Creationism in Schools

I think that creation teaching would be an interesting class to take in school,although it should be an optional one,like evolution i guess. And it should be a course teaching the many creation MYTHS to give an insight of the imagination of earlier,more primitive culture. We had such a class in high school in my younger days and it was very interesting,although the teacher,a nun,was convinced that she was actually giving us an historical account of factual events. i guess it was required for her to believe that to be a nun...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In addition, WHICH creation 'science' do you teach? YEC? OEC? ID?"
--YEC basically, teach that the evidence doesn't allways point towards an old earth. To teach the Creation (as obviously there are many religions with different creation accounts) or ID would rather be more of the Teachers decision most likely. Teach anything that is scientific.

​

LUDk but which brand of YEC's? christian? Norse? Algonquin? Mayan? Australian aborigenal? they're all different and i'm sure their proponents could show you evidence on why THEIR version is the correct one. Or is this whole creasionism movement just what i suspect it to actually be...a means by which christians can proletyse under the guise of legitimate science...

​

"There is no cohesive Creation "science"."
--Then teach it like it is braud, ie, there are many creation accounts, etc.

​

LUD:As i said,this i could agree with...as an optional course in school.

​

"Also, Creation "science" is a peculiarly American phenomena. There are not any Creation "Science"
movements in Europe or Asia that I am aware of."
--Well isn't that unfortunate. I think there is one in Australia but I don't know about the others.

​

LUD:Well...maybe the rest of the world know something that the americans dont...ever thought of that? After all,Europe experienced first hand the horrors that can be engendered by mass religious histeria.

​

"If Creation "science" was really scientific, why aren't there adherents all over the world, and why do Creation 'scienctists' all have to be Christian?"
--They don't all have to be Christian, there are muslim and buddhist creationists, a more specific approach I am looking for to what would be taught is that the earth could be young, and simply that it could have been created on top of that. Instead of the schools trying to rip everyone's faith to shreads, with first-hand experience, it is a frequent happening, a typical product of indoctrination.

​

LUD:I think you got it backward there TC. The US is probably the most rabidly christian nation in the world...THAT was the result of 150 years of indoctrination. In the '20,during the infamous monkey trials,where a teacher was suspended for teaching darwinian evolution to his class,this fact became self evident,as the teacher was relying on hard science and his prosecutors were doing nothing but proletysing to the jury,just falling short of claiming in open court that the teacher was nothing less than the Anti-Christ. The judgement of the school stood,even if the teacher had proven his case and it took 40 years before someone in the legislative bodies woke up and said "hey...maybe there's actually something to this whole evolution thingy after all". Christianity is not on the verge of disapearing in the US...far from it. But it has always fought viciously the establishement of differing points of views,which is why religion was removed from mandatory teaching in schools...Some people actually took the time to read the constitution and realized that it said FREEDOM of religion and NOT "freedom to be a christian or else..!!!.". Science educates,it does not indoctrinate. In science class,you are not punished for questionning a logic that appears faulty...you are praised for it(unless the science teacher is a real self centered jerk)...Tell me,to the best of your knowledge,how long could you question the doctrinal teachings in a christian school before you got yourself expelled?

​

---

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-18-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"LUDk but which brand of YEC's? christian? Norse? Algonquin? Mayan? Australian aborigenal? they're all different and i'm sure their proponents could show you evidence on why THEIR version is the correct one. Or is this whole creasionism movement just what i suspect it to actually be...a means by which christians can proletyse under the guise of legitimate science..."
--That the Earth could be young, and that Evolution isn't the only answer. What you want to branch off from this is the students choice.

​

LUD:Evolution is not proletysing...its a theory of the possible origin of human beings that does not require divine intervention. Sure the earth could be young...it could have been created yesterday,along with all your memories of past events as far as we know. Possible and probable....study those two concepts...they are not the same

​

"LUD:As i said,this i could agree with...as an optional course in school."
--Yes, so should the concept of Evolution.

​

LUD:As far as i know,asibe from the very basics,it is.

​

"LUD:Well...maybe the rest of the world know something that the americans dont...ever thought of that? After all,Europe experienced first hand the horrors that can be engendered by mass religious histeria."
--Sure I thought of it, never seen it though, and I thought the web was world-wide? They must like it to be kept a secret.

​

LUDr perhaps they aren't keeping it a secret and you simply wont look at what they know.

​

"LUD:I think you got it backward there TC. The US is probably the most rabidly christian nation in the world...THAT was the result of 150 years of indoctrination."
--We dont' need to change the direction of the subject. I remember passing out fliers for my church after the 9-11 attacks, I encounterd a girl that was my age. Very sarcastic, she told me she wouldn't accept the flier because I said I wasn't a 'holy priest'. I asked her a question of why she considered herself athiestic. Wouldn't you guess that her answer was 'have you ever heard of Evolution'. Obviously there is something seriously wrong with that statment isn't there. Such is the teaching of evolution in our schools today.

​

LUD:See,this is where we part company TC...i dont see anything wrong with being athiestic even if i'm not one. Athiests are not evil or misguided...they just dont believe in God like we do...hell,WE dont even believe in God the same way. You see God as some sort of an overlord ruling over the earth...i see God as a parent and we as IT's children. You believe that God requires servitude and worship...i believe that God couldn't care less about either. And she doesn't believe in any of it...so the hell what? You think that evolution makes people disbelieve in God? I believe in BOTH,how do you explain me? Dont blame a field of study for the fact that christians dont own the soul of everyone on earth...some people actually prefer not to let 2000 year old books do their thinking for them...and i've never seen a single evolution manual that contains the statement "there is no God"

​

"In the '20,during the infamous monkey trials,where a teacher was suspended for teaching darwinian evolution to his class,this fact became self evident,as the teacher was relying on hard science and his prosecutors were doing nothing but proletysing to the jury,just falling short of claiming in open court that the teacher was nothing less than the Anti-Christ. The judgement of the school stood,even if the teacher had proven his case and it took 40 years before someone in the legislative bodies woke up and said "hey...maybe there's actually something to this whole evolution thingy after all"."
--you take the 'monkey trial' to its extremities in sarcasm.

​

LUD:Actually,i have to be sarcastic...the whole thing was a gigantic joke. Suspending a man because he was teaching a legitimate field of study that contain some principles who happened to contradict SOME biblical teachings? And my description of the prosecution was not sarcastic...it was dead on. It looked like a witch trial of the good old days of the inquisitions and it took place here...in america for crying out loud...

​

"Christianity is not on the verge of disapearing in the US...far from it. But it has always fought viciously the establishement of differing points of views,which is why religion was removed from mandatory teaching in schools...Some people actually took the time to read the constitution and realized that it said FREEDOM of religion and NOT "freedom to be a christian or else..!!!."."
--As far as I am aware, it doesn't say anything about being unable to teach creation in the public schools either.

​

LUD:I know but as i said,which creation should be taught in school? The ine that suits YOUR personal religious beliefs and no others?

​

"Science educates,it does not indoctrinate."
--Wish that was true.

​

LUD:But it is...science just paints a picture of things for you which is free of moral implication...YOU decide what you do with this picture and what moral value you will attach to it.

​

"In science class,you are not punished for questionning a logic that appears faulty...you are praised for it(unless the science teacher is a real self centered jerk)...Tell me,to the best of your knowledge,how long could you question the doctrinal teachings in a christian school before you got yourself expelled?"
--Most likely wouldn't get expelled, but what would I know, Im not in a private school. Also, not every christian school is against Evolution.

​

LUD:Well i do TC...i went to nun school for 6 years before high school,as did my 3 sisters and my young brother. I know what i'm talking about. Back then,nuns used a ruler across your back when you misbehaved...and misbehaving,i was to discover,aslo included claiming that i did not believe in God when i was in 4th grade...i since then revised this position,not because of the 10 strikes i go that day but because i thought about it some more. My problem with God is how It was depicted in the Bible. I came to the conclusion that I did not need to believe in the Bible to believe in God. The Bible is after all the work of man and is tainted by man's thinking and culture,whereas creation itself,so to speak,is the only untainted work of God we have to study ITs nature. And since SCIENCE and NOT RELIGION is the thing that helps us decifer the misteries of creation,well i decided that science would be better suited to help me understand God...as for christians,every bible believing christian IS against evolution...at least macro evolution,which they claim is impossible and anti-biblical...wonder what they'll say about last week's finds on the subject,which seem to confirm the existance of macro-mutation/evolution

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mccoy925:
you are a complete moron......the bible is written in a spiritual sense, therefore their will be no mention of bacteria. the phyical world will line up with the bible because the bible is true and you are a MORON.

​

---

WOW...seems like YECs are getting a little edgy here. The Bible will line up with the world huh...the Bible describes the world as a flat,immobile circle that can be seen in its entirety from the top of a mountain...seems like the world is gonna have to do some major changing if its gonna line up with the Bible

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"WOW...seems like YECs are getting a little edgy here. The Bible will line up with the world huh...the Bible describes the world as a flat,immobile circle that can be seen in its entirety from the top of a mountain...seems like the world is gonna have to do some major changing if its gonna line up with the Bible"
--The bible does not describe a 'flat, immobile circle'. also, your mountain and the devil, makes reference to local land kingdom's, depending on height, or even a metephoric mountain, you could see kingdoms many hundreds of miles away within the radius. Nor do any of the other implications on a 'flat earth' does the bible attribute.

​

---

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=dan+4:10-11
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mat+4:8
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1+chr+16:30
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=psa+93:1Have a look and see for yourself TCAll the kingdom of the world...not all the kingdoms of the REGION.

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Dan 4:10-11 - These are the visions I saw while lying - Bible Gateway"
Daniel 4
10 As to the visions of my head on my bed, I was looking, and lo, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height [is] great:
11 become great hath the tree, yea, strong, and its height doth reach to the heavens, and its vision to the end of the whole land;
--It says 'end of the whole land', not world, Now where was he standing? Who knows, it was a vision, not an event in the first place.

​

LUD:Excuse me TC but this is what the quotation says...
10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the EARTH, and the height thereof was great.
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the EARTH:

​

"Mat 4:8 - Again, the devil took him to a very - Bible Gateway"
--See last post.

​

LUD:Same here
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the WORLD, and the glory of them;

​

Where do you get then "land" word exactly...none of the translations uses it and especially not the KJV,the YEC bible of choice(all the quotes i just pasted are KJV)

​

"1 chr 16:30 - Tremble before him, all the earth! The - Bible Gateway"
--Moved out of where? Too vague to be evident of the argument in either direction.

​

LUD:Move where? moved anywhere. It cannot be moved...thats rather hard to interpret this as meaning anything other that "the world is not moving"...which is quite innacurate,as you may or may not know...i wouldn't consider an object hurtling at 29.8km/sec in space as "something that cant be moved"

​

30 Be pained before Him, all the earth:
31 Also, established is the world, It is not moved! The heavens rejoice, and the earth is glad, And they say among nations: Jehovah hath reigned.

​

"Psa 93:1 - The LORD reigns, he is robed in - Bible Gateway"
--Likewize.

​

LUD:likewise what? It is not moved...whats the hell is unclear about this? IT DOESN'T MOVE!!! Thats what it says.

​

--Now obviously you would not consider these ones would you? :

​

LUD:I'll consider anything you present me TC

​

YLT-
Psalm 77:18
The voice of Thy thunder [is] in the spheres, Lightnings have lightened the world, The earth hath trembled, yea, it shaketh.

​

LUD: Spheres? i suppose you want me to believe that they are refering to the world...in plural? As for the shaking,thats actually the crux of it...the Hebrew believed that nothing that happened to the planet that God was not directly doing himself so its ok when GOD shakes the earth with his voice because its God...but it cant move otherwise.

​

21st Century NKJV-
Amos 9:6 Amos 9 Amos 9:5-7 It is He that buildeth His spheres in the heaven, and hath founded His troop on the earth. He that calleth for the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth--the LORD is His name.

​

LUD:The NKJV? come on TC...thats getting desperate...the thing was completely re-writen with knowledge of today's science in an effort to try and convince(read fool) casual readers that the original autors of the Bible knew as much about the world as we do today. Its obviously very dishonest of them and of you to try to use this...what does the OLD KJV says exactly?

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
Please see my posts (#'s 49 & 65)in the other topic 'Separation of Church & State Quesiton 2,' wherein I cite Justice Rehnquists expostion on the issue wherein he demonstrates that historically it is clear that christianity can be practiced in and on publically funded property.

​

As well before anyone starts quibbling about old testament wording claiming ignorantly as LudvanB did that 'thats what it says' a lesson in exegesis is necessary. 1)The old testament was written in Hebrew thousands of years ago and 2)you have to take into account the audience of the time. When done so one finds that it is proper to translate the Hebrew word as sphere's and that the biblical text predates Ptolemic views. This is another example of strawmen fallacies committed by those committed to their particular world view instead of real inquiry. They didn't examine both sides and the evidence of each before stating conclusions. Very bad scholarship indeed

​

---

even if the word could be translated in sphere,which its not but let say for the sake of argument that it can...that would simply mean a contradiction,since there exists no mountain where you can climb to see all the scatered kingdoms around a sphere...and there were kingdoms on other continents at the time of Jesus...the Chinese,the africans,the Aztech,the Mayans...they would all have had to be included in the "all the Kingdoms of the world" thats supposadly could be seen from this mountain top.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Circles are flat."
--Not when seen in this light:

​

​

---

Actually,if you stood on a large enough flat disk and looked toward the edge,you would get about the same visual effect...which is probably why they concluded that the earth was a circle

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually,if you stood on a large enough flat disk and looked toward the edge,you would get about the same visual effect...which is probably why they concluded that the earth was a circle"
--The bible does not say the earth was a circle, it says the circle of the earth. Also, the larger your flat disk, the less you would see any indication at all that would have such a horizon, besides your looking at a 2 dementional view as indicated in the picture, you would also see the same thing as latitude from longitude.

​

---

But see,thats the thing that is consistant with these people. They would have looked at a small disk,mayby a few feet in diameters and than would have taken a look at the horizon from a given height and concluded that it was the same thing. That sort of reasoning is consistant with their primitive scientific methodology. TC,can you point to me a mountain where you can climb high enough to see ALL THE WOLRD? Thats sort of biblical quotations says volumes about what early hebrews thought of the earth...namely,that it was a small,circular FLAT thing. Furthermore,if you had told them back then that the world was actually hurtling in space faster than a horse can run(29.8km/sec) with what they understood of the world and of gravity and physics,they would have laughed in you face and called you a nut...and then they would have replied that God created the world upon foundations that helf it firmly in place and that it COULD NOT BE MOVED.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
My basic point is that the Bible was not written in English in the twentieth century so for LudvanB and others to apply such standards to the phraseology without proper exegetical logic is ridiculous. When one does they find that there is nothing in the Bible that is contradicted by objective science and there are even scientific findings confirmed in the twentieth century that the Bible was correct about the whole time (such as hand washing, quarantine and clothes burning when one encounters disease and the hydrology cycle in job, I will get the specifics I have promised). For LudvanB and others to keep making statements about what the Bible says, such as it says 'it doesn't move' without taking into account hebraisms and the original Hebrew grammar and culture is just plain stupid. It just laziness. One should always look at both sides when one examines a subject and I find in these discussions, the evolutionists rarely understand the fundamentalist,creationist position yet most educated creationists understand the evolutionist position quite well. I wish I had more time but I don't have computer at home and get in this discussion board at work so my time is limited. I have promised many references I still have yet to provide and still will. I have been ill lately.

​

---

Theo,neither you,nor ANYONE ever presented any translation or hebraic wording that describes the world as ANYTHING BUT a small,immobile flat disk. That they believed this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from reading those quotations in ANY language. As for the knowledge contained in the Bible about washing,quarantine and the like,those were all aquired through grim experiences of having loved ones died from such actions. The early biblical authors probably realized that the best way by which they could convince more ignorant members of their society of the advantages of such habits was to make it ride God's cottail(i.e: tell everyone that God said not to touch dead meat and to wash your hands)...they did it with tons of other things,some good,some bad and some extraordinarely stupid(homosexuality,multi-thread cloths,dont work on a saturday or we stone your ass...). And by the by,the hebrew weren't special about this...almost every primitive civilisation tried to base the autority of its leaders on divine mandate...the reason? because as a man,you can only threaten your subject with death,which come for us all anyway...but with your "god" patron,you could threaten them with eternal damnation and suffering,hence the VERY HUMAN invention of hell...

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