|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Questions--moral perspective | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
Greetings~
I have not studied evolution and creation as extensively as I am now for years. Nevertheless, I maintain a passion for it and am always open to hearing new ideas and topics. (By the way, I'm new here). First off, let me say that I am quite busy in my personal life, so I apologize in advance if I go for several days without replying to somebody's post. I look forward to discussing honestly and openly any topics that come my way, and hope to teach, AS WELL AS LEARN, from my experiences on this website. For personal reasons, I will at no point reveal my name, age, nor any personal information. No then, let's begin with a couple simple questions: To the evolutionists: Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why? After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)? To the creationists: If the creation movement is to prevail, why are you all caught up in disagreement and conflict amongst yourselves? Truly, the creation movement would most definitely make a stronger impact on the world of education if all the creationists out there could humble themselves to the point where they set aside their MINOR differences and focus on what's most important to them: that God created the universe and Christ died for all who sinned. Please elaborate on your answers. Thank you for your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Evolution is the "sole theory" because it has no rivals. There is no scientific alternative that even comes close. Therefore in the science classes evolution should be discussed.
What creationists are asking for is theocratic control of science classes and ultimately science itself. Without the latter their position will always be under threat because too many people will have access to the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
booboocruise asks:
quote: Oh come on, are you seriously wondering about this? That's like asking "why don't we all just go to the same church?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
By the way, I'm new here Are you? Could a moderator check this please? If you are the old booboocruise of a few months ago you have some unanswered questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? Fundamentalist Christianity is not in itself a threat to the causes of good science and good education. Pseudoscience is.
After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)? Because there is only one theory to teach that is scientific, not falsified, and non-religious: evolution. The U.S. Constitution prohibits teaching religious theries as science in science classes, and common sense prohibits teaching pseudoscience or falsified theories as science in a science class. It's fine to teach about creationism in comparative religion or sociology or psychology or history of science or similar classes, but creationism just ain't science; it's dogmatic religion. And, so far and for the foreseeable future, ID ain't science either (unless it develops to be something more than what it is now, just an argument from ignorance).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Welcome back booboo, it's been awhile.
To the evolutionists: Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why? After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)? Since a scientist can't really be said to have a "cause", except in the sense of preserving biodiversity or somesuch (like Wilson, Levine, Ehrlich, etc etc), I'm not sure your first question makes a lot of sense. Most practicing scientists, while perhaps aware in a vague sort of way that creationism exists, simply don't pay much attention to it - it doesn't intersect with their world. How many evolutionary biologists do you know that try and preach the Gospel According to Darwin from the church pulpit? By the same token, how many fundamentalists do you know that try and preach literalist biblical intepretation in molecular biology labs? There is simply no connection between the two. Which is as it should be. Getting to the intent behind your question, rather than how you phrased it, there is a strong backlash against teaching biblical literalism in science classes. Science classes, especially in secondary schools, are intended to teach the fundamentals of science, covering the current scientific concensus on subjects as diverse as cosmology and physics as well as biology, not a narrow minority interpretation of Christianity, no matter how much the latter would wish it. Science classes in secondary school are designed to provide the student with some very basic concepts and an introduction to scientific methodology and (hopefully) critical thinking. OTOH, literalism CAN be taught - in comparative religion classes, or even in history and/or anthropology classes. Since the subject has neither evidential support nor any real relevance to the scientific endeavor, it is left quite alone in science classrooms. You might be pleased to know that in some of the best secondary school science curricula I've seen, including the International Baccalaureate Biology program, there are several modules discussing creationism. The downside, of course, is that when exposed to the light of scientific evidence - even if presented in an even-handed way - creationism comes across looking extremely weak. Critical examination of the claims of creationism when contrasted to direct observation of the natural world fails abysmally. It's not clear to me why, under these circumstances, creationists are so adamant about including their ideas. They don't hold up very well - and this may in fact cause them to lose potential adherents or even have potential converts turn away from Christianity entirely. You're setting your entire religious worldview up for potential failure when you insist that literalism be compared actively to evolution and hence subject to scientific scrutiny. A final note: evolution (in the sense of the modern neodarwinian synthesis) isn't the "sole theory" discussed in science classes. Especially in modules on the philosophy of science or history of science. Lamarckism, saltationism, and even creationism etc are usually covered in these subjects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Fundamentalist Christianity is not a threat to the profession of science, unless a "The Handmaid's Tale"-type scenario were to play out. Fundamentalist christianity is, however, a threat to the quality of our public science education, as they have repeatedly shown, and continue to show, that they are determined to try to impose their religious views into the science classroom.
quote: The same reason the idea that the sun is the center of the solar system is the sole theory directed at a classroom setting. The ToE is just as well-supported and fundamental to Biology as the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System is well-supported and fundamental to Astronomy.
quote: Well, sure, but since science class should be about science and not religion, wouldn't it be better to discuss various creation beliefs in a world religion class?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
IP addy is different, but he obviously signed in under the old registration of almost a year ago.
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Servant2thecause Inactive Member |
"The U.S. Constitution prohibits teaching religious theries as science in science classes, and common sense prohibits teaching pseudoscience or falsified theories as science in a science class."
--JonF Actually, the U.S. Constitution disallows, in the first amendment, "a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." but it DOES NOT prohibit teachers from taking class time to discuss alternatives to the evolution theory. By the way, in 1980 the supreme court ruled that the law forbids states to REQUIRE the teaching of creation, but it does not forbid the teaching of creation either. check the lawbooks. Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom). Now do a poll of biologists. Quite frankly I don't give a stuff what the ignorant think, the whole point of education is to teach people what the people who are actually knowledgable about a subject think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom).
The controversy is generated by individuals and organizations who don't understand the science and/or lie about it. I know some people who have held to the idea of "equal time" in the science classrooms. Some of those, when exposed to what the creationists actually want realize that there is no equal time deserved. Personally, I would love to see creationism studied in the science classroom. We have discussed that in other threads. If that was done in just the places where there is the most vocal crying out for it then there outcrys would really get loud! Creationism, if examined in a science classroom carefully, would get ripped to shreads. Observe how, on this forum, creastionists run from the detailed difficult questions about the age of the earth, the flood and the evidence for evolution. We haven't had a creationist take on the dates and dating forum for some weeks now. They spend weeks arguing in the faith and belief forums though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: No. People are free to believe what they want, nothing wrong with that. That is one of the greatest parts about a areligious democracy, you are free to practice any theology you want. However, this right does not extend to the state. The state is not allowed to establish a state religion, something that many fundamentalists want to do. They argue that fundamentalist christianity will bring morals and integrity back to the nation. A lofty goal, but it is the implementation that many have a problem with.
quote: Open-mindedness in a science classroom, or science in general, deals with competing theories that are both based in observable data. Since creationism is not based on testable hypotheses, or falsified hypotheses in the case of young earth creationism, it does not qualify. One example of a theory that could be taught side by side with evolution in a science classroom is Symbiosis Theory (which has been discussed in other threads). Otherwise, young earth creationism could be taught in relation to Lamarckism, Spontaneous Generation, and other falsified theories. Plus, the science classroom shouldn't be a place to test the validity of one religious text over others, being that we are a nation of multiple religions. Also, if you really want your children taught about creationism, nothing is stopping parents from doing this at home. This is perhaps the best place for it, since parents can also teach them about their faith and instruct them on everyday life at the same time. Parents already help their children with homework, I don't see why this can't be added on as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Actually, the U.S. Constitution disallows, in the first amendment, "a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." but it DOES NOT prohibit teachers from taking class time to discuss alternatives to the evolution theory. True. However, there are no scientific, unfalsified, non-religious alternatives to discuss. Check back when you have one.
By the way, in 1980 the supreme court ruled that the law forbids states to REQUIRE the teaching of creation, but it does not forbid the teaching of creation either. check the lawbooks. Reference please? The classic cases in this controversy are McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards v. Aguillard, Epperson v. Arkansas, Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Daniel v. Waters, Wright v. Houston I.S.D.; none of these were in 1980. And please quote the portion of whatever decision you mean that you think "does not forbid the teaching of creation either." The decision closest in time to 1980 is McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, in 1982. The ruling was pretty clear that "creation science" failed the Lemon test decisively and is therefore religion, and the Court made it clear that "creation science" would have to change a lot before it could pass the Lemon test:
quote: Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy Because a few religious cranks are attempting to foist their religion on the general public. Although many people in the U.S. believe in somthing vaguely like creationism, those that really want it taught in the classroom are a small but vocal minority.
in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom Well, I'll accept your assertion ... but how many said that we should teach "creation science" in the classsroom, and exactly how were the questions worded? Not objecting is different from supporting. But it's moot, anyway; both science and Constitutional interpretations are not the result of public debate. Another quote from McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education is relevant:
quote: So, until "creation science" becomes science rather than dogmatic religion, it will not be taught in U.S. public schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
booboocruise writes:
It's not about impact, it's about truth. Until now the evolutionists seem to be more hunting for the truth than the creationists on this site. To the creationists: If the creation movement is to prevail, why are you all caught up in disagreement and conflict amongst yourselves? Truly, the creation movement would most definitely make a stronger impact on the world of education if all the creationists out there could humble themselves to the point where they set aside their MINOR differences and focus on what's most important to them: that God created the universe and Christ died for all who sinned. Please elaborate on your answers. Maybe you want to change that? I suggest a new topic on the case of the distribution of olfatory (pseudo)genes in human and monkey lineages for example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Servant2thecause Inactive Member |
First off, Jesus said in Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and say all manner of evil against you for my sake, for great is your reward in heaven." Therefore, you might as well save the time and energy it takes to pour your ignorance and arrogant insults into your replies, because all i'm going to do with them is ignore them and thank God in prayer that he is giving me the strength to put up with people like yourselves. Truly, the most ignorant, arrogant, and prideful people I have ever met are Darwinsists, namely the people on this particular site.
Now then, can we get back to the topic?Evolution, as even admitted by Gould, Darwin, Asimov, and many other evolutionists, is nothing more than a theory. It is unproved. Honestly, neither Biblical creationism nor Darwinian evolutionism can be proven by science ("Science" = knowledge through demonstrated evidence and observation). Therefore, if any evolutionist, atheist, or otherwise anti-creationist has an ounce of honesty and integrity, he would freely admit that BOTH viewpoints have to be taken by faith. After all, with all other points thrown aside, there is no other way that i can think of to say it: Darwinian evolution (origin of life from nonliving matter and progression from simpler to more complex organisms) has never been proven. in fact, the Miller experiment (I'm POSITIVE you have heard of it) only proved that life cannot be created in the presence of oxygen (or else it would oxidize and self-destruct). In stead of waving an arrogant finger at creationists and demanding that they "prove" their theory before they can teach it, why don't you get down off your platform and try to prove YOUR OWN theory beyond a reasonable doubt (by the way, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means creating an argument that cannot be refutted with even our BEST understanding of science).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024