Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 211 of 609 (606598)
02-26-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:32 PM


Re: That pesky evidence thing again
There is more to life than scientific theory. Students should be taught that science does not have all the answers, and that there are religious revelations more than 10,000 years old that propose that creation may not be a completely natural phenomen.
So we need to teach any and all religious revelations that folks bring forth, eh?
How about those that are clearly wrong: the global flood about 4,350 years ago and young earth, for example? Those ideas have gone the way of Thor's hammer and the chariot of the sun in Egypt.
I don't think that information will undermine their scientific careers and I think it will broaden their horizons .
If those religious ideas are taught along side the evidence that shows they are incorrect, I agree that it will broaden their horizons. But I don't suppose that's what you want, eh? You just want them all taught as if they were correct and verifiable.
Better start coming up with some evidence then. That's the way it is done in science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:32 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 212 of 609 (606599)
02-26-2011 9:12 PM


Based on what I have seen so far there seems to be a rather large divide in the creation/intelligent design camps. If it was to be taught in schools, even if it was in a theology class that also taught other creation theories, how would anyone agree in which version, of biblical creation, to teach. There is already a great divide in the different denominations of Christians. I am sure it would be the same with other religions creation theories as well. Who would decide on what version they will teach, which textbook too buy? If we let each school district decide then there might be a lot of things that differ from system to system.
How would this help our children? As I see it , Science and Creation should not be taught in the same classroom. I do feel that High school kids should be taught some basic classes on theology where different creation theory can be studied.

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2011 9:32 PM fearandloathing has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 213 of 609 (606601)
02-26-2011 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by fearandloathing
02-26-2011 9:12 PM


Comparative religion
Based on what I have seen so far there seems to be a rather large divide in the creation/intelligent design camps. If it was to be taught in schools, even if it was in a theology class that also taught other creation theories, how would anyone agree in which version, of biblical creation, to teach. There is already a great divide in the different denominations of Christians. I am sure it would be the same with other religions creation theories as well. Who would decide on what version they will teach, which textbook too buy? If we let each school district decide then there might be a lot of things that differ from system to system.
What you are describing is a comparative religion course. It would examine all pertinent views, and would not select any one view as the TRVTH.
A class like this could not be properly taught by anyone pushing one flavor of religion over another. If they do that it is not teaching, it is preaching.
Comparative religion courses are often taught as Anthropology (I took such a course many years ago). That is the proper place for such a course. Religious Studies courses will most likely be very biased in favor of one religion--they don't have the "view from a distance" perspective found in Anthropology.
But if you let creationists preach a course, you violate the constitution and do a disservice to the students.
That's what creationists want, of course.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by fearandloathing, posted 02-26-2011 9:12 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by arachnophilia, posted 02-26-2011 10:04 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 215 by fearandloathing, posted 02-26-2011 10:17 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 214 of 609 (606603)
02-26-2011 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Coyote
02-26-2011 9:32 PM


Re: Comparative religion
coyote writes:
What you are describing is a comparative religion course. It would examine all pertinent views, and would not select any one view as the TRVTH. ... But if you let creationists preach a course, you violate the constitution and do a disservice to the students.
That's what creationists want, of course.
right. they want their brand injected into schools, and nobody else's. because i think they inherently understand what many of their children end up learning in college:
christian + comparative religion course = atheist.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, even in a short post!

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2011 9:32 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 215 of 609 (606604)
02-26-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Coyote
02-26-2011 9:32 PM


Re: Comparative religion
ah Yes ..comparative religion then. Forgive me as i am not a college educated person...LOL I feel like some type of course should be taught if nothing else than for maybe a little understanding and tolerance to others beliefs... Yes i guess it is a sticky subject for public schools. I guess our founding fathers had it right when they decided to separate church and state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Coyote, posted 02-26-2011 9:32 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by saab93f, posted 02-28-2011 4:50 AM fearandloathing has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 216 of 609 (606605)
02-26-2011 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:09 PM


please splain
10,000 years religious teachings based on revelations in the Bible teach that maybe science will find answers to many questions,
How long has the bible been around?
10,000 years?
Must be a different bible than the christian one.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 4:11 PM Theodoric has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 217 of 609 (606609)
02-27-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:09 PM


we happen to mention that perhaps science does not have all the answers.
Whoever said that science claimed to have all the answers. If it did then it wouldn't be science, it would be religious dogma.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 609 (606611)
02-27-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:09 PM


shadow71 writes:
and were not reduced to robotic christian fundamentalists as many posts by scientists on this board propose may happen if we happen to mention that perhaps science does not have all the answers.
Nonsense. Essentially nobody has said this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 219 of 609 (606665)
02-27-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Theodoric
02-26-2011 10:53 PM


Re: please splain
Theodoric writes;
How long has the bible been around?
10,000 years?
Must be a different bible than the christian one.
Genesis the "J" source goes back to 10,000 BC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2011 10:53 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 4:17 PM shadow71 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 220 of 609 (606667)
02-27-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by shadow71
02-27-2011 4:11 PM


Re: please splain
shadow71 writes:
Theodoric writes;
How long has the bible been around?
10,000 years?
Must be a different bible than the christian one.
Genesis the "J" source goes back to 10,000 BC.
Not likely at all. In fact the "J" sources seem to have a very definite slant towards Judah as opposed to Israel. That would place it as relatively recent, likely sometime after 1000BCE.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 4:11 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 4:32 PM jar has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 221 of 609 (606668)
02-27-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
02-27-2011 4:17 PM


Re: please splain
jar writes;
Not likely at all. In fact the "J" sources seem to have a very definite slant towards Judah as opposed to Israel. That would place it as relatively recent, likely sometime after 1000BCE.
This is way off thread but I will give my source for the answer and then quit. In the New American Bible, The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd edition it states that The Yahwist (J) source was written in Judah in the late 10th century BC while others say that may be additionsthat can be found in thje present "J" text that were added much later to an earlier version.
I don't claim to be an expert so just telling you my source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 4:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 4:40 PM shadow71 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 222 of 609 (606669)
02-27-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by shadow71
02-27-2011 4:32 PM


Re: please splain
shadow71 writes:
jar writes;
Not likely at all. In fact the "J" sources seem to have a very definite slant towards Judah as opposed to Israel. That would place it as relatively recent, likely sometime after 1000BCE.
This is way off thread but I will give my source for the answer and then quit. In the New American Bible, The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd edition it states that The Yahwist (J) source was written in Judah in the late 10th century BC while others say that may be additionsthat can be found in thje present "J" text that were added much later to an earlier version.
I don't claim to be an expert so just telling you my source.
The tenth century BCE would be between 1000BCE to 901BCE.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 4:32 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 5:11 PM jar has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 223 of 609 (606671)
02-27-2011 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
02-27-2011 4:40 PM


Re: please splain
jar writes;
The tenth century BCE would be between 1000BCE to 901BCE
Your right, I got my O's messed up. I apologize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 4:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 5:29 PM shadow71 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 224 of 609 (606672)
02-27-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by shadow71
02-27-2011 5:11 PM


Re: please splain
shadow71 writes:
jar writes;
The tenth century BCE would be between 1000BCE to 901BCE
Your right, I got my O's messed up. I apologize.
No problem, been there and done that.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 5:11 PM shadow71 has not replied

saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 225 of 609 (606732)
02-28-2011 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by fearandloathing
02-26-2011 10:17 PM


Re: Comparative religion
fearandloathing writes:
ah Yes ..comparative religion then. Forgive me as i am not a college educated person...LOL I feel like some type of course should be taught if nothing else than for maybe a little understanding and tolerance to others beliefs... Yes i guess it is a sticky subject for public schools. I guess our founding fathers had it right when they decided to separate church and state.
I would like to disagree somewhat. There is absolutely no room for creationism in science classes. Creationism is not "the other option" - it is superstition and thus has no intrinsic value. As to religious tolerance - Ive yet to understand why beliefs should have a special tolerance required. Political affiliations and hobbies dont have that requirement so why should faith?
Comparative religious classes could have some value as to show how beliefs have evolved and where but they should be regarded as cultural phenomena, nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by fearandloathing, posted 02-26-2011 10:17 PM fearandloathing has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024