|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
According to the NYTs, 2/3rds of Americans believe creationism should be taught along-side ToE.
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey - The New York Times We live in a democratic republic, and moreover parents should have a say in the schools they and the public pay for, in educating their children. If 2/3s of the public want a topic presented alongside evolution, then it's only going to create backlash if those wishes are ignored. IMO, present the factual arguments. Education is not a bad thing. If ToE is so superiour to creationism and ID, then it will be apparent, and if not, then truth is served. On a secondary note, considering by law, evolution is the only theory taught, and that the vast majority of media pumps pro-evo messages and concepts out contiually, I think evos ought to consider that just maybe the reason so many think creationism has some validity is not due to ignorance, blind faith, etc,...but that many of these people are like me, and once believed ToE was unquestionably true, but discovering the many overstatements we were taught to instill that faith in ToE, many of us lost faith, not because of ignorance, but due to more education. In other words, IDers and creationists in general have very little grant money, influence, authority, etc,...and 2/3rds of Americans are not hard-core Bible thumpers. There's a reason creationist criticisms of evolution have been effective, and a big part of it is the criticisms have merit. This message has been edited by randman, 08-31-2005 01:49 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
This is a manufactured controversy. Sometimes you gotta take a step back and take stock of things. I don't believe 2/3rds of Americans are mere dupes. Sorry, but the old there is no issue isn't holding. You want to say it's a manufactured controversy, fine, but it's over in terms of public opinion. The evolutionists lost. It's only going to exacerbate matters if evos try to stop the will of the public being expressed in "their own schools."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Why should we misinform children and hurt their education ? DO the people polled even realise that this is what they are asking for ?
So allowing an alternative theory or criticisms of ToE to be presented is "misinforming them"? It just amazes me that you can say that with a straight face. Education is about presenting data and arguments, teaching kids to think for themselves, not indoctrination. Teaching more views on the topic is not misinformning them, but educating them more fully to the topic at hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yea, I always knew the NYTs was a creationist hotbed willing to print creationist garbage. No credibility whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Personally, I'd just like them to teach all the facts, data, and arguments not supportive of ToE, and force the correction of the vast overstatements used to indoctrinate kids into accepting ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Nuggins, I just saw this, and no I have not posted "regularly" and probably won't post something substantial on this until later tonight.
I am looking into what we can do here to help the victims of the hurricane and, of course, working. I not only have a job but employees that look to my company to meet the payroll so you can make all the arguments you want, but I'll get to them when I get to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Nope. After awhile arguing with some of you guys is like talking to a broken record. I believe the evidence of the Miocene humans indicates at least how bias within the evolutionist community prevents it from properly investigating any "anamolous data" that doesn't fit into their paradigm and dismissing it out of hand.
It is true that more research needs to be conducted to determine if the many reports on Miocene era human remains are correct, but it strikes me that this evidence is so much stronger than "evidence" such as the initial skull of Pakicestus being passed off as an aquatic creature, that evos are showing they don't treat the data honestly. And frankly, that's me real beef with evolutionists. I don't think the use of data is reflective of objectivity. I have listed numerous examples of gross overstatements on the parts of evos, and basically all the evos ever do is put up a lot of spin here as an excuse and don't admit to the seriousness in the abuse and overstatements of data. It's not just Haeckel's drawings, or falsely claiming transitionals, or claiming Pakicetus is a whale even though it shares no fully formed distinquishing whale features at all and is a hooved land mammal. It's not just claiming a phylotypic stage as a fact when it was merely an unproven claim. It's not just listing Neanderthal as a sub-human ape to human link when that was not the case, and continuing to do so in textbooks, educational materials, etc,...for a full 30 years after this was known in the 50s. It's not just the way the evos resort to attacking creationists as a defense of their lack of data. It's the pattern of hoaxes, overstatements, exagerrations, and illogical indoctrination methods that are the problem. It appears to me to be a systemic problem in the way ToE is presented, taught, and believed. It's modern myth-making, and I would say that regardless if ToE is true or not. Some myths can even be true, but myth-making and indoctrination, as evolutionism is imo, is not proper science. Now, you guys like to claim it is real science on the peer-review level. I can point to some areas I feel are stretches such as presenting Pakicetus as a whale, but irregardless, imo the peer-review stuff is inconsequential to the popular religion of evolutionism taught in the schools and presented to the public. What we need are the criticisms of evolutionist assumptions presented along-side of the proponents arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I tell you what. Even though you are arguing for ending separation of Church and State, I'd gladly voluntarily invite you to present evo arguments in a debate with creationists in churches and other places.
You guys need to be honest. Show some kids the hooved canine-looking or rat-looking creature Pakicetus with a large graphic, and then show evos claiming it's a whale, in schools across the nation, and evos would be the laughingstock of the nation or at least the children. It would be good too because evos could then quit relying on overstatements, and if the evo argument has merit, they can win the trust back of people's trust they have lost, such as mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
But here's the thing Yaro. If we start electing school board leaders that will put criticism of ToE into schools, you guys will howl, and some will resort to lawsuits.
So your little argument via analogy doesn't hold up. We hire experts, that's true. We elect officials to govern our schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Nuggin, teaching the facts about ToE is the first step into educating people over it. Right now, there is a lot of disinformatiom associated with how ToE is taught, the data used to present it, etc,...
I would recommend presenting some of the arguments for ID and various creationist ideas, OEC and YEC, and encouraging students to further their own studies on the web. It's called education, not indoctrination, and it's something we should be doing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It'd be more interesting if one of you actually engaged the points raised, but merely distorting my comments to try to bait me to a debate something I never even said isn't going to work.
Maybe you can get Ned to ban me from these threads too, and you can go on and make your arguments, addressed to me, free from my ability to respond?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
u and omni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I think elements, arguments within any creationist theory, that has scientific merit should be taught, and imo, there are some valid scientific arguments within various forms of creationism.
If there are some similar points made in any model, I think they should be presented as well. Let's talk about YECism though I am not a YECer. One testable claim would be we should probably find bones of legitimate giants accompanied with human tools of giant proportions. Well, we do in fact find such fossilized bones. Evos claim they are very ancient, and YECers claim they are not, but what's interesting is how they were predicted by YECism, and thought they should have been predicted by evos as well, it seems from my reading they were not. I think the YEC arguments on viewing "sedimentary layers" from Mount St Helens are interesting. Of course, there are the arguments for a very old earth, but YECers do have other dating methods to disagree with those. We can't really get into all these details here at the Coffee House, but educating kids about the controversy, imo, would be a good thing. If evolution is so much more substantiated, evos should be welcome the comparisons. The fact they do not is telling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So, how come it's only the biological science community that is involved in some sort of suppresive conspiracy surrounding Evolution? I mean, why aren't any other fields of science being accused of such actions? Actually there are plenty of other fields in science accussed and guilty, imo, of suppression of truth. The following is one example. I visited the Smithsonian a couple of summers ago and was eager to show my kids one of the American history museums, not realizing it had changed so much since my youth. It basically sucks now. Well, we visited the energy section and there were several life-sized standing photos of Edison all around. There was even one besides the large exhibit of Niagra Falls power plant. The suggestions was that the Niagra Falls power plant was developed by Edison. They did acknowledge that Edison had a disagreement with "another inventor" and refused to mention his name over which power system was correct. No where in that exhibit did they mention Nicola Tesla's name despite he being the one, not Edison, that designed the Niagra Falls power plant, and Tesla's AC/DC system of electricity is the one we use for the power grid, not Edison's. They did have a small picture of Tesla on the exibit for the induction motor, which Tesla invented, but when they got to radio, they incorrectly claimed Marconi invented radio even though Tesla was the one that patented radio. I cannot but think that an educated outfit like the Smithsonian deliberately is engaging in propaganda in continuing to this day the deliberate smearing of Tesla and denial of his legacy. In Tesla's lifetime, the US Supreme court refused to hear Tesla's patent case for radio until after he died in 1944, and then posthumously admitted Tesla, not Marconi, invented radio. One can only wonder what would have happened if Tesla had the resources that belonged to him, considering we still today rely on his 1st generation technology he developed before the turn of the century, and some of his technology which he demonstrated, seems to be lost or hidden, even today. So here we have a case of historical authorities continuing, imo, to engage in a conspiracy of disinformation in a science-related field. Many feel this is part of deliberate suppression of energy technology in certain sectors. Maybe one day, we will see the scientific community that went along with this as discredited in the eyes of the public as evolutionism is in terms of being considered the sole viably scientific explanation on the origin of life on earth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024