on christians you should really get to know some of them.

Someone made the comment that most scientists have read the bible but most christians have not studied science. My question is how many scientists have studied the bible and church? Simply reading the bible means nothing. Christianity is so much more than the words in the bible.

Rekna · 02-14-2005, 08:48 PM

For those of you who asked here are my degrees.

BS in CS
BS in Math

Now i'm working on a MS/PHD in CS with a focus in scientific computing.

Now to address some of the things people have said (or more specifically assumed I said).

I did not say teach creationism or teach ID. No I said if you teach evolution then make sure you teach it as a theory and if there is any evidence against it present it also.

I have not done a lot of studing on this topic itself (from either the creationist or evolutionist point of view). I actually know more from the evolutionist point of view. But was recently exposed to some information that argued the earth was young. That was the information I posted. My pastor is snail mailing me the powerpoint now which might take some time to get here. When I get it i'll do my best to post the evidence he had in his presentation.

Again I stress, I am not saying teach creationism. I am saying teach evolution as a theory because that is what it is a theory. Today it is being taught as a fact. What happens if a year from now we discover something and we realize we were wrong but yet we said this was a fact.

Lebell · 02-14-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

My question is how many scientists have studied the bible and church? Simply reading the bible means nothing.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have, as did my ex.

We both have training in the hard sciences as well pretty extensive church/bible training (she has an associates degree from the Denver Catholic Biblical School. I believe the Associates was through Iliff School of Theology, but I'm not sure.)

Suave · 02-14-2005, 09:15 PM

This is a semantic argument that I'm sure many of you will disagree with, but science is pretty much just another form of religion. I do not support the teaching of creationism in schools, but at the same time I felt the need to posit my belief of science as another, more universal form of religion.

hannukah harry · 02-15-2005, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

For those of you who asked here are my degrees.

BS in CS
BS in Math

Now i'm working on a MS/PHD in CS with a focus in scientific computing.

Now to address some of the things people have said (or more specifically assumed I said).

I did not say teach creationism or teach ID. No I said if you teach evolution then make sure you teach it as a theory and if there is any evidence against it present it also.

I have not done a lot of studing on this topic itself (from either the creationist or evolutionist point of view). I actually know more from the evolutionist point of view. But was recently exposed to some information that argued the earth was young. That was the information I posted. My pastor is snail mailing me the powerpoint now which might take some time to get here. When I get it i'll do my best to post the evidence he had in his presentation.

Again I stress, I am not saying teach creationism. I am saying teach evolution as a theory because that is what it is a theory. Today it is being taught as a fact. What happens if a year from now we discover something and we realize we were wrong but yet we said this was a fact.

CS is not near the same as a hard science. programming and physics, biology, etc. are incredibly different, especially in their methodology. in programming you have an outcome you want and program what you need to get it. in science, you make your outcome based on the "programming" that is already there. (probably not the best analogy)

and evolution is a fact. so it should be taught that way. how exactly it happens is still being determined (just like we don't know yet the mechanism for gravity but gravity is still a fact). these contradictions to evolution you want taught aren't contradictions to it. if something were discovered that proved that gene mutation had nothing to do with evolution, then gene mutation would not be taught to kids as a mechanism by which life evolves. i suspect that most, if not all, of the 'evidence' you're planning on supplying us with can and will be easily refuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

This is a semantic argument that I'm sure many of you will disagree with, but science is pretty much just another form of religion. I do not support the teaching of creationism in schools, but at the same time I felt the need to posit my belief of science as another, more universal form of religion.

whether it is just a semantic argument or not, it's wrong. religion is based on faith (blind belief). science is based on observation. i believe in science (and have faith in science that is beyond my current knowledge) because i can drop an apple and see it fall (repeatidly, accelerating at the same rate each time), because i can turn on my computer and type this response to you, because i can listen to the radio and hear a news story about something happening on the other side of the world that they heard about through a telephone call or on tv. other than bore me on a saturday morning, god hasn't done anything that i can observe (and i wouldn't hold god responsible for the boredom, damn rabbi). so there's a big difference between the two.

Superbelt · 02-15-2005, 04:20 AM

Rekna, I spent 12 years in Catholic school with a period each day for education in the bible and the Catholic faith. So, here is another natural science major who can say, Yes, I have studied the bible and my church.

So, again, how many true scientists, the ones who have degrees in the biological and earth science and other natural fields, are there who are pushing ID? Considering the utter lack of knowledge that most ID advocates in my local paper (I live near the infamous Dover School District), on here and on all the ID websites that answer is "not many". The leaders and followers of ID, by and large exhibit a startling lack of knowlege of what scientific theory, evolution and even the general discipline of science really are.
You may have your religious beliefs. But when it comes to what we teach our children, leave it to people who actually spent time in more than one Basic Biology class during their college education to decide what we teach our kids when it comes to evolution.

Rekna · 02-15-2005, 07:06 AM

Harry, my specialization is scientific computing. In scientific computing we work with all the hard sciences simulating them. Currently my research falls under a group that simulates accidental explosions using many different "hard science" methods. My PHD work is basically along the lines of Math & Science for CS.

As for those of you who spent years in a catholic school, i'm glad the school was able to teach you what you needed. Because I have spent my entire life studing the bible and only recently have I felt like I had the slightest clue, but yet I still feel like I know nothing about it.

There is one truth I have learned throughout my life that holds to everything and that is "The more I know, the more I know I don't know"

Superbelt · 02-15-2005, 07:29 AM

I found I learned the most about the bible in religion class when my nuns and priests would give us historical perspective for the bible.
Learning the cultural norms of the hebrews at the time of Moses and the factional battles of the early christians before they put together the several dozen book NT out of the several thousand possible documents taught me alot about how humans and their personal values clouded the core message and altered dramatically what the NT could have been.
When you get that, the actual words IN the bible matter less.

I encourage you to take a late Roman History and Medieval History class that has at least a partial focus on the advent and development of the Christian religion at your university if you have the chance.

Suave · 02-15-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

whether it is just a semantic argument or not, it's wrong. religion is based on faith (blind belief). science is based on observation. i believe in science (and have faith in science that is beyond my current knowledge) because i can drop an apple and see it fall (repeatidly, accelerating at the same rate each time), because i can turn on my computer and type this response to you, because i can listen to the radio and hear a news story about something happening on the other side of the world that they heard about through a telephone call or on tv. other than bore me on a saturday morning, god hasn't done anything that i can observe (and i wouldn't hold god responsible for the boredom, damn rabbi). so there's a big difference between the two.

Religion was originally an explanation for observed phenomena. Science is also an explanation for observed phenomena. One still has to believe in science and have faith in the method, regardless of how widely accepted it is. Science is not what makes the universe work; it is only a conceptual framework through which we attempt to understand it. In essence, it serves the purpose that religion once fully served.

smooth · 02-15-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Religion was originally an explanation for observed phenomena. Science is also an explanation for observed phenomena. One still has to believe in science and have faith in the method, regardless of how widely accepted it is. Science is not what makes the universe work; it is only a conceptual framework through which we attempt to understand it. In essence, it serves the purpose that religion once fully served.

lol, what the hell are you doing in here, Feyerabend?

hannukah harry · 02-16-2005, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Religion was originally an explanation for observed phenomena. Science is also an explanation for observed phenomena. One still has to believe in science and have faith in the method, regardless of how widely accepted it is. Science is not what makes the universe work; it is only a conceptual framework through which we attempt to understand it. In essence, it serves the purpose that religion once fully served.

gods are originally an explanation for observed phenomena. religion is orginally a framework for societal control.

there are major differences between science and religion. religions says 'whoah, scary lightning! gods must be angry!' science says 'woah, lightning, i wonder what causes it and how it works and what it is.' and then they go and explore it and test it. and then it gets tested over and over agian to see if they were right. that doesn't happen with religion, it's just 'god did it.'

Superbelt · 02-16-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

The grand canyoun. How could a river so small create a gash so big? It would be one very deep but narrow gash, not a huge one. There was at one time much more water running through there. Over 300 ancheint unrelated cultures have stories of a massive flood. The oldest known tree is around 4300 years old. Guess how long ago the bible says the flood was, 4500 years ago. The oldest known language is around 6000 years old, guess how long ago the bible says the earth was created, 6800 years ago.

The earths magnetic feild is decreasing. That means as we go backwards in time it was increasing. It would have been way to strong 2 billion years ago for any life to exist, we would have been living in a catscan machine.

The earths rotation is slowing down, ever heard of the leap second? If we go backwards 2 billion years ago we would have been spinning so fast that nothing would have stayed on the earth. Everything would have just flown off.

Population studies done on the world population is consistent with the flood model. That is the population today could have easily been created from 8 people 4500 years ago.

In the speed of posting I missed this. I want to address these false beliefs of yours Rekna. I cut out the stuff that was already adequately addressed.

Grand Canyon Why is there such a big hole for such a small river?

This is a cross section of the Grand Canyon. Notice the MANY different rock groups that make up the Canyon. Some are very easily weatherable, like the limestones, others are much less weatherable, those are the shales and the schist and granite.
A very long time ago the Colorado River was at the Kaibab Limestone level (the top) It started weathering down. Initially it cut a narrow channel, but as it went down farther the rock walls started to break up. Why? Several reasons. One is the mechanical weathering process of freeze-thaw. At night the water in these rock groups would freeze and push on their joints in the rock group. With enough of this freeze-thaw the rock face will crumble and wash into the river. The other major way is unloading. Try this. Go stand in a doorway with your arms to your side. Now raise your arms until they hit both sides of the doorway. Put on pressure for about two minutes. Now walk out of the doorway. Do you feel your arms want to lift up? That is the same process. When rock is removed through the channel the rest of the rock doesn't have the resistance against it that it used to have. Now the rock wants to push itself into the stream channel. This is caused by pressure from behind it.
Now, lookng at the cross section you see some faces are vertical and some are slanted. The vertical ones are much more easily weathered. It just all gets weathered away. The slanted ones are much more durable and take more time to wash out so they will stick out more than softer layers above them.
Where is all the stuff that got washed into that tiny stream? Over hundreds of thousands of years anything that has constant water rushing over it will get weathered down and washed down the stream. That's just what streams do.

Flood stories through history:
MOST ancient cultures have flood stories. You are right. But you have to remember that ancient people had to live near large rivers to survive. All cultures were born at the side of a major river. These people didn't have the Weather Channel to tell them when a flood was coming. And most people didn't have the luxury to learn to swim. One culture that has no flood disaster story are the ancient Egyptians. Why? Their flood was a regularly scheduled event and they needed it for productive soil recharge.

Oldest things:
Actually the oldest living tree is a nearly 5000 year old Bristle Cone Pine in eastern Nevada.
But the oldest living thing is not the Bristle Cone Pine. It is the Creosote bush. You can find these in the Mojave Desert. The oldest known Creosote is nearly 12,000 years old.

Earths magnetic field
The field reverses itself periodically. North becomes South etc. In the last 15 million years the planet has about every 250,000 years. We are in the middle of a reversal right now. During a reversal the electromagnetic field loses about ten percent of it's full polarity value. Then bounces back up.

For a lot of your arguments you discuss rates as we see them now and don't seem to understand that nothing is static on this planet. Just because we are decreasing now doesn't mean we have always been decreasing. It goes back and forth.
Just becuase the earth's rotation is slowing down at a certain rate right now doesn't mean it has always been that way. Spin a top and watch it slow down. Initially the slowdown is very gradual but towards the end the slowdown gets very rapid. That is our situation.

You display a startling lack of knowledge of the natural sciences. You REALLY should consider taking some undergraduate classes in these fields to understand what is going on around you.
I am also very eager to hear your arguments from this powerpoint presentation. If they are anything like what I just tore apart, it should be a fun time.

madsenj37 · 02-19-2005, 08:30 PM

Preface: I went to a Catholic College Prep. I am an agnostic who likes the idea of Deism . I am not religious at all and I am scared of the religious right in this country.

Intelligent design and evolution are not incompatible theories. Christians are allowed to believe in evolution if they think God got the ball rolling, i.e. if it was his plan all along for evolution to occur. We cannot prove either theory to the extent it is more than a theory, so why not teach both?

raveneye · 02-20-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

We cannot prove either theory to the extent it is more than a theory, so why not teach both?

Because only one of them is science, the other is religion.

drakers · 02-20-2005, 07:09 PM

Creationism is completely a religious view, not for public schools. Hey, if the parents want kids to see that view, teach them at home or go to church; but it is a separation of church and state issue.

madsenj37 · 02-20-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Because only one of them is science, the other is religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drakers

Creationism is completely a religious view, not for public schools. Hey, if the parents want kids to see that view, teach them at home or go to church; but it is a separation of church and state issue.

Evolution explains how we came to be humans. It does not explain how life came into existence. The two theories attempt to explain two different parts of our existence. There does exist evidence that supports Intelligent Design, making it more than just religion based. Evidence that supports Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity and Specified Complexity .

The_Dunedan · 02-20-2005, 09:59 PM

^^
Both of which have been soundly refuted elsewhere in this thread.

raveneye · 02-21-2005, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Evolution explains how we came to be humans. It does not explain how life came into existence.

On the contrary, evolution does explain how life could have come into existence. This is a very active field of scientific research, called "prebiotic evolution," "biochemical evolution," or "abiogenesis."

If you are seriously interested in this area of science, I would recommend finding a good textbook on biology and evolution, and looking into some of the current journal articles on the subject of biochemical evolution.

Here's a recent study that you could start with. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

kutulu · 02-21-2005, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsenj37

Preface: I went to a Catholic College Prep. I am an agnostic who likes the idea of Deism . I am not religious at all and I am scared of the religious right in this country.

Intelligent design and evolution are not incompatible theories. Christians are allowed to believe in evolution if they think God got the ball rolling, i.e. if it was his plan all along for evolution to occur. We cannot prove either theory to the extent it is more than a theory, so why not teach both?

ID is NOT a theory. It never has been a theory.

As far as us not being able to prove evolution to the extent that it won't be a theory, it won't happen, not matter how much evidence is discovered. It will always be a theory and it will never be a law. That is not a shot against evolution, it's just the way science works. Gravity will also never become a law, it still doesn't mean it isn't fact.

madsenj37 · 02-21-2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

^^
Both of which have been soundly refuted elsewhere in this thread.

Just because something is refuted, does not mean it does not have some standing. I am interested in ID that has scientific proof, not faith based claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

On the contrary, evolution does explain how life could have come into existence. This is a very active field of scientific research, called "prebiotic evolution," "biochemical evolution," or "abiogenesis."

If you are seriously interested in this area of science, I would recommend finding a good textbook on biology and evolution, and looking into some of the current journal articles on the subject of biochemical evolution.

Here's a recent study that you could start with. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

I stand corrected. You are correct in saying that evolution could explain how we came to be. But, it has not yet shown so. All I have been trying to say is that it is not the law of evolution, it is still a theory at this point. The theory of evolution has a lot more evidence behind it than does ID as well. However, no one has shown me how the two are incompatible yet.

Lebell · 02-21-2005, 01:38 PM

Once again, ID isn't a theory, because there is no scientific way to study it.

As to compatability, they are completely compatable for the exact same reason.

I personally believe that God created the universe and all that it contains, and used the mechanism of the big bang and evolution to do so.

No incompatability. But ID requires faith in some larger power or "designer" and such faith is not in the realm of science.

kutulu · 02-21-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsenj37

All I have been trying to say is that it is not the law of evolution, it is still a theory at this point.

Once again, there will never be a LAW of evolution. That isn't how science works. Your use of the words law theory shows that you do not have a proper understanding of the scientific meanings of the words.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...DF&catID=2

Quote:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

hannukah harry · 02-22-2005, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsenj37

Just because something is refuted, does not mean it does not have some standing. I am interested in ID that has scientific proof, not faith based claims.

generally when something has been refuted, it does mean that it has no standing. as far as ID's claims about specific and irreducable complexity, those have no standing and are not worth continually discussing. it's like someone continuing to want to discuss a flat earth even after pictures of a spherical earth have been shown to them... a waste of time.

and as lebell said, there is no scientific proof for ID, you have to take it all on faith. and that just isnt' science.

hannukah harry · 03-28-2005, 02:47 AM

maybe this deserves a new thread, but maybe not...

more on the c v. e debate in dover...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...liticsreligion

Quote:

Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town

Sun Mar 27, 5:54 PM ET

DOVER, United States (AFP) - The pastoral fields and white frame houses appear at peace, but this Pennsylvania farm town is deeply at war over teaching Darwin or Christian creationism in its schools.

Photo
AFP/File Photo

Since last year the school board voted to have high school biology teachers raise doubts about Darwin's 145-year-old theory and suggest an alternative Christian explanation for life. The city has since been deeply riven over the issue of separation of church and state.

In January the school board ordered teachers to tell students that Darwinism is not proved, and to teach as well an alternate theory, "intelligent design," which posits that a grand creator, God, is responsible for the development of living organisms.

"Darwin's theory is a theory ... not a fact," the school board declared in their statement to the teachers. "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view," said the report.

The command landed in the sprawling, red-brick Dover high school like a bomb. Biology teachers refused to read it, while around 15 students walked out in protest.

"Reading it sends the message that it is a legitimate scientific idea or theory," said Jen Miller, a biology teacher who is also a church-goer and daughter of a minister.

As news of the dispute spread, the small city of 25,000 found itself the focus of a national battle over Darwinism, creationism and the role of religion in schools.

Around 19 states are experiencing similar fights, according to the National Center for Science Education.

The National Science Teachers Association reported that 31 percent of teachers say they feel pressured to include non-scientific alternatives to evolution in science lectures.

Throughout Dover, a conservative, religious city in the Pennsylvania farm country, the talk is of nothing else, and the subject provokes angry arguments.

In December 11 parents, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), filed a lawsuit against the school board, leading to stormy public meetings and resignations.

The divisiveness now focuses on the election of a new school board from among its citizens.

"Creation is why we are here," said retired teacher Virginia Doll, defending the introduction of religion into the biology classes.

"We have a rather religious town, the God we serve is important in everything we do," she said.

On the other side was clergyman Warren Esbach. "I'm opposed to any group who wants to establish a theocracy. I come from a church who fled Germany in the 18th century for religious freedom," Esbach said.

According to the teachers, the issue arose suddenly, over only a few months last year, in part from a council discussion over the use of a book which some council members called too Darwinian.

"Here we have non-scientifically educated people trying to tell teachers what is scientific and what is not scientific," said Bryan Rehm, one of the 11 plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

With the lawsuit pending, the council members, defended by an organization of Christian lawyers, will not talk about the case.

But pastor and parent Ray Mummert, 54, explained their point.

"If we continue to indoctrinate our young people with non-religious principles, we're headed for an internal destruction of this society," he said.

"Evolution is just a theory and there are other theories," Mummert explained, smiling through his beard.

"There is such a complexity in life, and science wants to hang its hat on a belief that life somehow started -- they say there is no creator, no order ... I believe there is a creator," he said.

Both sides acknowledge the political context of the debate over Darwinism, and the relation to the re-election of staunchly Christian President George W. Bush (news - web sites).

"Christians are a lot more bold under Bush's leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe," said Mummert.

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step.

"It took 30 or 40 years to eliminate God in school, it will take probably 30 or 40 years to get him back. You take a little step first, a little bite, then another little bite and another," said Steve Farrell, a nursery keeper, who dreams of the return to prayer in class.

the part i find most intersting and telling of the people who oppose evolution...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dumb guy in dover

We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said, adding that the school board's declaration is just a first step.

Strange Famous · 03-28-2005, 03:02 AM

you cant deny that creationalism at least has a water-tight internal logic... if for God all things are possible, then anything can be done.

So you can say "well, what about this evidence that the earth is far more than 6000 year old..."

Oh well, God created that evidence to test your faith

etc etc...

I have nothing against peopel being aware of creation muths of various cultures... after all, evolutionalism doesnt really explain the concept of the creation of the universe, does it?

I WOULD have a big problem if these people are only pushing the Jewish creation story... that is basically using the tools of the state as a system of religious indoctrination... in that case the society is a theocracy. If children are to be taught the creation stories of all religions and cultures... fine: whether or not they are scientifically valid it is still worthwhile to study theology. Evolution does have gaps, and the creation myths rely on a tautological argument (God is all powerful and everything is possible for God, therefore God has the power to do all these things and make a 6000 year old earth appear much older, and so on...)... a lot of intelligent people have concluded that extra-terrastial beings played a big part in the population and evolution of life on earth... these theories should be equal footing with the religious creation theories.

raveneye · 03-28-2005, 05:55 AM

My feeling about this is, basically, let them waste their time, money, and effort trying to bring creationism back into the schools. It's a pipe dream, will never be successful, and it keeps them busy doing things that are relatively harmless (nobody is going to be killed or made homeless by this particular political goal).

Plus every time an initiative like this gets passed, it creates enormous controversy and provides a very effective lesson for students about what is and is not science, that they will remember for the rest of their lives.

The courts have beat them back every time, even "conservative" judges beat them back on this issue. They're not going to win it. I say let them continue tilting on this windmill as long as they like. All it accomplishes is to drain them of energy and resources.

Fohur2 · 04-05-2005, 02:33 PM

Rekna,I watched the same video as you. With the pastor high school teacher(we'll atleast he used all the same facts word for word as you).And anyman who calls evolutionalist druggie nazi's is not a man to listen to imo.

Willravel · 04-05-2005, 03:07 PM

Teach creationism in theology class. Teach evolution in science class. Teach 'Grapes of Wrath' in boring, rambeling, crappy book class.

alansmithee · 04-05-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Teach creationism in theology class. Teach evolution in science class. Teach 'Grapes of Wrath' in boring, rambeling, crappy book class.

I think that the best solution is to teach evolution as the means of getting people where we are, and leave out all discussion the origin of life. The big debate over ID vs. evolution seems to me really to focus on the origin of life, as opposed to the manner in which life changed (or didn't change) on earth. Because the evolutionists don't have the answers as to how life came about, and that (currently) cannot be proven false or true, the same as ID. But there seems to be ample evidence to support evolution.

And calling The Grapes of Wrath boring, rambling, and crappy? I've heard some crazy things on this board, but that might take the cake

.

hannukah harry · 04-05-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I think that the best solution is to teach evolution as the means of getting people where we are, and leave out all discussion the origin of life. The big debate over ID vs. evolution seems to me really to focus on the origin of life, as opposed to the manner in which life changed (or didn't change) on earth. Because the evolutionists don't have the answers as to how life came about, and that (currently) cannot be proven false or true, the same as ID. But there seems to be ample evidence to support evolution.

And calling The Grapes of Wrath boring, rambling, and crappy? I've heard some crazy things on this board, but that might take the cake

.

evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. just with the change from the first single cell organism to the diverse life that we know of today. and pepole still have problems with that.

sapiens · 04-05-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. just with the change from the first single cell organism to the diverse life that we know of today. and pepole still have problems with that.

I would push evolution back even earlier than the first single cell organism. Why would it begin there?

Manx · 04-05-2005, 08:23 PM

My understanding is that evolution addresses the origin of life by virtue of electrical events altering carbon molecules (or similar). That it is something that we have not replicated in a lab means little - we also haven't turned an ape into a human, but we can see how the progression existed.

Of course, what was the origin of the carbon molecule? Or the electrical energy? Some would say the Big Bang - but I've never been able to wrap my head around that explanation ... what about BEFORE the Big Bang? As long as God can be considered first cause (whenever and whatever that was), evolution will never suffice. However, ID and/or creationism is not specifically attempting to explain first cause, so they can be discounted as purely agenda driven as long as they are proposed as alternatives to evolution.

hannukah harry · 04-05-2005, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

I would push evolution back even earlier than the first single cell organism. Why would it begin there?

well, i havent' had biology since AP bio in 11th grade, and have only added to that knowledge through what i've read on the internet. but the study of evolution only deals with how life has changed since it it began. not how life began (abiogenisis). technically, you could probably take it all the way back to the development of self-replicating non-life. like proteins, then whatever came next, and next, and next all the way to the first single celled organism. but evolution, strictly speaking, doesn't deal with that (at least as far as i know).

hannukah harry · 04-05-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

My understanding is that evolution addresses the origin of life by virtue of electrical events altering carbon molecules (or similar). That it is something that we have not replicated in a lab means little - we also haven't turned an ape into a human, but we can see how the progression existed.

Of course, what was the origin of the carbon molecule? Or the electrical energy? Some would say the Big Bang - but I've never been able to wrap my head around that explanation ... what about BEFORE the Big Bang? As long as God can be considered first cause (whenever and whatever that was), evolution will never suffice. However, ID and/or creationism is not specifically attempting to explain first cause, so they can be discounted as purely agenda driven as long as they are proposed as alternatives to evolution.

if god is the first cause, that asks the question: where did god come from? i don't consider 'he's always been, always will be" to be a sufficient answer. but that's just me.

alansmithee · 04-06-2005, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

well, i havent' had biology since AP bio in 11th grade, and have only added to that knowledge through what i've read on the internet. but the study of evolution only deals with how life has changed since it it began. not how life began (abiogenisis). technically, you could probably take it all the way back to the development of self-replicating non-life. like proteins, then whatever came next, and next, and next all the way to the first single celled organism. but evolution, strictly speaking, doesn't deal with that (at least as far as i know).

From what some people were saying earlier in the thread, evolution (or offshoots of it) do attempt to state the cause of life. I say ignore that part, and that should be a decent compromise to those who advocate the teaching of ID. If they don't like it, tough. Neither can be proven as the origin of life, so don't give either time. Post-origin, evolution can be proven for the most part, so that should stay. ID (to my knowledge) does nothing to address the issue of how life might have gotten to this state, so they don't have any footing in debating the validity of that part of evolution being in schools.

raveneye · 04-06-2005, 03:55 AM

The origin of life is a valid, thriving scientific field of research just like any other scientific field, and it is entirely valid to discuss it in a public science class. In fact it would be disgraceful not to include the subject in a biology class. Whether or not you include it under the aegis of "evolution" is really beside the point.

As far as the origin of life is concerned, consider the fact that scientists have been able to create life in the lab for several years now. Viruses are now routinely synthesized and used as vectors in gene transfers, on a daily basis. So you could say that through scientific progress, we now know how to create life from nonlife, and it is quite easy if you know how.

There of course is still a lot of controversy about the precise chemical pathways through which this spontaneously happened in the early history of the earth, but it is beyond any doubt that it can happen, in fact very easily under the right circumstances.

ID, on the other hand, is not science. It is completely outside the realm of science, and is completely inappropriate to include in a science class. It has contributed absolutely nothing to scientific knowledge. It is simply a surrogate for creationism.

alansmithee · 04-06-2005, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

As far as the origin of life is concerned, consider the fact that scientists have been able to create life in the lab for several years now. Viruses are now routinely synthesized and used as vectors in gene transfers, on a daily basis. So you could say that through scientific progress, we now know how to create life from nonlife, and it is quite easy if you know how.

To my knowledge, viruses are'nt considered life because they only meet one of the definitions (replication, iirc). Although it's been a few years since i've had a biology class, so my knowledge could be out of date.

Quote:

There of course is still a lot of controversy about the precise chemical pathways through which this spontaneously happened in the early history of the earth, but it is beyond any doubt that it can happen, in fact very easily under the right circumstances.

ID, on the other hand, is not science. It is completely outside the realm of science, and is completely inappropriate to include in a science class. It has contributed absolutely nothing to scientific knowledge. It is simply a surrogate for creationism.

There are many scientists who believe in ID. It is your opinion that it is outside the realm of science, not fact. In either this thread, or another on the subject there were many links giving the scientific basis for ID. That is why I say stick to what is fairly certain to be scientifically accurate (evolution theory post-creation) and leave the rest out.

And honestly, from what I remember we might have spent a whole 2 weeks on evolution in high school, and that was with 2 years of AP classes (bio and chem). IMO many of the nuances required to truly understand the underlying theories can't be covered in classes geared toward high school students, at least if you want anything else to be covered.

raveneye · 04-06-2005, 04:39 AM

Quote:

To my knowledge, viruses are'nt considered life because they only meet one of the definitions (replication, iirc). Although it's been a few years since i've had a biology class, so my knowledge could be out of date.

Your recollection is not accurate. Viruses not only replicate, but they have DNA/RNA that codes for many biochemical processes that are present only in living organisms.

But whether or not you consider them life, the fact that these functional biochemical entities are routinely created in the test tube is certainly pertinent to the debate about the origin of life on this planet. This subject is a scientific subject (whether or not you want to call it "evolution") and it is entirely appropriate to include in a biology class, whereas ID is not appropriate.

Quote:

There are many scientists who believe in ID.

There are in fact very few scientists who believe in ID, just like there are a few scientists who believe just about anything. Scientific consensus is the criterion of what should be taught in public schools, not fringe beliefs.

Quote:

It is your opinion that it is outside the realm of science, not fact.

Yes it is my opinion, which is supported by argument that probably 99% of scientists agree with.

Quote:

In either this thread, or another on the subject there were many links giving the scientific basis for ID.

I saw those links, and my opinion is that those arguments are completely laughable pseudoscience. The core of the arguments are a little number juggling by people who have no knowledge of probability or statistics, followed by some quoting of Scripture.

Quote:

And honestly, from what I remember we might have spent a whole 2 weeks on evolution in high school, and that was with 2 years of AP classes (bio and chem). IMO many of the nuances required to truly understand the underlying theories can't be covered in classes geared toward high school students, at least if you want anything else to be covered.

Two weeks is plenty of time to expose students to the current science regarding the origin of life.

Manx · 04-06-2005, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

if god is the first cause, that asks the question: where did god come from? i don't consider 'he's always been, always will be" to be a sufficient answer. but that's just me.

Assuming there is a first cause, God is first cause. The most basic and underlying definition of God is first cause. You can add on to that things like "he" or "He" or "she" or intention or continuation, if you like, but those are not required properties of god. Without first cause, god (as in the creator of everything that we know) is really nothing more than a possibly nonexistent superior being.

If you prefer the concept of no first cause, then we're dealing with infinity. And I'm not sure what is more difficult to conceive of - infinity or nothingness.

02-14-2005, 09:15 PM	#85 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	This is a semantic argument that I'm sure many of you will disagree with, but science is pretty much just another form of religion. I do not support the teaching of creationism in schools, but at the same time I felt the need to posit my belief of science as another, more universal form of religion. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

02-15-2005, 07:29 AM	#89 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I found I learned the most about the bible in religion class when my nuns and priests would give us historical perspective for the bible. Learning the cultural norms of the hebrews at the time of Moses and the factional battles of the early christians before they put together the several dozen book NT out of the several thousand possible documents taught me alot about how humans and their personal values clouded the core message and altered dramatically what the NT could have been. When you get that, the actual words IN the bible matter less. I encourage you to take a late Roman History and Medieval History class that has at least a partial focus on the advent and development of the Christian religion at your university if you have the chance. Last edited by Superbelt; 02-15-2005 at 07:33 AM..

02-19-2005, 08:30 PM	#94 (permalink)
madsenj37 Still searching... Location: NorCal For Life	Preface: I went to a Catholic College Prep. I am an agnostic who likes the idea of Deism . I am not religious at all and I am scared of the religious right in this country. Intelligent design and evolution are not incompatible theories. Christians are allowed to believe in evolution if they think God got the ball rolling, i.e. if it was his plan all along for evolution to occur. We cannot prove either theory to the extent it is more than a theory, so why not teach both? __________________ "Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

02-20-2005, 07:09 PM	#96 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	Creationism is completely a religious view, not for public schools. Hey, if the parents want kids to see that view, teach them at home or go to church; but it is a separation of church and state issue. __________________ Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!

02-21-2005, 01:38 PM	#102 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Once again, ID isn't a theory, because there is no scientific way to study it. As to compatability, they are completely compatable for the exact same reason. I personally believe that God created the universe and all that it contains, and used the mechanism of the big bang and evolution to do so. No incompatability. But ID requires faith in some larger power or "designer" and such faith is not in the realm of science. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-14-2005, 08:48 PM	#83 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	For those of you who asked here are my degrees. BS in CS BS in Math Now i'm working on a MS/PHD in CS with a focus in scientific computing. Now to address some of the things people have said (or more specifically assumed I said). I did not say teach creationism or teach ID. No I said if you teach evolution then make sure you teach it as a theory and if there is any evidence against it present it also. I have not done a lot of studing on this topic itself (from either the creationist or evolutionist point of view). I actually know more from the evolutionist point of view. But was recently exposed to some information that argued the earth was young. That was the information I posted. My pastor is snail mailing me the powerpoint now which might take some time to get here. When I get it i'll do my best to post the evidence he had in his presentation. Again I stress, I am not saying teach creationism. I am saying teach evolution as a theory because that is what it is a theory. Today it is being taught as a fact. What happens if a year from now we discover something and we realize we were wrong but yet we said this was a fact.

02-15-2005, 04:20 AM	#87 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Rekna, I spent 12 years in Catholic school with a period each day for education in the bible and the Catholic faith. So, here is another natural science major who can say, Yes, I have studied the bible and my church. So, again, how many true scientists, the ones who have degrees in the biological and earth science and other natural fields, are there who are pushing ID? Considering the utter lack of knowledge that most ID advocates in my local paper (I live near the infamous Dover School District), on here and on all the ID websites that answer is "not many". The leaders and followers of ID, by and large exhibit a startling lack of knowlege of what scientific theory, evolution and even the general discipline of science really are. You may have your religious beliefs. But when it comes to what we teach our children, leave it to people who actually spent time in more than one Basic Biology class during their college education to decide what we teach our kids when it comes to evolution.

02-15-2005, 07:06 AM	#88 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Harry, my specialization is scientific computing. In scientific computing we work with all the hard sciences simulating them. Currently my research falls under a group that simulates accidental explosions using many different "hard science" methods. My PHD work is basically along the lines of Math & Science for CS. As for those of you who spent years in a catholic school, i'm glad the school was able to teach you what you needed. Because I have spent my entire life studing the bible and only recently have I felt like I had the slightest clue, but yet I still feel like I know nothing about it. There is one truth I have learned throughout my life that holds to everything and that is "The more I know, the more I know I don't know"

02-20-2005, 09:59 PM	#98 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	^^ Both of which have been soundly refuted elsewhere in this thread.

03-28-2005, 03:02 AM	#106 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	you cant deny that creationalism at least has a water-tight internal logic... if for God all things are possible, then anything can be done. So you can say "well, what about this evidence that the earth is far more than 6000 year old..." Oh well, God created that evidence to test your faith etc etc... I have nothing against peopel being aware of creation muths of various cultures... after all, evolutionalism doesnt really explain the concept of the creation of the universe, does it? I WOULD have a big problem if these people are only pushing the Jewish creation story... that is basically using the tools of the state as a system of religious indoctrination... in that case the society is a theocracy. If children are to be taught the creation stories of all religions and cultures... fine: whether or not they are scientifically valid it is still worthwhile to study theology. Evolution does have gaps, and the creation myths rely on a tautological argument (God is all powerful and everything is possible for God, therefore God has the power to do all these things and make a 6000 year old earth appear much older, and so on...)... a lot of intelligent people have concluded that extra-terrastial beings played a big part in the population and evolution of life on earth... these theories should be equal footing with the religious creation theories. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-28-2005, 05:55 AM	#107 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	My feeling about this is, basically, let them waste their time, money, and effort trying to bring creationism back into the schools. It's a pipe dream, will never be successful, and it keeps them busy doing things that are relatively harmless (nobody is going to be killed or made homeless by this particular political goal). Plus every time an initiative like this gets passed, it creates enormous controversy and provides a very effective lesson for students about what is and is not science, that they will remember for the rest of their lives. The courts have beat them back every time, even "conservative" judges beat them back on this issue. They're not going to win it. I say let them continue tilting on this windmill as long as they like. All it accomplishes is to drain them of energy and resources.

04-05-2005, 02:33 PM	#108 (permalink)
Fohur2 Crazy	Rekna,I watched the same video as you. With the pastor high school teacher(we'll atleast he used all the same facts word for word as you).And anyman who calls evolutionalist druggie nazi's is not a man to listen to imo.

04-05-2005, 03:07 PM	#109 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Teach creationism in theology class. Teach evolution in science class. Teach 'Grapes of Wrath' in boring, rambeling, crappy book class.

04-05-2005, 08:23 PM	#113 (permalink)
Manx Loser	My understanding is that evolution addresses the origin of life by virtue of electrical events altering carbon molecules (or similar). That it is something that we have not replicated in a lab means little - we also haven't turned an ape into a human, but we can see how the progression existed. Of course, what was the origin of the carbon molecule? Or the electrical energy? Some would say the Big Bang - but I've never been able to wrap my head around that explanation ... what about BEFORE the Big Bang? As long as God can be considered first cause (whenever and whatever that was), evolution will never suffice. However, ID and/or creationism is not specifically attempting to explain first cause, so they can be discounted as purely agenda driven as long as they are proposed as alternatives to evolution.

04-06-2005, 03:55 AM	#117 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	The origin of life is a valid, thriving scientific field of research just like any other scientific field, and it is entirely valid to discuss it in a public science class. In fact it would be disgraceful not to include the subject in a biology class. Whether or not you include it under the aegis of "evolution" is really beside the point. As far as the origin of life is concerned, consider the fact that scientists have been able to create life in the lab for several years now. Viruses are now routinely synthesized and used as vectors in gene transfers, on a daily basis. So you could say that through scientific progress, we now know how to create life from nonlife, and it is quite easy if you know how. There of course is still a lot of controversy about the precise chemical pathways through which this spontaneously happened in the early history of the earth, but it is beyond any doubt that it can happen, in fact very easily under the right circumstances. ID, on the other hand, is not science. It is completely outside the realm of science, and is completely inappropriate to include in a science class. It has contributed absolutely nothing to scientific knowledge. It is simply a surrogate for creationism.