8 online now:	LamarkNewAge, Larni, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2

EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

nwr

Member

Posts: 6409

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 2 of 180 (238788)
08-31-2005 2:04 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-31-2005 1:44 AM

Democracy does not determine what is good science.

I don't have any problem with creationism being taught, but not in science classes. Put it in a class on comparative religions class, or in a class on ancient myths, or in a class on contemporary controversies.

This is a manufactured controversy. It's not as if students can't learn about creationism at home or at their churches.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by randman, posted 08-31-2005 1:44 AM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 4 by randman, posted 08-31-2005 2:27 AM		nwr has replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6409

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 26 of 180 (238895)
08-31-2005 8:09 AM

Reply to: Message 4 by randman
08-31-2005 2:27 AM

Re: rhetoric like a brick wall

I don't believe 2/3rds of Americans are mere dupes.

Americans believe in fair play. Because of a massively dishonest public relations campaign, they think that fair play is involved here.

The evolutionists lost.

Long term, the religious right will lose. It will eventually become obvious to most people that there is no science in ID. Once that sinks in, people will realize that they have been lied to by the RR.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 4 by randman, posted 08-31-2005 2:27 AM		randman has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6409

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 79 of 180 (239433)
09-01-2005 8:17 AM

Reply to: Message 62 by randman
09-01-2005 1:47 AM

Re: Yawn.

randman writes:

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.

Why?

Most scientific arguments and elements don't make it to science class. The available teaching time is limited, and we should make the best use of it.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 62 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 1:47 AM		randman has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6409

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 83 of 180 (239444)
09-01-2005 8:53 AM

Reply to: Message 82 by Yaro
09-01-2005 8:40 AM

Re: the truth hurts

I think all truths, emotional, spiritual, etc. can be boiled down to a naturalistic, physical component.

What about mathematical truths?

Cannot there be valuable truths which have no physical component?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 82 by Yaro, posted 09-01-2005 8:40 AM		Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 84 by Yaro, posted 09-01-2005 9:02 AM		nwr has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6409

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 120 of 180 (239616)
09-01-2005 2:34 PM

Reply to: Message 109 by Nuggin
09-01-2005 2:07 PM

Re: Let's vote on the facts?

I would guess that the pope has zero (or less) influence on fundamentalist protestant christianity.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 109 by Nuggin, posted 09-01-2005 2:07 PM		Nuggin has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6409

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display

Message 147 of 180 (239681)
09-01-2005 3:55 PM

Reply to: Message 125 by randman
09-01-2005 2:42 PM

Re: Let's vote on the facts?

randman writes:

In fact, the vast majority of research by evolutionists is not research to validate ToE since they assume it as a given, but they research various areas and apply the ToE assumption to the research.

You demonstrate a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories.

We adopt scientific theories because of their goodness of fit, not because of their "validity". Nobody is researching the validity of the theory of gravity either, nor that of the theory of general relativity. However, any serious problem in fitting the data would be quickly noticed.

We check the validity of observations. That's what the replicability of results is all about. But the requirement for theories is different from the requirement for observations.

If you want to overturn the theory of evolution, then you must either produce a replacement theory which is an even better fit, or you must find incontrovertible data which is such a bad misfit that it cannot be accomodated within the theory.