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:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 676 of 2073 (742926)
11-25-2014 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by NAME OF THE ROSE
11-22-2014 8:47 PM


Re: Belief in science
why must evolution and ID be totally separate? Why can evolution by DNA code changes, not be an engineered process?
It is a good question, if a bit naive. The short answer is, because the evidence is completely contrary to an intelligent designer. In short, the presence of derived characters which serve a different function from the ancestral characters but often not the most efficient design for that character. The question is, if one is intelligently directing evolution, why not do the most efficient design based on the building blocks available? No, the evidence overwhelmingly supports that it it is natural selection which does the directing, not God.
If you have the answer, you are a fool,
If you are a believer, I would be a bit careful with that one. See Matthew 5:22.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by NAME OF THE ROSE, posted 11-22-2014 8:47 PM NAME OF THE ROSE has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 677 of 2073 (742927)
11-25-2014 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by frako
11-23-2014 4:49 PM


How about a compromise, Creationists of any sort get 10 minutes to "teach" their theory in a science class but, they get their 10 minutes at the end of the class and they have to sit trough the whole class before and not bother the students.
I have a better idea.
We alot time in the classroom based on peer reviewed research papers. The percentage of primary publications that use creationism will equate to the percentage of time it is given in science class. That would certainly work for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by frako, posted 11-23-2014 4:49 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by deerbreh, posted 11-25-2014 2:39 PM Taq has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 678 of 2073 (742931)
11-25-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by Taq
11-25-2014 2:18 PM


No compromises. The Constitution is clear. The state cannot establish a religion. Creation dogma is a religion. The only way it can be taught in a state run school is in a course about religion - and then one would have to present all of the major creation myths, not just the Hebrew one. Would actually make an interesting class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Taq, posted 11-25-2014 2:18 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:16 PM deerbreh has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(8)
Message 679 of 2073 (742934)
11-25-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by Colbard
11-25-2014 7:40 AM


Re: Belief in science
I was not talking about this forum, which is about .01 % of my day.
0.01% of 24 hours is 8.64 seconds.
Your profile shows that you post an average of 2.4 messages per day.
That's an average of 3.6 seconds per message. No wonder they're such shit.
Edited by Cat Sci, : added smiley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 7:40 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 680 of 2073 (742969)
11-25-2014 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Pressie
11-25-2014 8:20 AM


Re: Belief in science
Pressie writes:
Luckily for humanity your rules don't mean anything. You're just one of billions. You're not important.
The "rules" of science do work, though. That's why you, as a nobody, are able to communicate with me. Half a world away. On the internet, devised by people who followed the scientitific "rules". Not your rules.
My rules don't discourage individuality or inventiveness, but only the opposite.
You'll also notice that the internet did not evolve by itself. Kapow !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Pressie, posted 11-25-2014 8:20 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 681 of 2073 (742970)
11-25-2014 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by RAZD
11-25-2014 12:01 PM


Re: Belief in science instead of fantasy ...
RAZD writes:
you need to provide some valid rational for people to think your argument is credible rather than self-serving fantasy.
And if that valid rational is valid, but not to the readers, then according to your system it is not valid, and remains invalid until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before.
Is that evolution and progress or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2014 12:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 693 by Larni, posted 11-26-2014 8:30 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 703 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2014 3:44 PM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 682 of 2073 (742972)
11-25-2014 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 673 by Dr Adequate
11-25-2014 12:40 PM


Re: Belief in science
Dr Adequate writes:
..You see, as Percy and I have tried to explain to you, the problem with pretty much all your arguments is that they are so general, so abstract, so vague, that they are also arguments against teaching, believing in, or testing students on chemistry, and physics, and indeed geography. Now, perhaps you are a complete intellectual nihilist and wish to reject all knowledge. But if not, then what you need are arguments specific to the particular kinds of knowledge that you wish to reject..
This would, of course, be hard work, because you would need to acquire detailed knowledge of the subject matter. Which would in fact be self-defeating, because if you had detailed knowledge of the subject matter, you'd realize you were wrong, that creationism is rubbish and evolution is correct. But then at least you'd be trying. As it is, the fact that your arguments are arguments against teaching or learning anything at all makes them look trivially silly to anyone who does what you apparently have not done --- that is, think about them for a few seconds.
Having a whole lot of knowledge is great, and acceptable, but having a little bit of poo in science called the Theory of Evolution and its various offspring is not acceptable.
It is possible to have a perverse observational skill due to a wrong idea in the first place. Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do. It depends on how one interprets the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2014 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2014 11:13 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 689 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2014 11:32 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 702 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2014 2:50 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 709 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2014 4:27 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 683 of 2073 (742973)
11-25-2014 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by NoNukes
11-25-2014 1:26 PM


Re: Belief in science
NoNukes writes:
I'm looking forward to seeing your attempts to support your positions with evidence. Isn't that what you told us you would be doing?
IMO you are looking forward to leaning your unchallenged preconceived ideas into an area which you are sure will never change your mind, but hopefully annihilate the other. You are sealed by your own choices to remain where you are, and your input will be clearly predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2014 1:26 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 684 of 2073 (742974)
11-25-2014 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 675 by deerbreh
11-25-2014 1:54 PM


Re: Belief in science
Deerbreh writes:
Actually, no. Scientific evidence is not subject to majority rule. It stands or falls according to scientific standards of evidence - experimental design, statistical significance, and peer review. No room for voting or personal opinion there.
That answer is part of the evolution/atheist regime. The other half of America does science as well without imbibing swamp stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by deerbreh, posted 11-25-2014 1:54 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2014 11:35 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 699 by Theodoric, posted 11-26-2014 9:25 AM Colbard has not replied

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


(1)
Message 685 of 2073 (742975)
11-25-2014 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Colbard
11-25-2014 11:00 PM


Re: Belief in science
Having a whole lot of knowledge is great, and acceptable, but having a little bit of poo in science called the Theory of Evolution and its various offspring is not acceptable.
Not acceptable to who? Those who do science or those who believe in old tribal lore?
I would suggest that any idea supported by evidence, testing, and successful predictions is superior to old tribal lore whose only claim to fame is a lot of believers.
It is possible to have a perverse observational skill due to a wrong idea in the first place. Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do. It depends on how one interprets the evidence.
No, it does not depend on how one interprets the evidence. Some interpretations are clearly wrong (unsupported by the evidence).
But your real problem is that creationism does not "prove" itself, but must rely on belief, dogma, scripture and other fluff. There's no evidence that can stand up to testing. If there were, there would not be some 40,000 different brands, flavors, denominations, etc. of Christianity alone. If there were some way of testing claims with evidence you would have convergence rather than schism.
In that, religion is the exact opposite of science whether you like it or not.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:00 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:44 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 686 of 2073 (742976)
11-25-2014 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 678 by deerbreh
11-25-2014 2:39 PM


Deerbreh writes:
No compromises. The Constitution is clear. The state cannot establish a religion. Creation dogma is a religion. The only way it can be taught in a state run school is in a course about religion - and then one would have to present all of the major creation myths, not just the Hebrew one. Would actually make an interesting class.
True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by deerbreh, posted 11-25-2014 2:39 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2014 11:30 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 688 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-25-2014 11:31 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 696 by deerbreh, posted 11-26-2014 8:44 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 701 by ringo, posted 11-26-2014 11:20 AM Colbard has replied

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


Message 687 of 2073 (742977)
11-25-2014 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by Colbard
11-25-2014 11:16 PM


More nonsense
True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God.
Nonsense. Just because you see everything through the rose-colored glasses of religious belief doesn't mean others do as well.
There are a lot of folks out there who get along just fine without religion, and to call that lack of religion "a religion" is ludicrous.
It is exactly the opposite, but then that's par for the course as creation science is the exact opposite of real science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:16 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 688 of 2073 (742978)
11-25-2014 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by Colbard
11-25-2014 11:16 PM


True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God.
[citation needed]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:16 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 689 of 2073 (742979)
11-25-2014 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Colbard
11-25-2014 11:00 PM


Re: Belief in science
Having a whole lot of knowledge is great, and acceptable, but having a little bit of poo in science called the Theory of Evolution and its various offspring is not acceptable.
It is possible to have a perverse observational skill due to a wrong idea in the first place. Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do. It depends on how one interprets the evidence.
Besides being childishly silly, that was also a complete non sequitur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:00 PM Colbard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by Larni, posted 11-26-2014 8:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 690 of 2073 (742980)
11-25-2014 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 684 by Colbard
11-25-2014 11:13 PM


Re: Belief in science
That answer is part of the evolution/atheist regime. The other half of America does science as well without imbibing swamp stories.
I was unaware that half of America did science. Where do they publish, the Journal of Imaginary Studies? The Review of Stuff that Colbard Just Made Up? The Bulletin of You're Talking Crap Again, Colbard?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by Colbard, posted 11-25-2014 11:13 PM Colbard 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