Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   should creationism be taught in schools?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 301 (436599)
11-26-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by whitlee
04-22-2005 6:29 PM


To be or not to be? That is the question
i'm in a competition where i have to work on a debate entitled "should creationism be taught in schools", and i was wondering if anyone has any good points that they could add. i need both sides of the argument.
Creationism should not be taught in public school because it is conforming science to a theological text. Its leading the evidence rather than allowing the evidence lead you.
That said, I see no problem with giving Intelligent Design a fair review on the basis that it is not doing the same thing as creationism does.
In the market place of ideas, making a possible variable intentionally inscrutable is insufferable, IMHO.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by whitlee, posted 04-22-2005 6:29 PM whitlee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2007 7:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 287 of 301 (436608)
11-26-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 6:37 PM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
That said, I see no problem with giving Intelligent Design a fair review on the basis that it is not doing the same thing as creationism does.
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
(Of Pandas And People as it was first drafted.)
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings."
(Of Pandas And People as it was eventually published.)
In the market place of ideas, making a possible variable intentionally inscrutable is insufferable, IMHO.
Well, that alliterates beautifully, but I have no idea what it means.
I guess that makes it unintentionally inscrutable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 6:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 8:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 288 of 301 (436609)
11-26-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Beretta
11-26-2007 11:20 AM


Re: Churches Fail
I don't think anyone wants religion taught in the schools.
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." --- Phillip Johnson, founder of the Intelligent Design movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Beretta, posted 11-26-2007 11:20 AM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 289 of 301 (436612)
11-26-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Beretta
11-26-2007 10:59 AM


Re: huh?
Also, can science teachers have equal time in the churches?
They don't need it - kids are in school all week.
That was not the question. The question is whether you think alternative explanations and presentation of different interpretations are equally valid there as well. It's about being fair and balanced isn't it?
... the scientific evidence for design.
... the scientific evidence for design.
Which according to you is
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Beretta, posted 11-26-2007 10:59 AM Beretta has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 301 (436619)
11-26-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Dr Adequate
11-26-2007 7:33 PM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
(Of Pandas And People as it was first drafted.)
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings."
(Of Pandas And People as it was eventually published.)
I don't see anything wrong with that since the word creation in this instance does not denote the scope of creationism. Rather, it is challenging the darwinian aspects of science.
Really it boils down to not advancing the teleological argument because it supposes a God/Creator/Designer/Intelligence in place of random, chance events.
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
There is a general belief that if you introduce intelligence in to the equation that we have now strayed from science right in to theology. But an intelligence does not have to presuppose any theological view.
Nor does the Designer have to be a God, god, gods, goddesses, aliens, bacteria, flying spaghetti monsters, etc, or anything else. Knowing the face of the Intelligence is secondary to knowing that something is intelligently designed.
If I came upon a computer, I wouldn't need to know who the manufacturer is in order to deduce that intellect of some kind was poured in to the computer. Its likewise with nature, I believe.
Creationism, by its very nature, has to conform to whatever theological text it presupposes; be it the Bible, the Qur'an, the Vedas, etc. ID does not seek to advance any religion. It seeks to state what seems obvious to any casual onlooker-- that life is not the product of farts in the solar wind.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2007 7:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-26-2007 10:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 292 by Granny Magda, posted 11-26-2007 11:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 293 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:35 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 291 of 301 (436640)
11-26-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 8:24 PM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
I don't see anything wrong with that since the word creation in this instance does not denote the scope of creationism. Rather, it is challenging the darwinian aspects of science.
That sounds a little naive.
People who teach creationism are in fact teaching creationism. It is true that they do so mainly by the mathod of teaching halfwitted lies about evolution (or "challenging the darwinian aspects of science", as you put it) but they are in fact teaching creationism, 'cos, let's face it, that's all there is to creationism.
Really it boils down to not advancing the teleological argument because it supposes a God/Creator/Designer/Intelligence in place of random, chance events.
Oh, for pity's sake, how often do we have to point out the existence of natural selection before you guys will admit that this is what the theory of evolution actually says?
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
Sheesh. Evolution has nothing to do with the causation of the universe.
YOU KNOW THAT, DON'T YOU?
If I came upon a computer, I wouldn't need to know who the manufacturer is in order to deduce that intellect of some kind was poured in to the computer.
But that is exactly what we need to know. We need to know whether it was manufactured or whether it wasn't.
If I see a complex object like a computer, and I trace its origins, I find that it was manufactured by a manufacturer.
If I trace the origins of a complex object such as a snowflake, I find that it wasn't manufactured and is the product of physical laws.
If I trace the origins of a complex object such as a tiger, I find that it was not manufactured but is the result of reproduction with variation.
It seeks to state what seems obvious to any casual onlooker-- that life is not the product of farts in the solar wind.
Which no-one has ever claimed.
YOU KNOW THAT, DON'T YOU?
If you want science teachers to teach that "life is not the product of farts in the solar wind", then fine. I'd also be happy for them to teach that life is not four-dimensional beach umbrellas from Alpha Centurii. I have absolutely no problem with science teachers teaching that ignorant, halfwitted creationist strawmen are not science and have never been claimed as science by scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 8:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 292 of 301 (436647)
11-26-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 8:24 PM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
I don't see anything wrong with that since the word creation in this instance does not denote the scope of creationism. Rather, it is challenging the darwinian aspects of science.
The quotes clearly demonstrate the dishonesty of the ID lobby.
Really it boils down to not advancing the teleological argument because it supposes a God/Creator/Designer/Intelligence in place of random, chance events.
Yup, that's right, although "unguided" would be a better word than "random".
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
Irrelevant.
There is a general belief that if you introduce intelligence in to the equation that we have now strayed from science right in to theology.
Right again.
But an intelligence does not have to presuppose any theological view.
Nor does the Designer have to be a God, god, gods, goddesses, aliens, bacteria, flying spaghetti monsters, etc, or anything else. Knowing the face of the Intelligence is secondary to knowing that something is intelligently designed.
Then why are all ID proponents religious types, usually Christian fundamentalists? If they were honest, they would admit that they are in no doubt as to the identity of the elusive designer. It is just a way to smuggle god into the classroom. I thought that those quotes from "Of Pandas and People" showed this most eloquently.
If I came upon a computer, I wouldn't need to know who the manufacturer is in order to deduce that intellect of some kind was poured in to the computer. Its likewise with nature, I believe.
The Paley-watch argument in other words. A computer is different to a living creature, in that it is clearly designed to perform a given function, in this case, the processing of data. Tell me, what is a manatee actually FOR. A computer is clearly designed for interaction with a user, as evidenced by its keyboard and monitor. There is no such sign of utility with living creatures.
ID does not seek to advance any religion.
Don't be naive. ID is just creationism in a cheap suit, with a bible stitched into the lining.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 8:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:56 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 293 of 301 (436655)
11-27-2007 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 8:24 PM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
I don't see anything wrong with that since the word creation in this instance does not denote the scope of creationism. Rather, it is CHALLENGING THE DARWINIAN ASPECTS OF SCIENCE
Well said and so obvious. I don't know why they can't seem to just see it and stop imagining covert operations.It's utterly frustrating.We get accused of being liars and fools just because people that can't see what's obvious are blind.
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
Yes please!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 8:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2007 6:30 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 294 of 301 (436660)
11-27-2007 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Granny Magda
11-26-2007 11:16 PM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
The quotes clearly demonstrate the dishonesty of the ID lobby.
You must be reading far more into this than it clearly states in order to call it dishonesty. Challenging the Darwinian aspects of science is pretty straightforward.
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
Irrelevant.
My mouth is hanging open.
There is a general belief that if you introduce intelligence in to the equation that we have now strayed from science right in to theology.
Right again.
Unless the truth is that there is a creator - in which case evolutionists has strayed far into the realms of invention and a religion of their own.
You can't prove either side but some things are just obvious.It seems that what's obvious to you (evolution)is not obvious to me and vica versa.Organization requires intelligence (for example a cell). Information requires intelligence (for example DNA) - how random undirected processes even given millions of years could have produced such things requires fairy tales and wishful thinking of the highest order - in my humble opinion.
Then why are all ID proponents religious types, usually Christian fundamentalists?
Because they believe in a specific creator so 'intelligent design' makes sense to them. However they are far from 'usually Christian fundamentalists'.That is the standard accusation levelled at anyone professing to believe that there has to be a designer.Evolutionists seem to see a 'Christian fundamentalist' under every rock.If evolution is questioned -ha! -you have to be a Christian fundamentalist in hiding.That is fantasy.
I could imagine there is a closet atheist hiding behind every evolutionist but even if I kept making the accusation, it would never evolve my fantasy into reality.
ID is just creationism in a cheap suit, with a bible stitched into the lining
Only in your imagination, Granny!
Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete
Edited by Beretta, : corrected formatting
Edited by Beretta, : Formatting still incorrect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Granny Magda, posted 11-26-2007 11:16 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Vacate, posted 11-27-2007 1:19 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 296 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 2:23 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 297 by bluegenes, posted 11-27-2007 3:10 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 299 by AdminPD, posted 11-27-2007 6:40 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 300 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2007 6:40 AM Beretta has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 295 of 301 (436663)
11-27-2007 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Beretta
11-27-2007 12:56 AM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
how random undirected processes even given millions of years could have produced such things requires fairy tales and wishful thinking of the highest order
Unless its true. What does the evidence say I wonder?
I could imagine there is a closet atheist hiding behind every evolutionist but even if I kept making the accusation, it would never evolve my fantasy into reality.
That is correct. Your fantasy will never be reality as long as I live, after I die however... I am sure others have viewpoints similar to my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:56 AM Beretta has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 296 of 301 (436670)
11-27-2007 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Beretta
11-27-2007 12:56 AM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
The quotes clearly demonstrate the dishonesty of the ID lobby.
You must be reading far more into this than it clearly states in order to call it dishonesty. Challenging the Darwinian aspects of science is pretty straightforward.
What the quotes in question demonstrate is a blatant case of "Hide the Creationism".
Remember? First the creationists played "Hide the Bible", but when that was exposed in court for the fraud that it is they switched to the game of "Hide the Creationism". Which was in turn exposed in court for being the fraud that it is.
If you want to challenge the "Darwinian aspect of science", then do so. Honestly, please. So far we've only seen it being attempted with lies and deception. If you cannot do it honestly, then please stop. You're only destroying your own cause.
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
Irrelevant.
My mouth is hanging open.
Well then close it and start presenting this new "philosophy of science" and explaining how it is supposed to work.
There is a general belief that if you introduce intelligence in to the equation that we have now strayed from science right in to theology.
Right again.
Unless the truth is that there is a creator - in which case evolutionists has strayed far into the realms of invention and a religion of their own.
That does not follow. If you try to introduce a supernatural intelligence into the equation, then you have indeed strayed from science right in to theology. Whether certain gods exist or not, the natural world still works the way that it works. It is irrelevent whether any of those gods exist or not; the world still works the way in which it works. And that is what science studies.
If you disagree and insist that science must include supernaturalistic explanations, AKA "goddidit", then please explain just how such a science is supposed to work.
Seriously. That is, after all, what the Wedge Document calls for. What it lays out a decades-long public relations campaign for. To change the fundamental nature of science so that it relies on supernaturalistic explanations. So just exactly how is such a "science" supposed to operate? How is it supposed to function?
We need to ask such questions because the answer will be how ID will be teaching our kids about science and about how it's supposed to work.
Then why are all ID proponents religious types, usually Christian fundamentalists?
Because the ones we observe are creationists who are trying to oppose the teaching of evolution because of their fundamentalist beliefs. It's the same anti-evolution movement from the 1920's, from the "creation science" fraud, from the "balanced treatment" state laws of the 1980's, which were struck down by the courts when the "creation science" fraud was exposed as being religious in nature, not scientific as they had been lying to the public and to the courts. So they switched their "creation science" game of "Hide the Bible" up to a new game of "Hide the Creationism". True, ID had been developed by a different crowd, but it's still the creationists who have adapted it to their creationist cause and the ID developers, as they reveal in their Wedge Document, are ready and eager to exploit their creationist friends.
Oh, and the courts have also exposed ID as the same old religious {euphemism}stuff{/euphemism}.
Here's a page of links to court decisions: The Talk.Origins Archive: Debates, Gatherings & Court Decisions
You'd best start reading up to find out what's really what.
ID is just creationism in a cheap suit, with a bible stitched into the lining
Only in your imagination, Granny!
Nope. Read the decision for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

(filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:56 AM Beretta has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 297 of 301 (436675)
11-27-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Beretta
11-27-2007 12:56 AM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
Beretta writes:
Organization requires intelligence (for example a cell). Information requires intelligence (for example DNA) - how random undirected processes even given millions of years could have produced such things requires fairy tales and wishful thinking of the highest order - in my humble opinion.
When supernaturalists start describing a naturalist view of nature as requiring "fairy tales" and "wishful thinking", I just have to laugh.
It's easy for some of us to understand how mutation and natural selection can lead to complexity. We require no magic fairy tales. But you seem to have an emotional desire for them.
Information requires intelligence
Meaning that all intelligent designers require designers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:56 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 298 of 301 (436684)
11-27-2007 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Beretta
11-27-2007 12:35 AM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
Well said and so obvious. I don't know why they can't seem to just see it and stop imagining covert operations.It's utterly frustrating.We get accused of being liars and fools just because people that can't see what's obvious are blind.
You get accused of being liars qand fools because you tell foolish lies about how "all earth's creatures have to eyes", and how a volcano produced "hydrological sorting" (do you even know what hydrological means?) and how the banana is not a cultivar and how coelacanths are a species.
If your views about biology were obvious, they would, of course, be obvious to biologists, who have done what you have not done and studied the subject, and who therefore know that your claims are utterly false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:35 AM Beretta has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 299 of 301 (436685)
11-27-2007 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Beretta
11-27-2007 12:56 AM


Clarify Quotes
So that members and visitors don't misunderstand who is saying what, it is wise to label quotes when you are using what has been quoted from another post.
Example from your post.
Granny quoted Nem and responded.
You pulled Nem's quote and Granny's response, but didn't note that the original quote was Nem's.
For clarity, the quote should have looked like this.
Nem writes:
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
Irrelevant.
You can even do one of these numbers so everyone is clear on who said what.
Granny writes:
Nem writes:
If nothing gets credit for the causation of the universe, then something should also be allowed to be discussed as a philosophy of science as well.
Irrelevant.
You can use the peek button to see how it was done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:56 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 300 of 301 (436686)
11-27-2007 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Beretta
11-27-2007 12:56 AM


Re: To be or not to be? That is the question
You must be reading far more into this than it clearly states in order to call it dishonesty. Challenging the Darwinian aspects of science is pretty straightforward.
Except that it requires saying things that aren't true, which is not "straightforward".
My mouth is hanging open.
Yes, that's kind of how I pictured you.
It seems that what's obvious to you (evolution)is not obvious to me and vica versa.
Yes, that's 'cos we know the facts, whereas you have your head stuffed full of ridiculous falsehoods.
how random undirected processes even given millions of years could have produced such things requires fairy tales and wishful thinking of the highest order - in my humble opinion.
Random processes did not produce such things. Natural selection was also involved, as you would know if you'd ever studied the theory of evolution.
Doesn't it strike you as hypocritical that you demand that teachers should "teach both sides" when you yourself have carefully remained completely ignorant of evolution?
Because they believe in a specific creator so 'intelligent design' makes sense to them. However they are far from 'usually Christian fundamentalists'.That is the standard accusation levelled at anyone professing to believe that there has to be a designer.
Granny said "usually". For one thing, some of them are Muslim fundementalists or Hindu fundementalists instead.
Only in your imagination, Granny!
I'm pretty sure that Kitzmiller v. Dover was more than a dream in the head of Granny Magda.
We won, you lost, deal with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Beretta, posted 11-27-2007 12:56 AM Beretta 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