|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
why must evolution and ID be totally separate? Why can evolution by DNA code changes, not be an engineered process? It is a good question, if a bit naive. The short answer is, because the evidence is completely contrary to an intelligent designer. In short, the presence of derived characters which serve a different function from the ancestral characters but often not the most efficient design for that character. The question is, if one is intelligently directing evolution, why not do the most efficient design based on the building blocks available? No, the evidence overwhelmingly supports that it it is natural selection which does the directing, not God.
If you have the answer, you are a fool, If you are a believer, I would be a bit careful with that one. See Matthew 5:22.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
How about a compromise, Creationists of any sort get 10 minutes to "teach" their theory in a science class but, they get their 10 minutes at the end of the class and they have to sit trough the whole class before and not bother the students. I have a better idea. We alot time in the classroom based on peer reviewed research papers. The percentage of primary publications that use creationism will equate to the percentage of time it is given in science class. That would certainly work for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
No compromises. The Constitution is clear. The state cannot establish a religion. Creation dogma is a religion. The only way it can be taught in a state run school is in a course about religion - and then one would have to present all of the major creation myths, not just the Hebrew one. Would actually make an interesting class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I was not talking about this forum, which is about .01 % of my day. 0.01% of 24 hours is 8.64 seconds. Your profile shows that you post an average of 2.4 messages per day. That's an average of 3.6 seconds per message. No wonder they're such shit. Edited by Cat Sci, : added smiley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3420 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Pressie writes: Luckily for humanity your rules don't mean anything. You're just one of billions. You're not important.The "rules" of science do work, though. That's why you, as a nobody, are able to communicate with me. Half a world away. On the internet, devised by people who followed the scientitific "rules". Not your rules. My rules don't discourage individuality or inventiveness, but only the opposite.You'll also notice that the internet did not evolve by itself. Kapow !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3420 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: you need to provide some valid rational for people to think your argument is credible rather than self-serving fantasy. And if that valid rational is valid, but not to the readers, then according to your system it is not valid, and remains invalid until the rationality of the readers reaches a point where it can rationalize something which they could not before. Is that evolution and progress or what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3420 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: ..You see, as Percy and I have tried to explain to you, the problem with pretty much all your arguments is that they are so general, so abstract, so vague, that they are also arguments against teaching, believing in, or testing students on chemistry, and physics, and indeed geography. Now, perhaps you are a complete intellectual nihilist and wish to reject all knowledge. But if not, then what you need are arguments specific to the particular kinds of knowledge that you wish to reject..This would, of course, be hard work, because you would need to acquire detailed knowledge of the subject matter. Which would in fact be self-defeating, because if you had detailed knowledge of the subject matter, you'd realize you were wrong, that creationism is rubbish and evolution is correct. But then at least you'd be trying. As it is, the fact that your arguments are arguments against teaching or learning anything at all makes them look trivially silly to anyone who does what you apparently have not done --- that is, think about them for a few seconds. Having a whole lot of knowledge is great, and acceptable, but having a little bit of poo in science called the Theory of Evolution and its various offspring is not acceptable. It is possible to have a perverse observational skill due to a wrong idea in the first place. Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do. It depends on how one interprets the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3420 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
NoNukes writes: I'm looking forward to seeing your attempts to support your positions with evidence. Isn't that what you told us you would be doing? IMO you are looking forward to leaning your unchallenged preconceived ideas into an area which you are sure will never change your mind, but hopefully annihilate the other. You are sealed by your own choices to remain where you are, and your input will be clearly predictable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3420 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Deerbreh writes: Actually, no. Scientific evidence is not subject to majority rule. It stands or falls according to scientific standards of evidence - experimental design, statistical significance, and peer review. No room for voting or personal opinion there. That answer is part of the evolution/atheist regime. The other half of America does science as well without imbibing swamp stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Having a whole lot of knowledge is great, and acceptable, but having a little bit of poo in science called the Theory of Evolution and its various offspring is not acceptable. Not acceptable to who? Those who do science or those who believe in old tribal lore? I would suggest that any idea supported by evidence, testing, and successful predictions is superior to old tribal lore whose only claim to fame is a lot of believers.
It is possible to have a perverse observational skill due to a wrong idea in the first place. Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do. It depends on how one interprets the evidence. No, it does not depend on how one interprets the evidence. Some interpretations are clearly wrong (unsupported by the evidence). But your real problem is that creationism does not "prove" itself, but must rely on belief, dogma, scripture and other fluff. There's no evidence that can stand up to testing. If there were, there would not be some 40,000 different brands, flavors, denominations, etc. of Christianity alone. If there were some way of testing claims with evidence you would have convergence rather than schism. In that, religion is the exact opposite of science whether you like it or not.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3420 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Deerbreh writes: No compromises. The Constitution is clear. The state cannot establish a religion. Creation dogma is a religion. The only way it can be taught in a state run school is in a course about religion - and then one would have to present all of the major creation myths, not just the Hebrew one. Would actually make an interesting class. True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God. Nonsense. Just because you see everything through the rose-colored glasses of religious belief doesn't mean others do as well. There are a lot of folks out there who get along just fine without religion, and to call that lack of religion "a religion" is ludicrous. It is exactly the opposite, but then that's par for the course as creation science is the exact opposite of real science.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
True, evolution is also a religion, the ancient religion of Baal worship, which is essentially humanism, the ideas of humanity above any revelation or God. [citation needed]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Having a whole lot of knowledge is great, and acceptable, but having a little bit of poo in science called the Theory of Evolution and its various offspring is not acceptable. It is possible to have a perverse observational skill due to a wrong idea in the first place. Science does not disprove Creationism at all, the false conclusions of brain washed men do. It depends on how one interprets the evidence. Besides being childishly silly, that was also a complete non sequitur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
That answer is part of the evolution/atheist regime. The other half of America does science as well without imbibing swamp stories. I was unaware that half of America did science. Where do they publish, the Journal of Imaginary Studies? The Review of Stuff that Colbard Just Made Up? The Bulletin of You're Talking Crap Again, Colbard?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024