Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
55 online now:
14174dm, Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, frako, JonF, PaulK, PsychMJC, Tangle (9 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,074 Year: 4,822/23,288 Month: 1,727/1,286 Week: 41/353 Day: 41/45 Hour: 4/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 336 (619267)
06-09-2011 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Acalepha
06-08-2011 12:49 PM


There are, however, many different theories of creation. The Christian religion has their belief which is different from the Muslim belief which is different from the North American First Nation's beliefs and so on and so on.

If creation is to be taught in the education system, whose version of creation should be taught

Right, so you have to go with a diluted-down vague non-descript version of creation like Intelligent Design.

If there was a basis in empirical observation for Intelligent Design, then it could be an acceptable part of a science course.

If you teach one version of creation over a different version of creation, is this not racist?

No, because it doesn't have anything to do with race. Perhaps, "biased" or mayby "bigoted" would be a better word.

Who decides whose culture is valid and whose is invalid?

THis becomes irrelevant if you're not going to teach specific creation stories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Acalepha, posted 06-08-2011 12:49 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 336 (619349)
06-09-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 2:32 PM


Re: Dear Catholic Scientist
Please give me a diluted down, vague, non-descript version of Intelligent Design that I can use when teaching my high school biology classes.

I didn't make it up, but here you go:

quote:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If we could find empirical evidence that suggests that, say, some biological function had to have emerged via a diliberate and guided process, then we could teach about that evidence in a biology class.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 2:32 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 3:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 25 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 336 (619363)
06-09-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 3:09 PM


Re: Dear Catholic Scientist
Do you see how weak your statement is. On one hand, we have biology that has all this empirical evident to support the theory of evolution and your statement that says "Someone just decided to make everything one day."

Not exactly, but whatever, its beside the point. Your delimma is solved by using a non-descript version of creationism like ID. The next problem is finding the empirical evidence for it.

Do you think that people like Taz would be okay with your idea of what creation is? I get the impression that Taz likes all the values and stories associated with the creation mythos. Is he okay with giving all that up?

Maybe, I dunno. Depends on how much he has to follow the Bible versus how much he wants to follow empirical evidence.

By the way, have you ever heard of roleplaying? Taz isn't being serious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 3:09 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:33 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 336 (619392)
06-09-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 3:58 PM


Re: Danger Will Robinson!
I hope you can see the inherent danger in using the phrase "had to have".

Kind of, but not really.

Scientists try to not use that phrase, as it denotes certainty; without doubt.

Meh, not so much... it doesn't have to.

For example, there had to have been a common ancestor between chimps and humans for the ToE to be correct.

That is one reason Creation science is NOT science.

Only if you force the certainty beyond the normal tentativity-included everyday usage of the words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 3:58 PM DBlevins has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 39 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:42 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 336 (619563)
06-10-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 7:33 PM


Re: Dear Catholic Scientist
Let us say that I use a "ID" as a explanation for creationism. Am I not substituting a make believe myth for a whole bunch of ethnic one?

Huh?

What ever way you look at it, you are dismissing the cultural beliefs of all the different ethnic groups that espouse them.

I think I'm following you...

You're saying that if you decide to teach creationism, then picking one particular version and only teaching that is prejudiced. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

As I've explained, one solution to that dilemma is to teach an overarching all-inclusive creationism like ID. But, again: BUT, we would have to have empirical evidence of ID to include it in a science curriculum. Now, if we did have that evidence, then there wouldn't be any problems teaching ID in a science class. You wouldn't be dismissing any cultural belief anymore than the current teaching of evolution does.

Make sense?


The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:33 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 336 (619564)
06-10-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by DBlevins
06-09-2011 6:32 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
Race, as a classification, has no value.

We should have a new thread on this...

Race, as a classification, has value to Affirmative Action, no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by DBlevins, posted 06-09-2011 6:32 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 4:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Nuggin, posted 06-10-2011 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye 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 © 2020