Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
30 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Guido Arbia, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,832 Year: 18,868/19,786 Month: 1,288/1,705 Week: 94/446 Day: 94/64 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in Schools
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3766
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 47 of 116 (5013)
02-18-2002 9:03 PM


Somewhere, someone mentioned creationist content in existing science text books. I would be interested in seeing how this was handled.

Or the proposed creationist content in said books.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


    
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 116 (5016)
02-18-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 11:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--YEC basically, teach that the evidence doesn't allways point towards an old earth. To teach the Creation (as obviously there are many religions with different creation accounts) or ID would rather be more of the Teachers decision most likely. Teach anything that is scientific.


Because the evidence does always point to an old Earth. You might want to complain about this over in the appropriate thread, but there are no serious scientists who believe such a thing.

quote:

"There is no cohesive Creation "science"."
--Then teach it like it is braud, ie, there are many creation accounts, etc.

How are creation 'accounts' relevant to science? Science classrooms are surprisingly for teaching science not comparative religion.

quote:

"Also, Creation "science" is a peculiarly American phenomena. There are not any Creation "Science"
movements in Europe or Asia that I am aware of."
--Well isn't that unfortunate. I think there is one in Australia but I don't know about the others.

Why is it unfortunate? If it isn't science why would there be a movement?

quote:

"If Creation "science" was really scientific, why aren't there adherents all over the world, and why do Creation 'scienctists' all have to be Christian?"
--They don't all have to be Christian, there are muslim and buddhist creationists,

Budhist creationists? Could you offer some information on this movement--I am not aware of it.

quote:

a more specific approach I am looking for to what would be taught is that the earth could be young, and simply that it could have been created on top of that.

Science isn't about what could be or we would be teaching last Thursdayism as an alternative.

quote:

Instead of the schools trying to rip everyone's faith to shreads, with first-hand experience, it is a frequent happening, a typical product of indoctrination.

Teaching science treats all religions equally by ignoring their particular faith and dealing with the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 11:53 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by gene90, posted 02-18-2002 9:47 PM lbhandli has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Theo, posted 02-22-2002 6:29 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2112 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 49 of 116 (5017)
02-18-2002 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 9:37 PM


If Creationists are trying to undermine evolution on a religious basis, then even if it were expedient to include any kind of creationism in US science classes, do you actually believe that your fellow Creationists would not scream bloody terror over the whole thing of including non-Christian creationism?

I feel like we aren't seeing eye-to-eye here. Creationism or "Creation Science" isn't about weighing evidence, it is about propagating a particular religion over all others, and sometimes even using the US public schools to bring about that end.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 9:37 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

  
bkwusa
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 116 (5022)
02-18-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
02-15-2002 4:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
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


hmmm i am a chritian... i do not belive in evolution... therefore if you teach one but not the other you have disfranchised my belive which is protected by the constitution...

teach bothe or noe!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 4:22 AM quicksink has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 10:22 PM bkwusa has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 116 (5023)
02-18-2002 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 10:10 PM


Why should we be teaching comparative religion in science classrooms? It isn't about what one believes, but what science infers from the evidence. If you care to make the case that creationism is scientific we have several threads begging for a scientific theory of creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 10:10 PM bkwusa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 10:36 PM lbhandli has responded
 Message 54 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-18-2002 11:00 PM lbhandli has responded

  
bkwusa
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 116 (5024)
02-18-2002 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 10:22 PM


i'm not saying creationism is a science... especially scince i have never read a article about what exactly crationism states... i do not belive the earth is 6000 years old... if you read the bible you shuld know that god's time is totaly diffrent from ours... meaning the first six days that earth was created in could be 6 hourse or 6 billion years... only god knows that. but what i do know is that i do not belive in evolution as it is being thought. i am currently taking a class in geology about evolution of the earth... but they asume for any of there throrys to work that the earth always has to function now as in tommorow and yesterday... how do we know that earth dose that? maybe it did... but what if it didn't? how do we know that a half life is always going at the same rate of exponential decay as it is going right now? how do we know there wasn't a sudden change? if you stop questioning facts you retire from science... some famouse person sayed that... in science your suppose to be open minded... maybe evolution is true , maybe it's NOT. but from what i'm reading both sides on this discussion boared are dogmatic about this subject...

and what i was trying to say in my original post was that if you teach somethink in school that is against my religion no matter what it is even if it is evolution... it still would be disenfranchising my rights... same way if creationism were thought in school it would disenfranchise your rights


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 10:22 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 10:48 PM bkwusa has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 116 (5027)
02-18-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 10:36 PM


quote:

but what i do know is that i do not belive in evolution as it is being thought. i am currently taking a class in geology about evolution of the earth... but they asume for any of there throrys to work that the earth always has to function now as in tommorow and yesterday... how do we know that earth dose that?

Because we should see physical evidence if geological principles were different. Any process should leave physical markers unless they are covered up. This is inconsistent with Christian theology, as a side point, because Christians don't believe God would deceive.

quote:

bk: maybe it did... but what if it didn't? how do we know that a half life is always going at the same rate of exponential decay as it is going right now?

I'll briefly answer this, but it belongs in a separate thread. Feel free to start one on this. Because if decay rates did change we should see the evidence of it. Isochron methods specifically address this problem.

quote:

and what i was trying to say in my original post was that if you teach somethink in school that is against my religion no matter what it is even if it is evolution... it still would be disenfranchising my rights... same way if creationism were thought in school it would disenfranchise your rights

What right is that exactly? The only right in relation to religion is that the government will not establish a religion. This means governments will not promote a particular religion or sect. Creationism is nothing but a religious belief by conservative Protestants and therefore not to be taught by the state except in relation to comparative religion classes.

Evolution is a scientific theory. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the state to not teach anything that people find contrary to their personal beliefs. Teaching science as a field isn't for the purpose of indoctrination, but education. Science education has a purpose entirely separate from promoting a particular faith and therefore your complaint is irrelevant from a Constitutional point of view and from a basic issue of fairness.

If you want to claim we shouldn't teach science, you can attempt that argument, but I doubt it will be successful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 10:36 PM bkwusa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 11:04 PM lbhandli has responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 116 (5030)
02-18-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 10:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
If you care to make the case that creationism is scientific we have several threads begging for a scientific theory of creation.

...... and I DID provide at least the start of a theory, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 10:22 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 11:01 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 116 (5031)
02-18-2002 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Cobra_snake
02-18-2002 11:00 PM


And you haven't responded to several points that explain the problems with that theory. Would you care to? Or is a theory built on false assumptions okay? Why don't you continue the issue in the thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-18-2002 11:00 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
bkwusa
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 116 (5032)
02-18-2002 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by lbhandli
02-18-2002 10:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
What right is that exactly? The only right in relation to religion is that the government will not establish a religion. This means governments will not promote a particular religion or sect. Creationism is nothing but a religious belief by conservative Protestants and therefore not to be taught by the state except in relation to comparative religion classes.

Evolution is a scientific theory. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the state to not teach anything that people find contrary to their personal beliefs. Teaching science as a field isn't for the purpose of indoctrination, but education. Science education has a purpose entirely separate from promoting a particular faith and therefore your complaint is irrelevant from a Constitutional point of view and from a basic issue of fairness.

If you want to claim we shouldn't teach science, you can attempt that argument, but I doubt it will be successful.


ummm first amendment of the constitution: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or....."
it all depends on how you interpert these few words...

evolution is a scientific theory... so was neptunism at it's time... so was cathastrophianism...

i know i know the last two were proven wrong beyond a doubth... but how do we know evolution won't be proven worng?

also... in science you don't attempt to prove anythink correct... you try to disporve somethink and untill somone dose it is accepted to be correct...

and oh yeah could you refer me to a article about half life's always being the same because i am realy interedted in that...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 10:48 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by lbhandli, posted 02-18-2002 11:15 PM bkwusa has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 116 (5036)
02-18-2002 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by bkwusa
02-18-2002 11:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by bkwusa:
ummm first amendment of the constitution: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or....."
it all depends on how you interpert these few words...

How is teaching a scientific theory establishing a religion? You have equated your personal belief and a scientific theory as having the same standing in science. This is not the case. The state has an interest in promoting science education and if it chooses, as it does, to act upon that interest there is no reason why it should have to take into account non-scientific arguments.

quote:

evolution is a scientific theory... so was neptunism at it's time... so was cathastrophianism...

Neptunism? Perhaps you can tell us what that is. If creationism was a scientific theory it would be reasonably to teach it. However, it is not a scientific theory (see other threads if you disagree) and therefore has no reason to be taught in a science classroom other than to promote particular sects of Conservative Protestants.

quote:

i know i know the last two were proven wrong beyond a doubth... but how do we know evolution won't be proven worng?

We don't. However, the likelihood is quite small. However, this is irrelevant to the current status of a theory. It is a scientific theory that has not been falsified and therefore belongs in science classrooms.

quote:

also... in science you don't attempt to prove anythink correct... you try to disporve somethink and untill somone dose it is accepted to be correct...

Relevance?

quote:

and oh yeah could you refer me to a article about half life's always being the same because i am realy interedted in that...

Here is a whole series of articles:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.html

Please attempt to put comments in the appropriate threads or post new topics. Moose just brought up a thread relevant to this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bkwusa, posted 02-18-2002 11:04 PM bkwusa has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 58 of 116 (5052)
02-19-2002 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 5:20 PM


TC
"--Colossians 1:16 - For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,"

When Paul wrote this, atomic theory and germ theory had been kicked around in "scientific" circles for nearly two hundred years. For various reasons, these theories would not really "get off the ground" for couple of thousand years more.

-------
db

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 5:20 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 116 (5053)
02-19-2002 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 5:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Not sure, what?"
--It would be like teaching water flows up-river, especially with any skeptical mind-set in the time.

- I am skeptical about the bible. And I can definately relate to this comment. Teaching me the literal sense of the bible would be the equivalent to teaching them that water flows up river...

"The explanation of sanitization in your post seem very vague to me. Genesis accounts for the creation of plants, and animal life, but no where does it indicate a creation of bacteria and lifeforms not visible to the naked eye."
--Genesis 1:20 - And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature
--This could include micro-organisms. See below.

"Yet the life that is not visible to our own eyes, is a requirement for the survival of Earth."
--Colossians 1:16 - For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,"

- Its just a little too vague for me. It doesn't explain the significance of the 'invisible' (if microorganisms were to be included here), in relation to the rest of the living world. If you can find somewhere that it does give it's importance, please show. Thanks TC.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 5:20 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 11:56 PM no2creation has not yet responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 116 (5056)
02-19-2002 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 4:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"LUDk but which brand of YEC's? christian? Norse? Algonquin? Mayan? Australian aborigenal? they're all different and i'm sure their proponents could show you evidence on why THEIR version is the correct one. Or is this whole creasionism movement just what i suspect it to actually be...a means by which christians can proletyse under the guise of legitimate science..."
--That the Earth could be young, and that Evolution isn't the only answer. What you want to branch off from this is the students choice.

LUD:Evolution is not proletysing...its a theory of the possible origin of human beings that does not require divine intervention. Sure the earth could be young...it could have been created yesterday,along with all your memories of past events as far as we know. Possible and probable....study those two concepts...they are not the same

"LUD:As i said,this i could agree with...as an optional course in school."
--Yes, so should the concept of Evolution.

LUD:As far as i know,asibe from the very basics,it is.

"LUD:Well...maybe the rest of the world know something that the americans dont...ever thought of that? After all,Europe experienced first hand the horrors that can be engendered by mass religious histeria."
--Sure I thought of it, never seen it though, and I thought the web was world-wide? They must like it to be kept a secret.

LUDr perhaps they aren't keeping it a secret and you simply wont look at what they know.

"LUD:I think you got it backward there TC. The US is probably the most rabidly christian nation in the world...THAT was the result of 150 years of indoctrination."
--We dont' need to change the direction of the subject. I remember passing out fliers for my church after the 9-11 attacks, I encounterd a girl that was my age. Very sarcastic, she told me she wouldn't accept the flier because I said I wasn't a 'holy priest'. I asked her a question of why she considered herself athiestic. Wouldn't you guess that her answer was 'have you ever heard of Evolution'. Obviously there is something seriously wrong with that statment isn't there. Such is the teaching of evolution in our schools today.

LUD:See,this is where we part company TC...i dont see anything wrong with being athiestic even if i'm not one. Athiests are not evil or misguided...they just dont believe in God like we do...hell,WE dont even believe in God the same way. You see God as some sort of an overlord ruling over the earth...i see God as a parent and we as IT's children. You believe that God requires servitude and worship...i believe that God couldn't care less about either. And she doesn't believe in any of it...so the hell what? You think that evolution makes people disbelieve in God? I believe in BOTH,how do you explain me? Dont blame a field of study for the fact that christians dont own the soul of everyone on earth...some people actually prefer not to let 2000 year old books do their thinking for them...and i've never seen a single evolution manual that contains the statement "there is no God"

"In the '20,during the infamous monkey trials,where a teacher was suspended for teaching darwinian evolution to his class,this fact became self evident,as the teacher was relying on hard science and his prosecutors were doing nothing but proletysing to the jury,just falling short of claiming in open court that the teacher was nothing less than the Anti-Christ. The judgement of the school stood,even if the teacher had proven his case and it took 40 years before someone in the legislative bodies woke up and said "hey...maybe there's actually something to this whole evolution thingy after all"."
--you take the 'monkey trial' to its extremities in sarcasm.

LUD:Actually,i have to be sarcastic...the whole thing was a gigantic joke. Suspending a man because he was teaching a legitimate field of study that contain some principles who happened to contradict SOME biblical teachings? And my description of the prosecution was not sarcastic...it was dead on. It looked like a witch trial of the good old days of the inquisitions and it took place here...in america for crying out loud...

"Christianity is not on the verge of disapearing in the US...far from it. But it has always fought viciously the establishement of differing points of views,which is why religion was removed from mandatory teaching in schools...Some people actually took the time to read the constitution and realized that it said FREEDOM of religion and NOT "freedom to be a christian or else..!!!."."
--As far as I am aware, it doesn't say anything about being unable to teach creation in the public schools either.

LUD:I know but as i said,which creation should be taught in school? The ine that suits YOUR personal religious beliefs and no others?

"Science educates,it does not indoctrinate."
--Wish that was true.

LUD:But it is...science just paints a picture of things for you which is free of moral implication...YOU decide what you do with this picture and what moral value you will attach to it.

"In science class,you are not punished for questionning a logic that appears faulty...you are praised for it(unless the science teacher is a real self centered jerk)...Tell me,to the best of your knowledge,how long could you question the doctrinal teachings in a christian school before you got yourself expelled?"
--Most likely wouldn't get expelled, but what would I know, Im not in a private school. Also, not every christian school is against Evolution.

LUD:Well i do TC...i went to nun school for 6 years before high school,as did my 3 sisters and my young brother. I know what i'm talking about. Back then,nuns used a ruler across your back when you misbehaved...and misbehaving,i was to discover,aslo included claiming that i did not believe in God when i was in 4th grade...i since then revised this position,not because of the 10 strikes i go that day but because i thought about it some more. My problem with God is how It was depicted in the Bible. I came to the conclusion that I did not need to believe in the Bible to believe in God. The Bible is after all the work of man and is tainted by man's thinking and culture,whereas creation itself,so to speak,is the only untainted work of God we have to study ITs nature. And since SCIENCE and NOT RELIGION is the thing that helps us decifer the misteries of creation,well i decided that science would be better suited to help me understand God...as for christians,every bible believing christian IS against evolution...at least macro evolution,which they claim is impossible and anti-biblical...wonder what they'll say about last week's finds on the subject,which seem to confirm the existance of macro-mutation/evolution



This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 4:53 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 116 (5157)
02-20-2002 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by TrueCreation
02-18-2002 11:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In addition, WHICH creation 'science' do you teach? YEC? OEC? ID?"
--YEC basically, teach that the evidence doesn't allways point towards an old earth. To teach the Creation (as obviously there are many religions with different creation accounts) or ID would rather be more of the Teachers decision most likely. Teach anything that is scientific.

"There is no cohesive Creation "science"."
--Then teach it like it is braud, ie, there are many creation accounts, etc.

"Also, Creation "science" is a peculiarly American phenomena. There are not any Creation "Science"
movements in Europe or Asia that I am aware of."
--Well isn't that unfortunate. I think there is one in Australia but I don't know about the others.

"If Creation "science" was really scientific, why aren't there adherents all over the world, and why do Creation 'scienctists' all have to be Christian?"
--They don't all have to be Christian, there are muslim and buddhist creationists, a more specific approach I am looking for to what would be taught is that the earth could be young, and simply that it could have been created on top of that. Instead of the schools trying to rip everyone's faith to shreads, with first-hand experience, it is a frequent happening, a typical product of indoctrination.


How is NOT teaching religion in a science class room tantamount to "ripping everyone's religion to shreds"?

Oh, and please provide this scientific theory of a Young Earth, complete with positive evidence, testable hypothesese and potential falsifications.

Muslim and Buddhist creationists? Please elaborate.

Perhaps the reason there are few/no Creationists in Asia or Europe is because there are 1)few fundamentalist Christians there, and 2) people are better educated in the sciences.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by TrueCreation, posted 02-18-2002 11:53 AM TrueCreation 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