Creationism education bills

[Riddlen 1]

-40- posters burnin in hell

[MedStudent 56]

A factual theory is no longer a threory. That's like saying a woman is half pregnant.

 

A theory is a hypothesis that uses multiple facts in culmination to try and guess at something. i.e. Fact#1. Most vegetables grow from non wood bearing plants. Fact #2. Most fruits grow from trees. Therefore based on these facts I have a theory that a tomato is a vegetable. My theory would be wrong.

 

Just because the theory uses factual items to help it guess at something, doesn't mean the subsequent theory has or ever will be proven true.

 

But you knew this already.

 

I never said the theory was a fact..i said the theory was based on facts. It has not been proven untrue or it would not be a theory. and since it has been around a while I would guess a few scientists have tried to bolster and disprove it without sucess.

 

I have no problems with theories based on natural facts being taught in science class. I do have a problem with supernatural explanations being used as theories. Supernatural transcends the laws of science.

 

But since you want to get into supernatural explanations to challenge theories, we'll have to challenge all theories.

 

The Theory of gravitation is just a theory.

 

Another explanation that should be taught as a challenge to the gravitation theory is that invisible ghosts come out from the earth and pull things down. Everytime you jump, a ghost pulls you down. If an apple falls its actually a ghost pulling it down to the ground.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Where did I say I wanted the church and state united?

 

Well you are arguing against separation, ergo...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well you are arguing against separation, ergo...

 

 

No, I said the phrase isn't in the Costitution. Correctly so, I might add.

 

Feel free to continue jumping to incorrect conclusions.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

No, I said the phrase isn't in the Costitution. Correctly so, I might add.

 

Feel free to continue jumping to incorrect conclusions.

 

So once again, you have no valid argument, you are just being a contentious tvat?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So once again, you have no valid argument, you are just being a contentious tvat?

 

 

You falsely claim I have been arguing in suuport of uniting church and state, and when I point out I have done no such thing, your best response is "You have no valid argument".

 

Gotcha.

 

The thing I did argue was that the phrase isn't in the Constitution, and that is 100% correct. Seems valid to me.

[Voltaire 4,560]

OK. What should we teach a science class about the creation of life?

Undiluted evolution with no distractions raised by loopy religion sh*theads.

[Voltaire 4,560]

this point is well taken. i, too, would rather have the curriculum based upon useful science that will enable our kids to be competitive in the marketplace of technologies. big bang is no less speculative than divine creation. if we're going to speculate, let's teach them how to trade stocks and commodities.

 

Um, no. Big Bang may be less established than cevolution but all the scientific evidence points to it as well.

 

Creationism, on the other hand, was a guess 5000 years ago when nobody had any clue and some charlatan pulled a plausible story out of his ass.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[JackARoot 2]

Funny how the Republicans have missed their mandate. Seems they were elected by people hoping they would help to create jobs. Not that they would teach creationism in schools.

 

Here in Indiana they continue to miss the mark:

 

1. They introduce a firearms bill that would allow people to pack heat at a Colts game This made national news about how ingnorant people are in Indiana.

 

2. Then they start working on banning gay marriage ... because this, and not unemployement, is the real problem

[KSB2424 3,083]

I live in the 'bible belt', yet have not gone to church in, well, I can't remember. I'm not sure what bucket you people want to put me in but when it comes to this topic my answer is: "Who the fock knows?, I have not ruled anything out."

 

Generally accepted theories have been disproved. It happens all the time. Our human minds more than likely cannot even grasp the nuances of the Universe and everything it entails, so I sure as hell am not going to stand here and act like I know whats up.

 

What I HAVE found is that atheists come across as asswholes. Now that I can wrap my head around. Back in the day I used to despise the church crowd always trying to push it on me, but over the years the pendulum has swung. The atheists are now the annoying self righteous ones.

 

Funny how that happened.

[MDC 5,891]

What I HAVE found is that atheists come across as asswholes. Now that I can wrap my head around. Back in the day I used to despise the church crowd always trying push it on me, but over the years the pendulum has swung. The atheists are now the annoying self righteous ones.

 

Evangelical christians go to worship in a place that pays no taxes and actively try to legislate their beliefs by preventing gays from marrying, restricting family planning, putting pressure on education boards to get creationism into textbooks, etc.

 

But atheists are the ass holes?

[KSB2424 3,083]

Evangelical christians go to worship in a place that pays no taxes and actively try to legislate their beliefs by preventing gays from marrying, restricting family planning, putting pressure on education boards to get creationism into textbooks, etc.

 

But atheists are the ass holes?

Yes.

 

Take a step back from what YOU believe and simply look at it as two sides that disagree on a topic. Morality and Religion are intertwined. Put yourself in their shoes. A group of people are also trying to legislate their beliefs (abortion, ghey marraige) on you as well. Its the same thing just flipped. You just happen to be on one side so the other is forcing stuff on you.

 

I don't mind the disagreements, but just take a look at the name calling in this thread for example. It's one sided. The A-Hole self righteous pendulum has swung your way home boy.

[MDC 5,891]

Yes.

 

Take a step back from what YOU believe and simply look at it as two sides that disagree on a topic. Morality and Religion are intertwined. Put yourself in their shoes. A group of people are also trying to legislate their beliefs (abortion, ghey marraige) on you as well. Its the same thing just flipped. You just happen to be on one side so the other is forcing stuff on you.

 

No atheist is trying to legislate abortion or gay marriage on me. If my wife doesn't want to have an abortion she won't get one. I'm not forced to condone or participate in gay marriage.

 

What I see is one side that is fighting for adults to make their own moral and ethical decisions, and another side that is fighting to impose their own beliefs on you and everyone else. Right down to teaching nonsense to kids in science class.

 

I don't mind the disagreements, but just take a look at the name calling in this thread for example. It's one sided. The A-Hole self righteous pendulum has swung your way home boy.

 

I'm really struggling to think of the ways that atheists affect my life. There's a small group of hardcore atheist types who spend a lot of effort trying to get things like "Merry Christmas" taken out of the public square or "in God we trust" removed from currency. They're mostly laughed at and ignored by nearly everyone.

 

On the other hand, you get these evangelicals who have been successful in harrassing doctors who provide abortion and keeping consenting same sex adults from marrying. In addition to sometimes getting their crap put into high school textbooks and having their beliefs promoted all over the place. Oh, and worshipping on a place that pays zero taxes, effectively milking the common taxpayer worse than an army of welfare crack wh0res.

 

This is America. For all I care, if these small-minded rubes are scared of death and need a mental crutch they're free to believe in their ridiculous voodoo. But it's pretty clear to me who the real ass holes are in this debate.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Some misguided posters need to be disabused on their notions of the meaning of "Separation of Church and State". That phrase has been uttelry bastardized and manipulated into meanings that were never intended.

 

How could the intent of the Establishment Clause be to ban things like the discussion of ID, when the same Founding Fathers who wrote those words started each session of Congress with a Christian Prayer?

 

Recently, A Federal Judge ruled the National Day of Prayer unConstitutional. How could a National Day of Prayer be such a violation of the Establishment Clause if the Founding Fathers themselves started each session of Congress with a prayer?

 

What religion does Intelligent Design promote? Belief in a Higher Power isn't a religion; its narrowest definition is spirituality; its broadest is a study into origins of life as created by superior life form(s). There are no laws against promoting spirituality - or even any specific religion - because no such promotion deems participation mandatory.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I would be interested to hear from those lefties - who just know so much that isn't so - criticize the following treatise:

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it."

 

-- George Washington --

 

There is an ever-growing debate in America over the relationship between government and religion. In recent times, Constitutional law, or at least the modern-day interpretation thereof, has moved from one of accommodation concerning religion to a position many call hostile to the expression of personal faith in the public square. From their writings, it's clear the Founding Fathers had strong views on the subject. And though not politically correct, they were prolific in writing about God and nation. After all, 27 out of the 57 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and U. S. Constitution had the modern day equivalent of seminary degrees (extensive studies of Greek, Hebrew and Biblical text). They did not intend for America to be a theocracy, but they certainly believed the nation's laws should be tied to natural laws God created. John Adams, America's second President said, "It is religion and morality, alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

 

The Constitution's framers used the Judeo-Christian ethic as a foundation for this new government. In creating America, they were beginning a unique experiment whereby everyone would be able to practice their religion freely, privately and publicly. Just as important, they also meant for Judeo-Christian principles to under-gird our laws. In another speech, Adams said, "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free government, but all social felicity under all governments and in all combinations of human society." Many Americans don't realize how adamant the Framers were on these points. Current history books in public schools also neglect to describe how these men thoroughly and diligently studied hundreds of years of civilizations that had come and gone in order to lay down these solid principles.

 

Much of the debate over this issue stems from the misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state." If asked, most Americans would attribute these words to the U. S. Constitution. In reality, the term does not appear in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any formal United States document. The phrase was extracted from a letter written by then-President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He was responding to correspondence from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association.

 

A quote from the Danbury letter reads, "It is not to be wondered at therefore, that those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow man, (or) should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

 

Jefferson meant to calm their fears by quoting the First Amendment of the Constitution. He wrote them back, saying, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God ... that the legislative powers of government ... should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

 

Jefferson himself took this opportunity to borrow from the well-noted Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who said, "...the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall." It's evident the primary intent of the phrase "wall of separation" was to protect the garden of the church from invasion by the state. (However, it must be pointed out that Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, was not present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was out of the country during the discussion over religious freedom within the First Amendment.)

 

David Barton, founder and Executive Director of Wallbuilders, Inc. and a Constitutional scholar, says the wall was meant to be one-directional. For proof, he cited early court rulings such as Reynolds v. U. S., 1878. The case used Jefferson's letter to prove the one-way nature of the wall. The court ruled government was responsible to enforce civil laws according to Judeo-Christian principles.

 

Barton goes on to say separation of church and state pertains to denominational differences, not basic Christian mores. For example, a group could not practice human sacrifice claiming Constitutional protection. The court also ruled Mormons could not engage in bigamy or polygamy. Barton concluded by saying the wall kept the government from running the church, but it never separated religious principles from government.

 

Much can be learned about the intent of the Constitutional framers by a review of the Northwest Ordinance. The draft was prepared by Thomas Jefferson. It was originally approved by Congress July 13, 1787, and re-passed by the Founding Fathers following the U. S. Constitution's ratification. On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed it into law during the same time Congress was laying down the First Amendment. Article III of this Ordinance states, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."

 

On April 30, 1802, President Jefferson signed the enabling act for Ohio to join the union which said this newest state must agree with the Northwest Ordinance. If Jefferson believed there was a distinct wall of separation between church and state, he would not have ratified this act just months after his letter to the Danbury Baptist group.

 

Again, it is clear that the Supreme Court, which included men who had created and signed the Constitution, looked upon religious principles as the moral foundation of this early government. When they spoke of religion, it appears they were referring to sects or denominations. This notion is bolstered by the words of Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Supreme Court Justice, who said "Religion is of general and public concern and on its proper support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."

 

What has led to the modern-day, secular view of the U. S. Constitution? Many people assert the document is subject to change according to cultural whim. However, the amendment process was to be the means by which the Constitution was to undergo this change. Judicial activists have circumvented this procedure, creating laws instead of interpreting them.

 

The reinterpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment can be traced to a court decision in the 1920's, but the roots of this new legal perspective date back to the turn of the century. The humanistic teachings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud cannot be overlooked in the new role of religion in American culture. Subsequently, the beliefs which a society holds dear are reflected in its laws. But some say the shift to a non-theistic translation of the Constitution was begun by a cultural elite that shared little of the values held by the general populace.

 

Systematically, with the aid of judicial activism, religion has been deleted from the public square. Faith-based education was the first victim of this rush to government-sponsored secularism. One of the earliest court rulings pertaining to religion within the establishment clause, in this new Constitutional vision, occurred in the Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. For the first time, Jefferson's words were used in a totally unique context. By a 5-4 vote, the nations highest court ruled, "From the period of the early settlers, the American people believed that individual religious liberty could be best achieved by a government that was stripped of all power to tax, to support or otherwise to assist any or all religions." Legal scholars have noted this case used zero precedents, therefore abandoning the time-tested practice of common law. In contrast, the aforementioned case of Reynolds v. U. S. used Jefferson's writings concerning church and state to prove quite the opposite. Hence, the foundation was now laid for the assault on the principles held so deeply by the Founding Fathers.

 

In 1958, a Supreme Court Justice demonstrated prophetic insight in giving his dissenting opinion concerning the case Baer v. Kolmorgen. He warned that the Court must be careful in its usage of the term "separation of church and state" because the public would believe those words appeared within the body of the Constitution. In the future, there might be some who would falsely attribute the phrase to the document itself. This judge truly had a vision of what was to come.

 

Perhaps the most significant landmark Supreme Court decision on religion and education was Engel v. Vitale, 1962. The court said that a verbal prayer in school is unconstitutional even if it is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. The ruling opened the legal floodgates in the rush to remove religion from public schools. This case had a far-reaching effect on the culture of an entire nation as well.

 

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in a classroom. The court used this rationale: If the Commandments are present in the classroom, someone might read them. If someone reads them, they might then act accordingly. And if they act accordingly, this violates the constitutional wall between state and religion.

 

These and other monumental court decisions were a result of an ever-growing barrier between church and state which, in turn, changed the way a nation lived. Rulings on issues such as abortion and pornography became possible in this atmosphere of moral relativism. Constitutional revisionists exclude morality from the legal equation. The state itself becomes the final arbiter between right and wrong.

 

However, it is evident the Founding Fathers felt a need to prescribe to a higher level of virtue. It can be argued that the reason the United States has thrived stems from the Framers reverence for something beyond humanity.

 

The false perception of the Constitutional framers as non-religious continues. This social and legal parallax is reinforced among the nation’s youth. A videotape entitled "Myths America," shown in some public schools, described the Founding Fathers as atheists who saw religion playing little or no role in their vision of a democratic republic. It also must be noted that prior to World War II, speeches such as George Washington's farewell address, which was heavy in references to God and government, appeared in most American textbooks. However, from the 1940's onward, his commentary has been deleted from history texts, helping to create a radically altered secular perception of the Founders.

 

It is safe to say modern America is no longer looked upon as a Christian nation by many people. The age-old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, is entirely applicable in the discussion of religion and American government and, to a greater extent, American culture. It can be reasonably asserted that the purely secular perception of the law has revamped American society. It can be argued that this non-theistic culture is a direct result of post-modernisms influence on the United States judiciary, a perfect example of cause and effect.

 

Today, the very nature of law prohibits cases from being argued solely by looking at the intent of the nation's Founders. Some, who hold a constructionist view of law, admit that in the 1960's, '70s and early '80s, cases were tried poorly by conservative jurists, leading to many of the rulings handed down by state and federal courts.

 

The American social landscape bears little resemblance to the late 18th century. The country is no longer a melting pot, instead succumbing to the philosophy of multiculturalism which divided Americans along racial, ethnic and other cultural lines. Judicial activism has helped delete the homogenous nature of society by using the courts to advance this way of thinking.

 

The Founding Fathers intent was clear. They saw natural law as a fundamental component of a democratic republic. For over 150 years, the courts not only supported this vision, but also made religious liberty an integral factor in the interpretation of law. But the ever-narrowing approach to religious rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, has had profound results. Legal revisionism has distorted a sacred legacy.

 

In his farewell speech, George Washington stated, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens." Our first President also said, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Frank M 181]

What religion does Intelligent Design promote? Belief in a Higher Power isn't a religion; its narrowest definition is spirituality; its broadest is a study into origins of life as created by superior life form(s). There are no laws against promoting spirituality - or even any specific religion - because no such promotion deems participation mandatory.

 

I would call including it in textbooks or science curriculum mandatory participation.

 

Untestable hypotheses aren't science, they are mythology. Start a creationism course or include it in some other appropriate class like religion or metaphysics. You can't just include it in a science course because you don't agree with generally accepted scientific theory.

[MedStudent 56]

What religion does Intelligent Design promote? Belief in a Higher Power isn't a religion; its narrowest definition is spirituality; its broadest is a study into origins of life as created by superior life form(s). There are no laws against promoting spirituality - or even any specific religion - because no such promotion deems participation mandatory.

 

Intelligent design is just a name invented by Christians promoting creationism. Its pretty obvious to everyone including the US courts. Just don't try to pass this off as any kind of science and you can do whatever you want with your intelligent design.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

In what class should they be teaching the Man Made Global Warming myth?

[penultimatestraw 473]

I think alternative scientific explanations for the diversity of species/creation of the universe belong in a science class. I am not aware of a credible alternative to evolution with much scientific backing, however. Big bang theory is a little less well established, but still supported by empiric findings.

 

As other have said, religious explanations do not belong in the science classroom. And I have no problem with comparative religion being taught in public schools, though I think it is better left to higher education or the home.

 

And creationism typically refers to the Christian concept of how things came about, right? Do the advocates of teaching creationism/ID (a proxy for Christian creationism, IMO) think non-Christian religious thought on these concepts should be taught in schools as well?

[jerryskids 5,206]

Intelligent design is just christian creationism trying to disguise itself as non-religious. So, lets cut the bull. If you want to teach about Christian Creationism then you need to teach about every religious creation myth. Otherwise you would be violating the 1st Amendment. This would just take away time from learning useful things.

 

I think the kids are better served by reading good old American stories like "Huckleberry Finn" and "The grapes of Wrath" than wasting their time reading religious stories.

 

I never said that; go back and read my earlier posts.

 

Science is, at its core, exploring that which is unknown, and questioning that which is presumed known. Otherwise we'd be arguing on a flat earth with the sun rotating around it. For instance, I was sitting here thinking about about the creation of life, and I thought "how does that jive with the law of entropy?" So I looked it up and there is an entire wiki page on this issue:

 

Entropy and Life

 

 

 

Later, building on this premise, in the famous 1944 book What is Life?, Nobel-laureate physicist Erwin Schrödinger theorizes that life, contrary to the general tendency dictated by the Second law of thermodynamics, decreases or maintains its entropy by feeding on negative entropy.^[5] In a note to What is Life?, however, Schrödinger explains his usage of this term:

 

Let me say first, that if I had been catering for them [physicists] alone I should have let the discussion turn on

free energy

instead. It is the more familiar notion in this context. But this highly technical term seemed linguistically too near to

energy

for making the average reader alive to the contrast between the two things.

^[

^{citation needed}

^]

This is what is argued to differentiate life from other forms of matter organization. In this direction, although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of second law, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase, it does not in any way conflict or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave. Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law.^[6] The problem of organization in living systems increasing despite the second law is known as the Schrödinger paradox.

...

In a popular 1982 textbook Principles of Biochemistry by noted American biochemist Albert Lehninger, it is argued that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. In short, according to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."^[9] Similarly, according to the chemist John Avery, from his recent 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution, we find a presentation in which the phenomenon of life, including its origin and evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has its basis in the background of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. The (apparent) paradox between the second law of thermodynamics and the high degree of order and complexity produced by living systems, according to Avery, has its resolution "in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources."^[10] The process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived directly from the expression of the second law equation for connected non-equilibrium open systems.

...

The second law of thermodynamics applied on the origin of life is a far more complicated issue than the further development of life, since there is no "standard model" of how the first biological lifeforms emerged; only a number of competing hypotheses. The problem is discussed within the area of Abiogenesis, implying gradual pre-Darwinian chemical evolution. In 1924, Alexander Oparin suggested that sufficient energy was provided in a primordial soup. The Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine was awarded with a Nobel prize for an analysis in this area. A related topic is the probability that life would emerge, which has been discussed in several studies, for example by Russell Doolittle.

 

Negative entropy? I had never heard of that. Several interesting things here, if you are scientific enough to follow it. The point, though, is that in my questioning, I investigated and learned some stuff. I personally believe that we won't beat the Chinese by trying to out-rote learn them; it is what they do best, and we will lose. We need to teach kids to challenge, to question, to... think. JMO.

[MedStudent 56]

I never said that; go back and read my earlier posts.

 

Science is, at its core, exploring that which is unknown, and questioning that which is presumed known. Otherwise we'd be arguing on a flat earth with the sun rotating around it. For instance, I was sitting here thinking about about the creation of life, and I thought "how does that jive with the law of entropy?" So I looked it up and there is an entire wiki page on this issue:

 

Entropy and Life

 

 

 

 

 

Negative entropy? I had never heard of that. Several interesting things here, if you are scientific enough to follow it. The point, though, is that in my questioning, I investigated and learned some stuff. I personally believe that we won't beat the Chinese by trying to out-rote learn them; it is what they do best, and we will lose. We need to teach kids to challenge, to question, to... think. JMO.

 

 

I agree that everything should be questioned. Even Newton's theory on gravitation was tweaked by Einstein. But I do not believe we should be bothering with supernatural explanations of events. It is not science. I don't want my kids copping out when confronting an enigma with: "Some supernatural being did that." I want them to THINK how could it REALLY happen based on the laws of nature. Creationism does not promote progress, it stifles it.

[FeelingMN 273]

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it."

 

-- George Washington --

 

 

Whose religious rights are being endangered?

 

I skipped the rest of your manifesto because I assumed it was as ill placed as the quote above.

 

 

I personally believe that we won't beat the Chinese by trying to out-rote learn them; it is what they do best, and we will lose. We need to teach kids to challenge, to question, to... think. JMO.

 

Absolutely.

 

I just don't understand how including Creationism promotes critical thinking in any way. Why not include Greek Mythology too? Why not tease apart the belief systems of different eras/peoples, and note the strengths/weaknesses of each? Seems more like a comparative religion class than science though.

 

The fact is that Greek Mythology...and yes, Creationism can be learned at a very early age. Most kids before the age of 10 have some working knowledge of Creationism, at least more than evolution...which may simply consist of the assumption that humans came from apes. Which is wrong...no matter what Southern Statesmen say.

 

Einstein has it right: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

There's no reason why the two modes of thought can't compliment each other. I'm pretty sure any one approach isn't gonna be able to explain infinity by itself.

 

If schools want to teach Creationism (don't we call institutions that teach Creationism, Churches...whatever)...then do it for its own merit. Do it because it's something that should be known. Don't do it because you're trying to compete with what you perceive to be alternative (threatening) perspectives. Don't do it because "the other side gets to have their views taught....what about my views?" Which seems like what's going on here...and it's petty.

[mobb_deep 917]

I think alternative scientific explanations for the diversity of species/creation of the universe belong in a science class. I am not aware of a credible alternative to evolution with much scientific backing, however. Big bang theory is a little less well established, but still supported by empiric findings.

 

As other have said, religious explanations do not belong in the science classroom. And I have no problem with comparative religion being taught in public schools, though I think it is better left to higher education or the home.

 

And creationism typically refers to the Christian concept of how things came about, right? Do the advocates of teaching creationism/ID (a proxy for Christian creationism, IMO) think non-Christian religious thought on these concepts should be taught in schools as well?

 

This.

 

I'd be willing to bet these same people pushing for creationism in the classroom wouldn't be too excited about teaching Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc. etc. beliefs on the same topic.

[jerryskids 5,206]

 

Absolutely.

 

I just don't understand how including Creationism promotes critical thinking in any way. Why not include Greek Mythology too? Why not tease apart the belief systems of different eras/peoples, and note the strengths/weaknesses of each? Seems more like a comparative religion class than science though.

 

The fact is that Greek Mythology...and yes, Creationism can be learned at a very early age. Most kids before the age of 10 have some working knowledge of Creationism, at least more than evolution...which may simply consist of the assumption that humans came from apes. Which is wrong...no matter what Southern Statesmen say.

 

Einstein has it right: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

There's no reason why the two modes of thought can't compliment each other. I'm pretty sure any one approach isn't gonna be able to explain infinity by itself.

 

If schools want to teach Creationism (don't we call institutions that teach Creationism, Churches...whatever)...then do it for its own merit. Do it because it's something that should be known. Don't do it because you're trying to compete with what you perceive to be alternative (threatening) perspectives. Don't do it because "the other side gets to have their views taught....what about my views?" Which seems like what's going on here...and it's petty.

Again I refer to my earlier posts; I am not speaking to the motives of the people proposing the specific bills. In fact I think I more or less conceded that they had ones similar to those you mentioned. I also said that it could be done well, but that schools would fock it up.

 

I believe that a lot of kids from religious backgrounds are turned off by "science" because they view it as conflicting with their taught beliefs. I also believe that the concepts could be taught in such a way as to not put them at odds, thus opening their minds to the "goodness" of science.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I would call including it in textbooks or science curriculum mandatory participation.

 

That's ridiculous - by that standard no religion of the world could even be mentioned in any textbook for fear of instituting "mandatory participation". Just WTF are those mandatory kwanzaa songs my 2nd grader sang this year in the school program?

 

Untestable hypotheses aren't science, they are mythology.

 

And yet we have Stephen Hawking parading around as a "scientist" while forwarding "untestable hypotheses" like multiple universes. It seems to me you're drawing rules up as they suit you, and ignoring them when they suit you.

 

Start a creationism course or include it in some other appropriate class like religion or metaphysics. You can't just include it in a science course because you don't agree with generally accepted scientific theory.

 

There is far more to Intelligent Design theory than you apparently know. Have you ever looked into in any depth?

 

Like it or not, "science" has already bastardized itself through attempts to take on 'untestable hypotheses'. Beyond that, it isn't decided by any means that the premise of ID is untestable. Here's an interesting site which takes on that issue.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Intelligent design is just a name invented by Christians promoting creationism.

 

This is an argument created by the secular left to insulate itself against attacks on the continued effort to secularize our country.

 

Its pretty obvious to everyone including the US courts.

 

Interesting standard. I'm quite sure you choose to reject some court rulings as you see fit, however. After all, "courts" also called atheism a religion.

 

Just don't try to pass this off as any kind of science and you can do whatever you want with your intelligent design.

 

Read the link from my last post. There is much you do not understand about Intelligent Design. It has potentially great value, if you'd choose to learn just what is being pursued.

[Strike 3,977]

Beyond that, it isn't decided by any means that the premise of ID is untestable. Here's an interesting site which takes on that issue.

 

It pretty much is. Anyone who thinks ID should be taught in school should watch this documentary:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

This trial was the ID proponents chance to show why their crap should be taught to our children. Calling their showing at this trial "failing miserably" would be an injustice. Anyways, this documentary shows how much of a joke ID/creationism is, in a logical, rational, unbiased way.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I found a scientific alternative explanation for our origins: Pastafarians unite

 

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

 

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

 

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

 

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

 

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

 

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

 

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence

 

 

Should this be taught?

[IMMensaMind 459]

I agree that everything should be questioned. Even Newton's theory on gravitation was tweaked by Einstein. But I do not believe we should be bothering with supernatural explanations of events. It is not science. I don't want my kids copping out when confronting an enigma with: "Some supernatural being did that." I want them to THINK how could it REALLY happen based on the laws of nature. Creationism does not promote progress, it stifles it.

 

You will not be able to establish your claim as having basis, considering just how many famous scientists in history were Creationist.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I found a scientific alternative explanation for our origins: Pastafarians unite

 

 

 

Should this be taught?

 

 

That was written by someone who has no focking idea what Intelligent Design actually is.

[IMMensaMind 459]

It pretty much is. Anyone who thinks ID should be taught in school should watch this documentary:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

This trial was the ID proponents chance to show why their crap should be taught to our children. Calling their showing at this trial "failing miserably" would be an injustice. Anyways, this documentary shows how much of a joke ID/creationism is, in a logical, rational, unbiased way.

 

Did you look at the link I put up on ID as a testable hypothesis?

[Strike 3,977]

Did you look at the link I put up on ID as a testable hypothesis?

 

Briefly. Have you watched the documentary I linked to? It's the first and maybe only case where ID was put on trial for the purposes of determining whether ID was appropriate to be taught in schools or just a front for creationism/religious doctrine. It was the perfect opportunity for the ID proponents to show exactly what you're suggesting, yet they didn't. They actually went far below not showing what you suggest. They were forced under cross examination to admit that there had been no peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting ID and that many of their claims were ridiculous. In any event, I'll take an unbiased court case over a religious whackjob when weighing my sources, any day, especially when the defendants perform as poorly as the ID defendants did in this case. I suggest you watch the video if you really care about the truth. But you sound more like the person who wrote that website you linked to than someone with an open mind on this issue.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Did you look at the link I put up on ID as a testable hypothesis?

Yes, it was painful to read, with about as much scientific credibility as my link...

[FeelingMN 273]

Like it or not, "science" has already bastardized itself through attempts to take on 'untestable hypotheses'. Beyond that, it isn't decided by any means that the premise of ID is untestable. Here's an interesting site which takes on that issue.

 

I like how you use science in quotes. It reminds me of Sharon Angle discussing Autism.

 

Also, I stopped reading your link after that dude was talking about the highest layer of info being intent. Talk about making the rules up as you go along. What a bunch of crap.

 

 

Briefly. Have you watched the documentary I linked to? It's the first and maybe only case where ID was put on trial for the purposes of determining whether ID was appropriate to be taught in schools or just a front for creationism/religious doctrine. It was the perfect opportunity for the ID proponents to show exactly what you're suggesting, yet they didn't. They actually went far below not showing what you suggest. They were forced under cross examination to admit that there had been no peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting ID and that many of their claims were ridiculous. In any event, I'll take an unbiased court case over a religious whackjob when weighing my sources, any day, especially when the defendants perform as poorly as the ID defendants did in this case. I suggest you watch the video if you really care about the truth. But you sound more like the person who wrote that website you linked to than someone with an open mind on this issue.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

You will not be able to establish your claim as having basis, considering just how many famous scientists in history were Creationist.

Those same scientists might not believe we've landed on the moon, either. Care to name a preeminent scientist of the post-Darwin era who is a Creationist? Not that joker in your link, whose very existence is compelling evidence against Intelligent Design.

 

Ok I've found some (not household names, to be sure). I still suspect MS would have little trouble convincing the vast majority of scientists concerning the merits of evolution, in contradistinction to creationism (even ID). Including Christian ones. Watch Strike's excellent video on the topic.

[Frank M 181]

That's ridiculous - by that standard no religion of the world could even be mentioned in any textbook for fear of instituting "mandatory participation". Just WTF are those mandatory kwanzaa songs my 2nd grader sang this year in the school program?

 

I don't support any of that, either. Keep all mention of religion where it belongs, out of any public school curriculum unless that is the focus of the class, ie philosophy, religions of the world, etc.

 

 

And yet we have Stephen Hawking parading around as a "scientist" while forwarding "untestable hypotheses" like multiple universes. It seems to me you're drawing rules up as they suit you, and ignoring them when they suit you.

 

Holy red herring, Batman!

First off, I'm not drawing rules about what can and can't be said about anything in the public domain. Anyone who wants to write a book about creationism or produce a TV show about it or even stand on the corner and preach it, more power to them. Just like Stephen Hawking has the right to say anything he wants to about his ideas. We are not talking about people trying to give Stephen Hawking equal time in the classroom, so it's not even germane to the discussion.

 

Stephen Hawking is interesting pop science, and that's all, and what he does has absolutely nothing to do with trying to get a religious idea included in science curricula. Nice try, though.

 

There is far more to Intelligent Design theory than you apparently know. Have you ever looked into in any depth?

 

Like it or not, "science" has already bastardized itself through attempts to take on 'untestable hypotheses'. Beyond that, it isn't decided by any means that the premise of ID is untestable. Here's an interesting site which takes on that issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, really interesting. Since it took only three billion years to get from single cells to humans, there must be something other than just mutation and natural selection behind it, as the process had to have been as efficient and waste free as possible. What experiments will he be performing to test his hypothesis? Because as hard as I tried, I didn't see that mentioned anywhere. I saw lots of predictions, but no plan to try to test his hypothesis.

 

ID folks try to pretty it up to make it more palatable, but it's impossible to escape the fact that at the core of the idea is something that can't and won't ever be proven scientifically, and as such, does not belong in a science classroom.

 

I have no problem with the belief, but keep it where it belongs.

[Greedo 13]

Maybe parents should take it upon themselves to teach their kids about creationism/intelligent design if it's that important to them.

 

Good post - your church can teach it, schools better not.

 

I would be interested to hear from those lefties - who just know so much that isn't so - criticize the following treatise:

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it."

 

-- George Washington --

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

No one wants to endanger religious rights.

 

In what class should they be teaching the Man Made Global Warming myth?

 

This is a hypothesis that can be tested and determined to be true or not based on experimentation. ID cannot. Your comparison is inappropriate.

 

I believe that a lot of kids from religious backgrounds are turned off by "science" because they view it as conflicting with their taught beliefs. I also believe that the concepts could be taught in such a way as to not put them at odds, thus opening their minds to the "goodness" of science.

 

Kids with religious backgrounds just need to use their brains and think as they get older and learn more, and all the BS will go away. It worked for me.

 

And yet we have Stephen Hawking parading around as a "scientist" while forwarding "untestable hypotheses" like multiple universes. It seems to me you're drawing rules up as they suit you, and ignoring them when they suit you.

 

Once we get the LHC going again, it's possible we'll be able to devise testing eventually.

 

It pretty much is. Anyone who thinks ID should be taught in school should watch this documentary:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

This trial was the ID proponents chance to show why their crap should be taught to our children. Calling their showing at this trial "failing miserably" would be an injustice. Anyways, this documentary shows how much of a joke ID/creationism is, in a logical, rational, unbiased way.

 

Good post strike.

 

You will not be able to establish your claim as having basis, considering just how many famous scientists in history were Creationist.

 

Many famous scientists pretended to be creationist so they weren't burned at the stake by the gestapo...er...inquisition.

[naomi 343]

I don't support any of that, either. Keep all mention of religion where it belongs, out of any public school curriculum unless that is the focus of the class, ie philosophy, religions of the world, etc.

 

Yeah, really interesting. Since it took only three billion years to get from single cells to humans, there must be something other than just mutation and natural selection behind it, as the process had to have been as efficient and waste free as possible. What experiments will he be performing to test his hypothesis? Because as hard as I tried, I didn't see that mentioned anywhere. I saw lots of predictions, but no plan to try to test his hypothesis.

 

ID folks try to pretty it up to make it more palatable, but it's impossible to escape the fact that at the core of the idea is something that can't and won't ever be proven scientifically, and as such, does not belong in a science classroom.

 

I have no problem with the belief, but keep it where it belongs.

 

Obviously you intellectually respect secular theories of origins. But I'm curious, as an Athiest (think you've said you are), if you understand how what you believe alone, is what you want publicly recognized as legitimate to recognize? You think it's just that way, and it's unjust otherwise.

 

It irks you if alternative theories are simply communicated in science classrooms while discussing origins, never minding that the theories you believe should be validly entertained are integrated into almost everything the kids are learning in science class. To you that's reason centric though, not you-centric.

 

That's fine. It would just be inconsistent if you didn't see how you were self-righteous about your own worldview.

 

I know for you, it's intellectual foremost, it's not a 'righteousness' thing. You just can't see how something besides secular, naturalistic theories, have any legs. So they're not worth dignifying. Why should they be? I get that.

 

So on a second note, I'm curious about this:

 

Do you think that in the theories, and perceived realities of what you recognize, that:

 

It's possible many foundational presuppositions are incorrect?

It's possible there's something deep in your nature compelling you to only want to cede creator-less notions? (and likewise, I'll understand if you'd suspect vice-versa applies to me)

 

IF the last dynamic exists within you, is it possible for your critical brain to narrow itself in convincement of what has merit and doesn't, even though you imagine and feel like your openness, as far the realm of reason should accommodate, is perfectly fine?

 

I assume you have to recognize many, many presuppositions of things, and that in nearly every step of that mountain, it's in variance with biblical reports of how things have happened (creation, mankind's place on the earth's time line, dispersion of man, flood, etc).

 

That would make this a wildly insane hypothetical for you (so bear with me), but what if the bible wasn't naturalisticly contradicted, and there's many elements of what we can observe around us that reconcile with biblical accounts? We hold that it's fictional, so the reports have to be too. They automatically go to the trash bin.

 

If that hypothetical was true though, we would be pigeon-holing ourselves in not dignifying anything that actually is the reality of what's happened within nature.

 

As far as the scientific method goes, even if that was the case, I'm guessing it would still be uncomfortable for you to work out of acknowledging the relationships exist.

 

In some ways I understand that. It might feel limiting if we do that. BUT, in a really base sense, there's something arbitrary with closing ourselves off there, too. We can limit ourselves without at any point saying, at the very beginning...supernatural. And history has known bible believing scientists with limitless curiosity.

 

Hopefully this made sense. None of it was toward a point of trying to reveal to you a critical justification of teaching ID in schools. It's more just my curiosity of how your thoughts turn about.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Good post - your church can teach it, schools better not.

 

 

 

No one wants to endanger religious rights.

 

 

 

This is a hypothesis that can be tested and determined to be true or not based on experimentation. ID cannot. Your comparison is inappropriate.

 

 

 

Kids with religious backgrounds just need to use their brains and think as they get older and learn more, and all the BS will go away. It worked for me.

 

 

 

Once we get the LHC going again, it's possible we'll be able to devise testing eventually.

 

 

 

Good post strike.

 

 

 

Many famous scientists pretended to be creationist so they weren't burned at the stake by the gestapo...er...inquisition.

 

Interesting. Since it's clear that I'll never provide you enough data to convince you that you're wrong, I would like you to provide me of proof of what I just bolded.

 

BTW: the thought that "no wants wants to remove religious freedom" is utterly idiotic.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Briefly. Have you watched the documentary I linked to? It's the first and maybe only case where ID was put on trial for the purposes of determining whether ID was appropriate to be taught in schools or just a front for creationism/religious doctrine. It was the perfect opportunity for the ID proponents to show exactly what you're suggesting, yet they didn't. They actually went far below not showing what you suggest. They were forced under cross examination to admit that there had been no peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting ID and that many of their claims were ridiculous. In any event, I'll take an unbiased court case over a religious whackjob when weighing my sources, any day, especially when the defendants perform as poorly as the ID defendants did in this case. I suggest you watch the video if you really care about the truth. But you sound more like the person who wrote that website you linked to than someone with an open mind on this issue.

 

Briefly. It's a 2 focking hour video. WTF. But here's the problem - and it's where it's evident that you're not listening, and that you're a strident atheist with his mind made up/etc: what I posted doesn't attempt what your video claims: your video prosecutes the premise that ID should be mentioned in science class as an alternative to Evolution.

 

You argue as though all those who believe that ID has value hold the same positions about it. That's simply not true.

 

Not only do I believe that to be incorrect, my link explains why they commiserate.