Creationist/ID Education should be allowed

The Neaderthal (made by Lucifer) ended up in the Northern Israel wilderness circa seven hundred thousand years ago. The people in the wilderness that Cain said would kill him. But he was assured by HaShem, they would not harm him....

Cain (and his offpring) intebred with them instead. Producing the first modern humans, the Cro-Magnon....

Seth was born at that time, thirty thousand years after Cain, and inbred with his brother's offspring.

Making us a species of interbred/inbred hybrids.

HaShem has a 1500 cubic mile "KINGDOM" in creation. It dilates time. 30,000 years between Cain and Seth, might have been 30 minutes/seconds in the KINGDOM, dilating time....

HaShem

Why do you use that word?

First, I would like to thank saab93f, Coyote, and NoNukes for making me aware of how the term "critical thinking" is being abused.

I truly had no idea and apologize for any arrogance shown in what I mistakenly thought was a rather clear-cut definition.

Coragyps writes: This is a lovely example of Newspeak, with the addition of some confusion on the part of some of the fundies as to what the script is supposed to be this week. "Critical thinking" is good when the Discovery Institute uses it to mean teaching discredited biological or meteorological bullshit as an "alternative viewpoint" to science. But "critical thinking" is doubleplus ungood if it means teaching kids to, y'know, think critically about things like religion, democracy, what would constitute a just society........anything that might challenge the authoritarian mindset that the Fundipublicans (among others) hold so dear.

That was essentially my conclusion before I even read your post.

How much lower can this scum get after not only declaring war against science but also against the English language.

I will now be very vigilant against this Orwellian abuse.

Once again, thanks all for the tip.

I use that "name" because He is the God in Genesis. He is named in the Torah. HaShem is beyond the stars. Pure psyche. He made Creation to have a son, borne into flesh, possessing His psyche,
to a virgin He would make.

I use that "name" because He is the God in Genesis. He is named in the Torah.

Got a verse, or something?

Got a verse, or something?

According to Wikipedia, HaShem ("the Name") appears in Leviticus 24:11. It's supposed to be a substitution for "Adonai" which itself is a substitution for YHWH. According to that article, because "Adonai" is only meant to be used in prayer, "HaShem" is used in conversation. It's supposed to be an Orthodox thing. To hear examples of it being used, watch the Coen Brothers' movie, A Serious Man (2009) -- that was the first time I had ever heard it used.

ABE:
And, yes, I also find his using it to be contrived.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE

I don't remember the translation I used.
But it had "HaShem" throughout the entire
book....Genesis to the Apocalypse....

It kind of gives one, a personal communing
with the one and only "I am the Almighty
God. And there is none else!"

And there really is, "none else"....

There is the All Mighty Allah/Lucifer.....
Freaken snake...

Personally I think the topic of education is tricky either way because even if you don`t have religion poking its nose into it the government will. I have trouble seeing how political control of the curriculum is any better than religious control. It`s still irrelevant outside control of what is being taught, and whether it`s for religious or political purposes makes little difference to me.

So if you wanna stop religious ideas like ID from being taught you should broaden it to include PC ideological education too, or it`s hypocritical. I don`t really see anybody doing that though. And even though I am pretty much convinced by the general idea of evolution, I just do not see why it is such a huge deal if somebody else thinks differently. Precisely how would society be damaged if everybody believed in ID/creationism? People would be a little dumber in this particular field, but then most people are really dumb already so it`d hardly make much of an impact anyway.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : 1 blank line.

Hi Skulb! Welcome to EvC, hang out and enjoy the place. It's nice.

Skulb writes: I just do not see why it is such a huge deal if somebody else thinks differently.

I don't think the people trying to keep creationism out of science class care if someone else "thinks differently."
They just care if creationism is taught in science class. Because it's not science.

It's the same reason people would get upset if we taught Pokémon strategy during Accounting courses.
No one is "against someone holding the idea," it just doesn't make sense to say you're going to teach one subject, but then teach something else entirely.

Precisely how would society be damaged if everybody believed in ID/creationism?

The same amount of damage if everybody understood Pokémon strategy. The fluff would take up time/energy better spent elsewhere. But even if everybody liked Pokémon... it's still not a reason to teach Pokémon strategy during Accounting courses.

No one has a problem with teaching creationism in religion class.

That makes sense I guess. But science has been a pretty dodgy affair all along I think, which is sometimes forgotten. A century ago it was considered established fact that races had different values, with aboriginals, native Americans and blacks at the bottom, Arabs and Slavs in the middle and eastern Asians and Caucasian at the top. I can remember that we had maps in the classrooms in the 80s showing caricatured negros next to Africa on them and lists of races after their degree of development on the sides of the map. All the teachers wanted them removed but were unable to because of lack of funds. If it wasn`t so disgusting it would be funny.

Other things considered scientific fact at various points include phrenology, alchemy and astrology. My point is that scientists have always been holier than thou with their theories, and sometimes they turn out to be wrong. A natural part of talking about the theory of evolution is what would falsify the theory. That`s science right? And what would falsify it would be to prove ID, not that I personally can see how that would be possible, but you get my point. The demand for falsification is there for a reason, to avoid scientists becoming zealots for their own pet theories, and I see very few attempts in biology to provide solid falsification criteria. Might as well have the ID people do it then

Thanks for the welcome. I have been looking for a site to discuss stuff like this where the moderation isn`t insanely skewed one way or another. Most sites have lots of conflict and little debate, but here it looks like the level is a bit more intellectual, which I definitely like.

Edited by Skulb, : No reason given.

Edited by Skulb, : Permanent PS: All my edits are to correct spelling, poor grammar or weird syntax.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : 1 more blank line.

The problem is (ok, ONE problem) that you should only teach stuff with evidence in science class, not random ideas that some small group of wack jobs think pose a problem to a particular section of science or particular theory. Especially if those ideas are borne out of religion. There is no valid evidence for any of the ID ideas, so until then, they do not belong in science class.

My point is that scientists have always been holier than thou with their theories,

What does this even mean?

A natural part of talking about the theory of evolution is what would falsify the theory.

Perhaps so. But the place to do that is not in high school science class. You can teach your ID theories when they a) get some actual evidence to back them up and b) when they become actual science. Until then, you can teach them where they belong: church or religious studies.

And what would falsify it would be to prove ID

That is incorrect. "Proving" intelligent design would not necessarily falsify evolution (even though the ENTIRE purpose of ID is to try and do so).

The demand for falsification is there for a reason, to avoid scientists becoming zealots for their own pet theories,

Incorrect again. Falsification is there simply so we can assure we are correct. Only one group of people are considered zeaolts and they aren't the guys wearing lab coats. They're the guys that stand at podiums wearing funny hats.

and I see very few attempts in biology to provide solid falsification criteria.

I am intriugued to know how hard you've actually looked.

Might as well have the ID people do it then

There is a nobel prize waiting for them if they do. The scientific community would welcome the correct answer for the diversity of species with open arms if it turns out that answer is not evolution.

We disagree about basically everything then. It was scientists who held conferences last century to prove that the white race was better than the others, who insisted in the 19th century that drinking lead was healthy and any number of other things. They were just as insistent that they alone knew the truth about the world then as they are now.

If you actually read Popper he explicitly stated that without a falsification HDM approach, science degrades into pathological science where you try to prove your own hypothesis by filtering evidence so it supports the theory while ignoring the evidence that doesn`t support it. To me this makes someone like Dawkins is a real zealot because he exclusively presents evidence in favor of his own theory while claiming it as fact, even though a theory is an explanation of facts and not fact itself, without presenting criteria for falsifying the theory. This doesn`t even mean I disagree with him, but that as long as he engages in pathological, inductive science he`s undermining himself and the science of biology.

As for biologists as a whole they have recently spent 20 years or so insisting that 97% of genes are "junk DNA" instead of admitting that they have no idea what it`s for. They have just now changed their minds on this issue and are therefore saying the complete opposite of what they said last year. But we were supposed to believe them without proper scientific exposition last year and we`re supposed to trust them without proper scientific exposition now. The scientific principles soft sciences would be well advised to use were developed in the 19th century, but instead of sticking to them modern biologists have tried to engage in induction, which works fine in physics and mathematics because the principles are constant there, but not in interpretative sciences like biology.

As a result of biologists abandoning their scientific method in order to postulate undebatable truth, there really are no proper falsification criteria incorporated into the theory of evolution, and there needs to be. And if high school isn`t the place to learn about this very important scientific principle, when should it be done? Lots of people quit school for good after high school.

Edited by Skulb, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.

But everything you post is exactly why Science works and Revelation fails.

Now as an exercise, please explain why Science is the better method.

You've just laid quite a few serious accusations with absolutely zero evidence to back any of it up. And as is par for the course for IDists, you make no effort to substantiate ID but instead try to tear down science as if you are going to further your own ideas if science is wrong. No, if you prove something wrong with science, you still have to provide evidence for your own idea. The rest of your reply is a Gish Gallop to the nth degree and this Alice won't chase that rabbit down the hole. No one cares that you hate science and would rather live in the dark ages; that much is obvious when you made clear you are an IDist. Not to mention that you responded to absolutely zero of what I wrote.

A few tips: double space between paragraphs and provide evidence for your claims and don't just make bald assertions. This is the science side of EvC. We require evidence over here. If you want to bandy about laying baseless accusations, post in the religious side where your ideas are free from scrutiny and you can spout off all the nonsense you want.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

If you actually read Popper he explicitly stated that without a falsification HDM approach, science degrades into pathological science where you try to prove your own hypothesis by filtering evidence so it supports the theory while ignoring the evidence that doesn`t support it. To me this makes someone like Dawkins is a real zealot because he exclusively presents evidence in favor of his own theory ...

Has it occurred to you that maybe that's all there is?

I have a theory that all pigs are wingless. If I only ever present evidence in favor of this theory, that's not because I'm "filtering" all the winged pigs. The absence of evidence against my theory is not actually a mark of "pathological science", it's a sign that I'm, y'know, right.

As for biologists as a whole they have recently spent 20 years or so insisting that 97% of genes are "junk DNA" instead of admitting that they have no idea what it`s for.

No, this is something you made up.

As a result of biologists abandoning their scientific method in order to postulate undebatable truth ...

Doesn't it strike even you as strange that you wrote that immediately following a paragraph devoted to angrily accusing scientists of changing their minds?

You can't have it both ways. Are scientists evil because (a) they hold up their conclusions as undebatable truth or (b) because they are willing to revise their opinions?

... there really are no proper falsification criteria incorporated into the theory of evolution.

No, this is something you made up.