Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
30 online now:
Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,948 Year: 18,984/19,786 Month: 1,404/1,705 Week: 210/446 Day: 8/98 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in Schools
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 116 (4540)
02-15-2002 4:22 AM


Creaitonism is schools is a direct violation of the constitution.

need i say more?

let's start a discussion. I'd like to hear from someone who DOES NOT believe that it is not a violation...

thank you


Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 10:10 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 116 (4541)
02-15-2002 4:25 AM


correction:

i'd like to hear from someone who DOES NOT believe that it IS a violation of the constitution

basically- someone who thinks it is right to put it in schools

Creationism is religious. it is based on the bible, which is religious. it is belived in by ONLY CHRISTIANS. no non-christians believe in creationism. Actually, by believing in creationism, you ARE christian. A non-christian creationist is an oxymoron (right?)


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 02-15-2002 6:16 AM quicksink has not yet responded
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 2:23 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 116 (4552)
02-15-2002 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by quicksink
02-15-2002 4:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
correction:

i'd like to hear from someone who DOES NOT believe that it IS a violation of the constitution

basically- someone who thinks it is right to put it in schools

Creationism is religious. it is based on the bible, which is religious. it is belived in by ONLY CHRISTIANS. no non-christians believe in creationism. Actually, by believing in creationism, you ARE christian. A non-christian creationist is an oxymoron (right?)


There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism (or evolution or
cookery or wood work) in schools. SO LONG AS it is not
mis-represented as something that it's not.

Creationism is founded in religous conviction.

Evolution is founded in scientific enquiry and observation.

Cookery is ... well ... cookery

I don't know about constitutions ... we don't have one in the UK.

We DO have multi-faith schools, however. Would anyone be in favour
of teaching Hindu creation as FACT, despite there being individuals
from many different faiths in the same class ?

Just an aside, but shouldn't Jewish people believe in Creation
equally to Christians ... the Old Testament is Jewish scripture
after all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 4:25 AM quicksink has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 02-16-2002 7:35 PM Peter has not yet responded

    
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 116 (4554)
02-15-2002 6:55 AM


In the Us, it is illegal to teach religion scripture has scripture. If creationism was a better theory than evo, then it would be taught in schools, as it would not be only religious, but also highly credible and therefore the closest to the truth about our origins.

if this happened, which never will, we would see mass conversions to christianity.

Not yet.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by toff, posted 02-15-2002 7:41 AM quicksink has not yet responded
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 3:32 PM quicksink has not yet responded
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 3:34 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 116 (4556)
02-15-2002 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by quicksink
02-15-2002 6:55 AM


The basic problem with teaching creationism in schools isn't that it is completely religious in origin and foundation. It is, of course, but that isn't the real problem. The big problem is that it's wrong. Our schools (naturally) attempt to teach correct facts - in science, they teach correct facts, and possible interpretations of those facts, including the most popularly held. However, creationism is supported by no facts (outside the bible, which is a religious text). If it were supported by evidence sufficient to make it a genuine 'contender' as to origins, it would be taught in schools, regardless of the fact that its origin is religious in nature.

But it's not. At root, that's the biggest problem for the creationists trying to get it taught in schools. It's wrong. When it comes to facts and supporting evidence, it is not a 'contender' as a theory about our origins. It's on the same level as the myths of the Australian aborigines, or the belief that we were sneezed out by a mutant star-goat. It has no support whatsoever apart from religious beliefs. As such, it is not taught.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 6:55 AM quicksink has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 116 (4559)
02-15-2002 8:01 AM


oN SECOND THOUGHT- i concur. It's true that if creationism had been proved more correct than any other theory, it would be used.

The problem with teaching it now is that there isn't a reason to. It violates the constitution and is not a credible and respected theory.


  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 116 (4718)
02-16-2002 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by quicksink
02-15-2002 4:25 AM


"Creationism is religious. it is based on the bible, which is religious. it is belived in by ONLY CHRISTIANS. no non-christians believe in creationism. Actually, by believing in creationism, you ARE christian. A non-christian creationist is an oxymoron (right?)"
--Someone needs to get in touch with the model, I have given you this repeatedly.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 4:25 AM quicksink has not yet responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6174 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 8 of 116 (4723)
02-16-2002 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by quicksink
02-15-2002 6:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
In the Us, it is illegal to teach religion scripture has scripture. If creationism was a better theory than evo, then it would be taught in schools, as it would not be only religious, but also highly credible and therefore the closest to the truth about our origins.

if this happened, which never will, we would see mass conversions to christianity.

Not yet.


evolution was never a part of whether or not creationism was to be taught in schools. even our forefathers were smart enough to not intrude upon other peoples religions so that they would be able to have a strong and supported military. evolution is no where near a fact and its barely a theory and will never be seen because it franky just doesnt happen. there have been several mass conversions to christianity throught history, im sure another will come in due time and then our society will finally be taught the truth in school.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 6:55 AM quicksink has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 5:30 PM KingPenguin has responded
 Message 27 by nator, posted 02-17-2002 10:30 AM KingPenguin has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 116 (4724)
02-16-2002 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by quicksink
02-15-2002 6:55 AM


"In the Us, it is illegal to teach religion scripture has scripture. If creationism was a better theory than evo, then it would be taught in schools, as it would not be only religious, but also highly credible and therefore the closest to the truth about our origins.
if this happened, which never will, we would see mass conversions to christianity."
--Who said that we had to teach creationism? Who said we had to teach faith? Who said we had to teach religion? If you know the model of Creationism, you would know that you can teach creation science (If your going to call it that) without even mentioning the bible, faith, or religion.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 6:55 AM quicksink has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Quetzal, posted 02-16-2002 4:31 PM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 37 by toff, posted 02-18-2002 6:11 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4162 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 116 (4734)
02-16-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 3:34 PM


TC: Stop with the "model" business already. The only creationists on this board who've presented anything even remotely resembling a scientific model of creationism are wmscott (who was only dealing with the Flood), and Cobra_snake. Your random utterings don't even come close.

Maybe you could take a look at what Cobra produced and enunciate yours in the same fashion, or look at the way wmscott presented his arguments and try the same. Otherwise, you have nothing to quibble about wrt "models" - at least nothing coherent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 3:34 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 7:57 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 116 (4740)
02-16-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 3:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
evolution is no where near a fact and its barely a theory and will never be seen because it franky just doesnt happen...

How can you explain the many different strains of bacteria, evolving from previous strains. Something that CAN be observed. Furthermore, why doesn't the bible make any mention of bacteria or even reference to microorganisms? You must know how important bacteria is in everyday life. We could not live without it, yet there is no mention of this in the Bible.

[This message has been edited by no2creation, 02-16-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 3:32 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 5:38 PM no2creation has responded
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 8:04 PM no2creation has responded
 Message 71 by mccoy925, posted 02-27-2002 11:45 PM no2creation has not yet responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6174 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 13 of 116 (4742)
02-16-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by no2creation
02-16-2002 5:30 PM


your name alone is keeping from responding to you. change it plz.
i will say that the bible never claims to be a scientific journal.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-16-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 5:30 PM no2creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 6:25 PM KingPenguin has responded

    
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 116 (4753)
02-16-2002 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 5:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
your name alone is keeping from responding to you.

Oh well, I can live with that.

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
change it plz.

Not likely.

quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

i will say that the bible never claims to be a scientific journal.

Fair enough. But wouldn't it have to be such, in order to make the claim of 'Creation Science'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 5:38 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 6:49 PM no2creation has not yet responded
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 8:05 PM no2creation has not yet responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6174 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 15 of 116 (4757)
02-16-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by no2creation
02-16-2002 6:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by no2creation:

Fair enough. But wouldn't it have to be such, in order to make the claim of 'Creation Science'.

not necessarily, it can still be supported by science and not be a scientific journal.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by no2creation, posted 02-16-2002 6:25 PM no2creation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by gene90, posted 02-16-2002 7:03 PM KingPenguin has responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 2113 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 16 of 116 (4761)
02-16-2002 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 6:49 PM


The problem with "Creation Science" (other than it being an oxymoron) is that it is construed to support a particular religious belief, ie, Fundamentalist Christianity. I believe the current definition that most of the Creationist presence here is using for "Creation Science"
is something akin to using science to support the Bible. If we taught that in US schools, we would be teaching that the Bible is correct, and therefore violating the Establishment Clause in the American Constitution.

Not only would we be selling out the most basic legal principles of the US but we would be causing religious strife where it isn't necessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 6:49 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 7:15 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019