Well its not as bad as I had hoped. However this comment I strongly disagree with :
quote: Religion has no place in science instruction, but science instruction need not offend those who hold religious beliefs of whatever type.
While they are right religion has no place in science instruction, science offending people because of religious beliefs is not a problem of the school board. That is the problem of those being offended. If they cannot seperate their belief systems from scientific education that is not societies problem.
quote:Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus: Well I am a Southerner (Born in Atlanta GA) and I am PISSED . Looks like we have to waste time and resources and fight this BullSh!t battle yet once again. I am going back to the lab to calm down a bit.
Time for you to move north of the Mason/Dixon line(sp?)
Then again we are talking about a region that wants to have the confederate flag flown and there are countless jokes about non-branching family trees...
TB : When there are theories presented the substantiate any creationist ideas, that do not originate with proving the validity of the bible then we can talk, until then I will consider creationism nothing more than a way to validate existance through holy texts. There is no science there, only theology, which has no basis in a science classroom. Leave it to sunday school lectures.
Now one more thing..
In high school I seriously doubt that they get deep into Origins of Life. Rather discussing the evolution of a species via mutations and the like. So bringing Origins of Life into it really has no bearing. Once these kids get into graduate and post graduate studies they are free to study and learn about whatever form of Origins that suit them. But for general education we should stick with the theories that have evidence to support them, not bring mystical texts, and hypothosies involving a war-god/kind-old-man-figure into our existance.
And regardless of how much science has been done in an effort to support creationism, the fact will always remain that creationism is based solely on making a religous text true. There is always a religious motive regardless of whether or not creationists want to admit it. Creationism is a theology, nothing more, nothing less. No matter how you wrap it, no matter how much "evidence" is put forth, no matter how much contrary evidence is ignored, it is not science.
The Theory of Evolution has no such foundations. It is based upon observered evidences, and is flexible, allowing to be changed as more evidence is presented, and therefore is actual science.
[This message has been edited by RedVento, 10-01-2002]
quote:Originally posted by Tranquility Base: There is no Bible or anything in this. The data does suggest creation irrespective of whether it is true or not. Evolution has a potential answer for each of these and we have potential answers for each of those rebuttals. But IMO these should be presented.
The problem still revolves around the fact that creationism is based on religous texts.
When Creationists can remove ALL religious overtones then, and maybe then can creationism be considered an alternative theory to evolution. But since it will always get back to the fact that creationism relies on a mystical being who is responsible for our existance, a being who cannot be seen, or shown to actually exist, that day will never happen.
quote:Originally posted by Tranquility Base: RedVento
So if God did create and the geo-column was due to a global flood you are saying that the distinctneess of gene families in genomes and the domination of marine sedimentaiton on our continents is irrelevant? So scientific evidence is only relevant if God doesn't exist.
No. I,let alone God, will tell you that they were relevant. The potential God inhabited universe you allow for is ridiculous.
The Biblical God not only claimed to do things that must have left evidence he even told us that they did leave evidence! And that evience is there.
There is somehting in between your silly strawman 'Big Blue Banana' God and evolution.
Your logical breakdown is that you a priori pretend that God can't have left evidence.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-06-2002]
No what I am saying is remove the bible. Use "creation science" to come up with a theory about a creator, and do not use the bible as a template for what/why/how the creator did it all. You can't. Without the bible there is no point to start from, your observations can all be answered by evolution. The introduction of a creator makes the subject philosophical. Answering the question of "why are we here?" That is a question that as far as I know evolution doesn't attempt to answer.
What no creationist seems to be able to admit is that the reason they need creationism to be "right" is that they have some need to validate their existance. "God made me so I must be special" Well that's fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that, however don't force that down our throats, and don't pretend that there is some other noble reason behind the madness. And finally accept that creationism is not, will never be, science. No ideology springing from a religous text can be construed as science. Period.
Red - Confortable with his place in the universe, regardless of the possible existance of God.
- We were "created" with free will.. if "God" chooses to punish me for exercising it, then screw him.
My 2 lesson syllabus for creation (see Quetzal's thread) outlines the evidence for creation that is Bible free. This is appropriate for a governmnet school course. It will not stop me from elsewhere demonstrating evidence of the Biblical God.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-08-2002]
Lets suppose for a minute that Creationists have it right. Creationists put forth enough evidence that we were created, in fact they discover the creator even. However, what if this creator happened to be a giant space bunny, and our creation was nothing more than bunny gas. Would you then be satisfied? Or would the contradictory view of the bible creator and the actual creator put you at odds? Of course the answer is that you would then NEED to discover who created the creator, and so forth until you came to the conclusion you wanted. That we were created by a kind diety who put us here for a reason. THAT is why creationism is not a science. It is a metaphysical search that has no place being taught along hard sciences, that have no such biases or hidden agendas.
All we are talking abou is using the tools of science to identify the origin of genomes and strata. Stop saying 'if this, if that'. Let's go one step at a time. If science tells us we were created by a space bunny then so be it.
Science has uncovered many evidences suggestive of creation and flood. You can sidetrack to space bunnies. I will use science to track down what happened.
The fact that I believe the Bible is only relevant if you doubt my scientific integrity. There is nothing unscientific about a believer finding evidence for creation if one has scientific integrity.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]
You are misenturpriting my message. I am in no way questioning your methods. I am questioning your motives. HOW did you come to the conclusion that creationism is even a valid option? WHY do you want to show the bible to be true? At what point does your search to validate the bible become nullified? How much counter evidence has to be given? COULD there ever be a time that you say "You know, I really wanted creationism to be it, but seeing all this other evidence that points to something else, I have to admit that creationism ISN'T it." Is that EVEN a possibility in your mindset? That is what I am questioning. For 99.9% of creationists I would make the leap and say no, they will never be able to get to that point. However, I would say that probably 80% of actual scientists would be willing to accept the possibility that ToE might not be it, just as they are willing to admit that The Big Bang Theory might not be it. THAT is my point. That for all the high and mighty claims of science, creationists are trying to further a RELIGOUS agenda, based totally on FAITH, regardless of the scientific methods used to validate it.
My personal Christian experience makes it unlikely I will disown literal creation. I personally think the data is too murky. I just don't know what would happen if the data pointed incredibly clearly to evoltuion. All I can say is what I believe now. And all I am doing on this web site is explaining why I believe the data points to creation at the gross level and can be interpreted in detail that way as well. I clainm no proof. The real reason I believe in creation is becasue of my Christian experince and almost any creaitonist will tell you that. The data itself can be interpreted either way with approximately the same success.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-10-2002]
Ok, so just admitted to being biased, and getting your inspiration from scripture. So what reason is there to teach creationism as science again? Real scientists can postulate theories and work them out to their logical conclusion. You have admitted to not being able to, well not quite admitted . If evolutionists present enough evidence to totally discredit creationism you will still(most likely) not be able to accept it. That is not acting in the interests of science, it is self-delusion, and something you are a victim of.
What's funny is that you could probably SAY you would be willing to accept evolution IF enough evidence was presented. However its easy to say that when you believe that there will be enough evidence presented. Nothing short of god himself coming from Olympus and telling you(and all other creationists) that evolution was right would you accept it. Although the more probable response would be that the being coming to you wasn't the real god.. Self delusion has a lovely way of insulating people from realities they can't face.
Given my bias I still think the data points about equally at both options. So therefore it should be in the curicullum. It does not have to be religiously dictated. Anyone from anywhere would tell you that life is an amazing phenomenon and has two obvious possibilities of origin.
Well I would say that the sheer lack of evidence leaves origins of life a philosophical question
And since High School science classes won't be tackling that subject any time soon, its a question that doesn't need any contemplation(from a curriculum point of view). But origins of life is not the issue. The issue is teaching creationism as a hard science along with actual sciences. Like I said before, if a student wants to learn about creationism as part of a college cirriculum then I'm all for it. Just not at a High School level, where students are being introduced to more complex bio, chem and physics.