|
Author
|
Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Robert Byers writes: The argument for American schools i always prevail with is simple. The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up. Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc. One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state and so unrelated to ideas of separation of religion and government. One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship. Creationism is on soldi ground for all freedoms in schools on these issues and simply needs people to push the matter in politics and in court cases. So we should teach that Nun threw up and the vomit became the universe?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 140 of 609 (606066)
02-23-2011 5:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 139 by shadow71
02-23-2011 5:00 PM
|
|
shadow71 writes: Dr. Adequate wrote;
Arguably when creationism was still plausible there would have been a legitimate secular purpose in teaching it. Now that it's just a religious dogma, there's no reason for teaching it any more than teaching the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary. I think it is premature to state that creationism is just a religious dogma. I don't see how you can state that w/certainty when the Origin of life is not known. For instance if the origin of life was not random then you may have Creation. My question to you is can you state with certainity that Creation is not plausible at this time in our existence? As a Christian I can state with a very, very, very high degree of confidence that Creation as in Special Creation is not only not feasible, it is irrelevant and unsupportable and only makes GOD look like a fool.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 5:00 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 150 of 609 (606104)
02-23-2011 7:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 146 by shadow71
02-23-2011 7:10 PM
|
|
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
As a Christian I can state with a very, very, very high degree of confidence that Creation as in Special Creation is not only not feasible, it is irrelevant and unsupportable and only makes GOD look like a fool. Wow. I guess I have heard it from the top of the mountain. Pray tell what is this very, very, very high degree of confidence that Creation is not feasible based upon? Is that based upon your scientific studies? Give me the cites. And what is your definition of "Special Creation"? Should we teach the children that there is no plausible explanation of how life began, but .... but what. Give me the scientific theory, not speculation as to how life began. And how does it make God look like a fool? You must be absoultely sure as to how life began correct? Tell me how and I will rest in peace. Let me see if I can address all of those. I'll start with "Special Creation", it is the idea that there was some planned, desired outcome and that particular critters were some desired outcome of some God. An idea is the concept that the phrase "created in His image" applies to mankind as opposed to something like pond scum. Of course I am not absolutely sure of how life originated, as I said I have a very, very, very high degree of confidence. We teach the children that we don't know how life originated YET but so far ALL of the evidence supports a pretty normal chemical and physical process, and that we are learning more every day.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 7:10 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 154 of 609 (606108)
02-23-2011 7:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 153 by shadow71
02-23-2011 7:51 PM
|
|
Re: really? really?
shadow71 writes: Theodoric writes;
Your version of creationism is based upon the bible isn't it? Show me a creation story that is not based upon religion. Show me a creation story that does not include a god or supernatural being of some sort. Do you now see how ludicrous your statement is? I was commenting that Dr. Adequate was stating that it was a religious dogma and therefore could not be true. I was not denying it is a religious dogma. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is dogma and so it cannot be taught. It really is that simple.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 153 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 7:51 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 160 of 609 (606115)
02-23-2011 8:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 159 by shadow71
02-23-2011 8:23 PM
|
|
Re: That pesky evidence thing again
shadow71 writes: Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life. To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students. But saying "the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life" has absolutely no informational content. If someone said "the Book of Endor does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life" and it would be equally valid. Neither gives us any information about how life began.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 159 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 8:23 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Robert Byers writes:
I can answer everyones same points by dealing with this post. This is why I always prevail. Nobody said why my post was wrong. Just repeated slogans. The important thing of this post is INDEED the state must be neutral on religious matters. Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines. Its fully involved in truth discovery. Its also involved in censorship. If the state is teaching about the accuracy of the bible on origins then its breaking the very law used to ban the bible. If the state further censors the bible on origins while presenting itself as seeking and teaching the truth of origins then again its breaking the law it invokes. How not? If the state teaches Genesis is false then its not neutral! The establishment claus was a great idea to stop the state from bugging the public on religion. Yet by teaching the bible is false or not allowing the bible as a option for origins, so again saying its false, the STATE is buging the public surely. The thirteen colonies DID not put anything in the constitution to ban God or Genesis in schools. Absurdity for such a religious people. The purpose was to stop interference between state and church. Yet teaching about origins crosses the boundaries. By teaching evolution or banning creationism the state is making a establishment of religion. Its saying its not true. First, Biblical Creationism and the literal truthfulness of the two mutually exclusive creation myths found in the Bible is not "Christian Dogma"; it is in fact only held as dogma by the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Biblical Creationism, like the Biblical Flood and the Biblical Exodus are not true. That is not a religious statement but rather a statement of fact. However, Biblical Creationism, the Biblical Flood and the Biblical Exodus certainly could be taught in literature classes or when studying other mythology.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 182 of 609 (606258)
02-24-2011 1:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by shadow71
02-24-2011 1:35 PM
|
|
Re: really? really?
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
It is dogma and so it cannot be taught. It really is that simple. I think your statement is too dogmatic. Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology." Nope. Even that is subject to challenge and question. Nor is it dogma in the same sense as religious dogma.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by shadow71, posted 02-24-2011 1:35 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 192 of 609 (606324)
02-24-2011 7:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 191 by subbie
02-24-2011 7:42 PM
|
|
Re: Shadow71s Objection
subbie writes: I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities. Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings. Science never proves anything. Anything. Ever. Science isn't about proof. Science is about the best explanation for the evidence we have to date. As such, the ToE and natural selection are among the most successful scientific theories ever devised in the history of science. I have no idea what you mean by "random mutation for fitness" so I can't speak to that. Science can at times disprove things to a very, very high confidence level.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 191 by subbie, posted 02-24-2011 7:42 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 207 of 609 (606591)
02-26-2011 7:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:09 PM
|
|
shadow71 writes: My problem is that it appears that scientists preach the naturalist message that all is knowable by science. Except that is simply not a true statement. Scientists do not preach period and certainly not anything as silly as "all is knowable by science".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:09 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 210 of 609 (606595)
02-26-2011 7:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by shadow71
02-26-2011 7:35 PM
|
|
shadow71 writes: jar wrote;
Except that is simply not a true statement. Scientists do not preach period and certainly not anything as silly as "all is knowable by science". I see a lot of scientific preaching on this board about how anyone who believes in Creation is surely on the wrong tract. Anyone that claims there is evidence of some Intelligent Design or Special Creation should be taken to task and forced to provide a model and mechanism. So far no one has ever presented anything relating to some model or theory of Creation Science or Intelligent Design. The issue is particularly Christians trying to get anything like "Creation" in schools. Honestly, "Creation" as a science or methodology is worthless and does not belong in any science classes. Religions and theology can be discussed in religious classes or philosophy classes or mythology classes or political classes or history classes or literature classes but it has no place or value in the science areas.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by shadow71, posted 02-26-2011 7:35 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 220 of 609 (606667)
02-27-2011 4:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 219 by shadow71
02-27-2011 4:11 PM
|
|
Re: please splain
shadow71 writes: Theodoric writes;
How long has the bible been around?
10,000 years?
Must be a different bible than the christian one. Genesis the "J" source goes back to 10,000 BC. Not likely at all. In fact the "J" sources seem to have a very definite slant towards Judah as opposed to Israel. That would place it as relatively recent, likely sometime after 1000BCE.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 219 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 4:11 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 222 of 609 (606669)
02-27-2011 4:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 221 by shadow71
02-27-2011 4:32 PM
|
|
Re: please splain
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
Not likely at all. In fact the "J" sources seem to have a very definite slant towards Judah as opposed to Israel. That would place it as relatively recent, likely sometime after 1000BCE. This is way off thread but I will give my source for the answer and then quit. In the New American Bible, The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd edition it states that The Yahwist (J) source was written in Judah in the late 10th century BC while others say that may be additionsthat can be found in thje present "J" text that were added much later to an earlier version. I don't claim to be an expert so just telling you my source. The tenth century BCE would be between 1000BCE to 901BCE.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 221 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 4:32 PM | | shadow71 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 224 of 609 (606672)
02-27-2011 5:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 223 by shadow71
02-27-2011 5:11 PM
|
|
Re: please splain
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
The tenth century BCE would be between 1000BCE to 901BCE Your right, I got my O's messed up. I apologize. No problem, been there and done that.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 223 by shadow71, posted 02-27-2011 5:11 PM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Robert Byers writes: The law is the law. Sensible or denying the truth its still the law. No one could teach YEC though it was proven true as long as the present law is in place. Yec is banned today by this law despite being the truth. Bullshit. If there was evidence supporting a young earth it could be taught; however young earth has been totally falsified and so teaching it is teaching a falsehood.
Robert Byers writes: My greater point is that there is no such law in the constitution dealing with school subjects. There is no actual connection between church/state relations and everything the state pays for. It was not the founders intention. Absurd. The people simply should have the power to vote up or down these matters. Creationism is historic, popular, and intellectually solid. no problem to returning it to the classroom. Creationism is NOT intellectually solid or supported by any evidence. If it was it could be taught. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Robert Byers writes: I insist. Teaching Christian doctrines are wrong is illegal if the very law invoked to ban creationism is about neutrality and non interference. Its logic. Louisiana ain't right about everything. Creationism is only indirectly dealing with religion. in fact it deals with ideas about origins. Banning it is saying its false. Saying its false is illegal. Here we go again. Of course you are free to insist all you want. That is your right. We are talking though about science classes. For example, if you could provide overwhelming evidence that the earth was young you could teach that in a science class ... until someone points to a single fact that totally refutes young earth. You could NOT teach "special Creation" though unless and until you can present the method and model that some creator used. If you can present the method and model and it could be supported scientifically (no insert miracle here) then that could be taught in a science class. Now in a mythology class or religious education class or history class or social studies class you could mention that some Christians hold certain beliefs that have been totally refuted by the facts of the universe we live in. BUT ... you need to stop claiming that what you present are Christian doctrines. That is simply false. They are doctrines held by some sub-groups and cults within Christianity, but not by Christianity as a whole.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
™ Version 4.2