Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

Hi, I am interested to know how your 'major professor' became a professor, was it by going ot school and swimming with the other fish? I think the jury is still out there! Brian.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WHIP ME, BRING IT ON!!! YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE REDICULOUS. DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE HERE W/O SCIENCE. WHERE DO YOU THINK MODERN MEDICINE FINDS A FOUNDATION. THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT PROVIDES FOR YOUR WAY OF LIFE ARE MERELY APPLICATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC ENDEVOURS. EVOLUTION IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF SCIENCE. I TEACH EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY B/C THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT AND THE CHILDREN WHO ARE GOING TO GROW UP TO BE THE SURGEONS, PHARMACOLOGISTS, ETC THAT WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO KEEP YOUR SORRY ASS ALIVE WILL NEED TO KNOW THAT SCIENCE DEPENDS ON EVIDENCES THAT SUPPORT HYPOTHESES THAT MAKE UP THEORIES THAT EXPLAIN HOW THE NATURAL WORLD WE LIVE IN WORKS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WORLD YOU LIVE IN, BUT I SUGGEST YOU LOOK INTO REALITY BEFORE YOU ADVOCATE VIOLENCE AGAINST EDUCATORS.

All caps is hard to read and seems like yelling. Selective use of UBB codes (see link to the left when you are creating a post) can make emphasis clearer.

---

What goes? The Nose Knows!

thanks for the info (not being sarcastic). i'll try to see what i can do with it next time i am blinded by rage. sorry to bother anyone, except, of course stephen.

Try to remember, you're conversing with someone who hears voices. It might make it easier to remain calm.

---

Common sense isn't

hitchy,
You are completely justified in your anger.
Our "friend" learned how to write and read, evidently, without the help of any teacher. Ever see the bumper sticker that says, "Don't criticize a farmer with your mouth full" ?

Ok, possiblilities. It that a better word? A Origin Possibility Class? Is that better? I think it has found it's way there because evolutionists don't want other's to think Creation is even a POSSIBILITY of what really happened. By putting Creation in a religous class you are implying to the students that Creation is just a myth, a religous story. I think an additional class would also solve the time issue, so we could teach more...

What else would you call a hypothesis promulgated soley by those with a religious agenda and supported by no physical evidence? I'd call it both "religious" and a "story." It's no more likely true than the origin story of any other religion, so why set it apart?And what exactly is wrong with a myth? "Myth" doesn't mean "lie", you know. Myths can - and often are - as meaningful to people as facts.

And kids aren't stupid.The religious viewpoint of life's origins and fixity of species are taught within their church experiences. I don't ever remember a genetics lesson in Sunday school or a sermon on applying the "Rules of Hardy-Weiberg" in one's life. Shouldn't the "equal time" argument be used here ? Creationist ideas are religious, plain and simple.Bring them into the public classroom and we'll head back down the road of reciting the Lord's Prayer ( which version ?) before math and fried fish sticks each Friday in the cafeteria.An absurd extrapolation of their intent ? Not at all. Read the history of the creationist movement and learn what the likes of their leadership says when in the revival tents and behind the scenes with their believing bretheren. There IS NO TRUTH other than their own.And if I might ask of our friends who want to see "both sides" presented, shall a biology teacher also be "highly qualified" with the required degrees and professional development credits each year, in his/her primary field AS WELL AS in the appropriate religious doctrines ?? And how many should that be ?

Some forms of "creation" are still a possibility I guess. Did God kick off the big bang?However, most of the forms of "creation" that people are fighting to have in schools are not a possibility at all any more. What form did you want?

---

Common sense isn't

Hi, You mean in a department other than science or religion?Don't you think it more reasonable to conclude that creation is not taught in science classes because there is no way to teach it, isn't it more reasonable to have it in religious studies classes because it is a religious belief?You are also implying that students believe that everything taught in religious studies classes is untrue, this is not the case. Students know that creationism is a belief they know it is a part of a religion's belief system. They know that people have faith that the creation by God is true, everything in religion is taken on faith.I think that it is time that you lived up to your chosen member name, you need to switch off the 'I want it so much to be true' detector and switch on the truth detector then you will realise that creation has no evidence at all, it is a myth used to explain to a pre-scientific society where we came from, and who we should be grateful to for that. You need to start detecting the truth about the Bible, it is a wonderful collection of books, but it is literature, try to read it as such and you will see that it really does not reflect very much about reality.There is no science in it, there is very very little supported history in it, and the majority of it is indeed mythological. As long as you keep taking this extremely biased viewpoint that you have when studying the bible, you will never ever detect any truth.Brian.

This "religous agenda" would be telling the theory, so that means nothing. Why can't a belief believed for centuries by many cultures be half-taught in schools? It is more likely to be true than in other religions because other religions haven't made perfect predictions into the future.

Because there's already organizations that exist for the promulgation of these myths. Maybe you've heard of them - they're called "churches." Christianity isn't going to disappear because it's not being taught in school. I'm afraid you're quite wrong. You'll find that Christianity is no better at verifyable prophecy than any other religion, including "guessing."On the other hand, scientific models are built to make predicitions. The Theory of Evolution has made many more accurate predicitions than Christianity.

Unfortunately, I don't think "dad", unless he is a specific professor, knows enough about science, etc to be going on that "fishing trip". I would say that parents are better for an initial source of morals/prinicples, BUT not exclusively.

Tagless,You say, My biggest problem with schools is that they let "dad" off of the continuing education hook. Home education has a remarkably saluatory effect on the intelligence of the parents.But it's hard to find a good text-book on applied epistemology, which I now believe to be the most important subject that we can teach.Stephen