Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in Schools
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 116 (6290)
03-08-2002 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Theo
03-08-2002 3:54 AM


Creationism is religious by its very nature. In fact, an Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creationism was ruled unconstitutional in 1981 for that very reason. If you want a religious indoctrination for your child, send them to a private school. You do have that right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 3:54 AM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 4:54 AM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 108 of 116 (6292)
03-08-2002 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Darwin Storm
03-08-2002 4:34 AM


When my tax money is given back to me so I can send my children to private school then I will (hypothetical I don't have any children yet). Your statement that creation is religious in nature is question begging. That's what a great deal of the debate in this chatroom is about.
As well just because something is religious does not mean that it cannot be taught in schools. In two different strings I have referenced Wallace v. Jaffree wherein Justice Rehnquist gives the historical analysis of the first amendment demonstrating that separation of church and state is an artificial construct of the Court starting in 1947 in the Everson case. His arguments are clear enough and basically unrefuted by any legal argumentation to date. So creationism, even if it were only religious in nature could be taught in public schools.
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-08-2002 4:34 AM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by nator, posted 03-08-2002 7:25 AM Theo has not replied
 Message 114 by gene90, posted 03-08-2002 7:27 AM Theo has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 116 (6293)
03-08-2002 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Theo
03-07-2002 10:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
Taking ancient Hebraisms, Hebrew grammer, Hebrew definitions into account when studying an ancient Hebrew document seems like me to be a given. As well literal interpretation of the Bible dictates that metaphor and poetic language are just that. A literalist does not believe that God is a bird when He promised to cover us and protect us with his wings. Your flat circle argument tree argument and kingdoms of the earth argument fall into this. Why would it be that secular scholars of Hebrew disagree with you. As well, the Mishnah is an ancient Hebrew commentary on the old testament which gives great insight into the beliefs and interpretations of the old testament. Why don't these commentators agree with you? The fact is you are taking things out of context and your scholarship is lazy.

No its not lazy Theo...its merely to make a point...if you dont takes the circle/tree/quotation to mean anything more than poetic liberties,i'm ok with that. But then,you just introduced an element of uncertainty in the mix. If you take those quotation to be figures of speech,then why go with the 6 day creation and the global flood and takes those in the literal sense....why not recognize them for what they obviously are...paraboles made up to make a point. Jesus constantly taught using paraboles,so there's clearly nothing wrong with that. Many fields of science tells us that those biblical legends dont make any sense in real life and just couldn't happen. You can reply the usual "godidit" using miracles but thats just an unsubstanciated mythological belief and it has no place in a scientific discussion....and certainly not in a science class in school

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:18 PM Theo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 116 (6295)
03-08-2002 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Theo
03-07-2002 10:18 PM


[QUOTE]A literalist does not believe that God is a bird when He promised to cover us and protect us with his wings.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Then, by definition, he is not a literalist.
He interprets, just like everyone else who reads the Bible.
The problem then remains; who decides what to interpret and what to take things as literal truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:18 PM Theo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 116 (6296)
03-08-2002 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Theo
03-07-2002 10:30 PM


You have no idea what your comments about geologic dating are going to unleash upon you. There are Geologists who have actually performed dating right here on this board. Get ready...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 10:30 PM Theo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 112 of 116 (6298)
03-08-2002 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Theo
03-08-2002 3:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
I believe that both models should be taught in schools with the strength and weaknesses of each. Currently, evolution (macro) is the order of the day and attempts to bring creationism into the schools is challenged in court. Edwards v Aguillard is a good example. Louisiana required equal time but the statute was struck down but in the Case the supreme court acknowledge that creation science was valid. The lawyer who argued the case was Oliver Wendel Bird and he wrote a two volume set that I have recommended in these posts. It is called "Origin of the Species Revisited." It is a thorough exposition of the matter (except a young earth) and prominent evolutionists have endorsed it as being accurate.
To make a short reply long, yes creation science should be taught in schools but along with evolution. Then let the students make up their minds.

Can you please tell me what testable hypothese, potential falsifications, and positive evidence there exists for the "Creation model" (as a Scientific Theory of Creation doesn't seem to exist)?
If the model doesn't have these three features, then it isn't science and should not be taught as science.
I'm all ears.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 3:54 AM Theo has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 113 of 116 (6299)
03-08-2002 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Theo
03-08-2002 4:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
[b]When my tax money is given back to me so I can send my children to private school then I will (hypothetical I don't have any children yet). Your statement that creation is religious in nature is question begging. That's what a great deal of the debate in this chatroom is about.[/QUOTE]
Everyone pays school taxes regardless of their parental status because it it in everyone's best interest to educate ourselves.
quote:
As well just because something is religious does not mean that it cannot be taught in schools.
You are correct. However, since Creation 'science' is based in religion, not science, it has no place in science classrooms. I have no problem with it being discussed in a comparative religion class.
[QUOTE]In two different strings I have referenced Wallace v. Jaffree wherein Justice Rehnquist gives the historical analysis of the first amendment demonstrating that separation of church and state is an artificial construct of the Court starting in 1947 in the Everson case. His arguments are clear enough and basically unrefuted by any legal argumentation to date. So creationism, even if it were only religious in nature could be taught in public schools.
[/b]
But not as science, because it is not scientific in the least.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 4:54 AM Theo has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 114 of 116 (6300)
03-08-2002 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Theo
03-08-2002 4:54 AM


In message 106 I provided a link to the text for the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling and asked that you show us exactly where it calls Creationism valid. Since this does not require you to present a reference (I'm giving you the reference) I figured it would be an easy response. Of course, messages at the bottom of a page are sometimes overlooked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
[QUOTE][b]Your statement that creation is religious in nature is question begging. That's what a great deal of the debate in this chatroom is about.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
That happens to be one of the conclusions from E v. A. If the Court calling Creationism valid makes it valid, then the Court calling it religious makes it religious. (Are we going to use Argument from Authority or let it go? Though I still would like to see where it is called valid.)
[QUOTE][b]So creationism, even if it were only religious in nature could be taught in public schools.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I need to look up your court case but I haven't had the time yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 4:54 AM Theo has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 116 (6308)
03-08-2002 8:44 AM


ok theo
you have stated that creationism is a science. now go into the following threads
"questions"
"animals on the ark"
answer each and every question.
please so not give the predicatable excuse- "i don't know, i haven't studied that" or "i don't know enough about that to give you an answer"
if you don't have an answer find one...
i'll keep pushing this until you give an answer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 1:20 AM quicksink has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 116 (6359)
03-09-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by quicksink
03-08-2002 8:44 AM


--I think those questions are all fine and everything, though I would ask not to ask everyone to go there in every single thread, its a bit arrogant with its abundance.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by quicksink, posted 03-08-2002 8:44 AM quicksink 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