Creationism education bills

[Mookz 1,287]

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.

I need to go lie down on the floor for a minute.

[Frank M 181]

Okay, let me try to wade through this a piece at a a time without my head exploding.

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.

 

First, I'm not an atheist at all. I have beliefs of a spiritual nature, but I am in no way religious. And it's not a question of my beliefs being just or unjust. It's whether creationism should be given equal time in a SCIENCE classroom when the idea does not pass scientific muster in any way, shape, or form.

 

 

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.

 

Using reasoning in a science class. Whod've thunk it!

 

 

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.

 

I never said they weren't worth dignifying. I said they weren't appropriate to include in science curricula

 

 

 

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 the nature of science to test hypotheses and discard those that are proven wrong through experimentation, so of course that is possible. Evolution has withstood the rigors of such experimentation, though.

 

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)

 

I prefer to believe in fact rather than supernatural.

 

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.

 

 

You give me some examples of things in nature that can only be explained biblically, and we can talk about it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

 

 

You give me some examples of things in nature that can only be explained biblically, and we can talk about it.

 

What examples from nature can you say can't be explained biblically?

[Frank M 181]

What examples from nature can you say can't be explained biblically?

 

I said examples that can only be explained biblically.

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

I said examples that can only be explained biblically.

 

 

Leviathans.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I said examples that can only be explained biblically.

 

Ok. Give me examples of nature that can only be explained scientifically.

[Frank M 181]

Leviathans.

 

 

 

Whales or giant squids.

 

Biblical mystery solved.

 

[Frank M 181]

Ok. Give me examples of nature that can only be explained scientifically.

 

Every natural phenomenon.

 

If I say rain, are you going to say that can be explained away as God crying? Or if I say thunder, you'll say that's really God bowling?

 

 

ETA You can try to give the old "Look at how beautiful that tree is, you can't say that there isn't some kind of creator behind it!' rationale if you want, but I wouldn't call that an explanation.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Every natural phenomenon.

 

If I say rain, are you going to say that can be explained away as God crying? Or if I say thunder, you'll say that's really God bowling?

 

 

ETA You can try to give the old "Look at how beautiful that tree is, you can't say that there isn't some kind of creator behind it!' if you want, but I wouldn't call that an explanation.

 

That's not how i would explain them if I were arguing the Biblical side. That doesn't change the fact you can't say there is ONLY a scientific explanation now does it?

[Frank M 181]

That's not how i would explain them if I were arguing the Biblical side. That doesn't change the fact you can't say there is ONLY a scientific explanation now does it?

 

 

If one is looking for explanations that take fact into account, then, yes, that pretty much is the only way to explain them.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If one is looking for explanations that take fact into account, then, yes, that pretty much is the only way to explain them.

 

So you have facts that prove a Biblical explanation is wrong?

[Frank M 181]

So you have facts that prove a Biblical explanation is wrong?

What, are you taking lessons from naomi?

 

Yes, when some natural phenomenon can be explained scientifically, it pretty much cancels out a Biblical explanantion. I mean, one can (and plenty did) argue that God remembered Pearl Harbor and crushed Japan with the earthquake and tsunami, but in reality, all it was was stress on tectonic plates that caused the earthquake and the resulting shock waves triggered the tsunami.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Yes, when some natural phenomenon can be explained scientifically, it pretty much cancels out a Biblical explanantion.

 

 

How so?

[Frank M 181]

How so?

 

 

Because a factual explanation doesn't need a Biblical counterpart.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Because a factual explanation doesn't need a Biblical counterpart.

 

Just because you don't believe it needs a Biblical counterpart doesn't mean there isn't one.

[FeelingMN 273]

Ok. Give me examples of nature that can only be explained scientifically.

 

Seems to me the Bible got kinda confused with the whole Heliocentric version of the solar system. So we could start there.

 

We could go on to talk about atomic fusion, synaptogenesis, anaerobic respiration, protein synthesis, laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetism, aerodynamics, genetics, quantum physics, etc.

 

Then again, I'm not a big bible thumper, so maybe there are some vague references to all of these things.

 

How 'bout this: are there any examples where a religious explanation proved more worthy of a scientific one? There's a lot of wisdom in the Bible...and I think it's a great spiritual guide for individuals seeking meaning in life. I don't think it was ever meant to answer EVERYTHING about the universe. But people continue to try.

 

[FeelingMN 273]

So you have facts that prove a Biblical explanation is wrong?

 

This is like me asking you to provide facts proving Peter Pan isn't real.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Seems to me the Bible got kinda confused with the whole Heliocentric version of the solar system. So we could start there.

 

We could go on to talk about atomic fusion, synaptogenesis, anaerobic respiration, protein synthesis, laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetism, aerodynamics, genetics, quantum physics, etc.

 

Then again, I'm not a big bible thumper, so maybe there are some vague references to all of these things.

 

How 'bout this: are there any examples where a religious explanation proved more worthy of a scientific one? There's a lot of wisdom in the Bible...and I think it's a great spiritual guide for individuals seeking meaning in life. I don't think it was ever meant to answer EVERYTHING about the universe. But people continue to try.

 

 

So if something has a scientific explanation that disproves any Biblical explanation? Is that what you are saying?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This is like me asking you to provide facts proving Peter Pan isn't real.

 

 

Peter Pan is a character created by Scottish novelist and playwright J. M. Barrie (1860–1937)

 

Next?

[FeelingMN 273]

So if something has a scientific explanation that disproves any Biblical explanation? Is that what you are saying?

 

You wanted examples of nature that could only be explained scientifically. Are you saying my list of examples has another explanation? A Biblical explanation? Link?

 

Peter Pan is a character created by Scottish novelist and playwright J. M. Barrie (1860–1937)

 

Next?

 

Are you saying God himself wrote the Bible? If not, that means somebody wrote it....just like Peter Pan.

 

The concept of 'soul' was borrowed from Plato. There's other stuff in the Bible too that's been borrowed from other cultures/beliefs.

 

The Bible is a great book....but a compendium of facts it's not.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Dude, you asked me to provide facts Peter Pan isn't real. I did so.

 

I guess I could ask you to provide facts God isn't real.....................

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

 

Are you saying God himself wrote the Bible? If not, that means somebody wrote it....just like Peter Pan.

 

 

 

So, is it your position that for someone to be real he is the only one who can write a book about him? If he doesn't write the book himself, and someone else does, that proves that person doesn't exist?

[FeelingMN 273]

Still waiting on a Biblical explanation for any of the items I listed above. The Bible does talk a lot about eternity.....so.....it could be a while.

 

To pass the time, maybe I should do a quick search of experiments focused on evolution.....you guys feel free to chime in with some ID/Creationism experiments. OK?

 

Here's one:

 

Rijpkema analysed which genes are responsible for the flower formation in petunia. She did this, for example, by examining mutants: flowers in which a gene no longer functions, as a result of which they acquire a different appearance. This enabled her to determine the exact function of each gene. The developmental biologist discovered, for example, that gene duplication -- the process in which two or more copies of a gene are made -- plays a major role in the development of variation in flower development.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029150610.htm

 

And another:

 

"We are trying to bring a new, molecular-genetic approach to this organism," says Kingsley. "We have already generated more than a thousand genetic markers and constructed the first genomewide linkage maps of the stickleback. Now we are using these maps to study the genetic changes that occurred in the lakes.

 

http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/e120.html

 

Some dude at Michigan State seems to have a pretty cool experiment running right now:

 

Long-Term Evolution Experiment

In a long-term evolution experiment with E. coli, we founded 12 replicate populations from the same ancestor, and these populations have evolved for more than 30,000 generations in identical environments. We have performed competition experiments to quantify changes in organismal fitness, analyzed whole-genome expression arrays to find beneficial mutations in genes encoding global regulators, and measured spontaneous mutation rates to discover changes in DNA-repair functions - among many other approaches and findings. Even after more than a decade of study, we continue to find fascinating evolutionary changes in these evolving populations.

 

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ResearchInterests.html

 

"Different genes are expressed at different times and in different places," Soltis said. So the new species had much greater diversity than would have been expected, creating a genetic blueprint as it went along, from one generation to the next, turning some genes on, and others off, and eliminating some entirely.

 

That, of course, gave goatsbeard an enormous advantage in adapting to new environmental challenges or opportunities.

 

"This is evolution at work," Soltis said. "You can see the fine tuning begin to take place."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-capture-evolution-lab/story?id=13197168

 

 

And this is just the first page.

 

I also did a quick search for ID experiments.....but there aren't any.

 

How 'bout this....how 'bout we teach kids something worth knowing in a science class rather than the epistemological correlate of affirmative action.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Has anyone claimed evolution and religion are mutually exclusive?

[FeelingMN 273]

Dude, you asked me to provide facts Peter Pan isn't real. I did so.

 

I guess I could ask you to provide facts God isn't real.....................

 

I never asked you to provide facts Peter Pan isn't real. I said what you were saying was like me asking for that. It's called a simile. You're not too bright, huh? Jesus still loves you though.

 

So, is it your position that for someone to be real he is the only one who can write a book about him? If he doesn't write the book himself, and someone else does, that proves that person doesn't exist?

 

Hey, are you gonna provide some explanations of nature that can only be found in the Bible? I mean, I did my part. I listed some stuff that can only be explained scientifically. To wit, it seems if you cannot counter with suitable explanations of a Biblical nature, then you'd have to concede that science can indeed explain certain aspects of Nature best...certainly better than the Bible. And that one of these aspects is probably evolution...unless you can come up with and ID/Creationism experiment or something from the Bible....something other than semantics.

 

But to answer your question above....you'll have to ask Newbie. He's real...the realest person here....but he's also a character too. He's the guy you gotta check with.

[FeelingMN 273]

Has anyone claimed evolution and religion are mutually exclusive?

 

 

I presume from your question that you think they're not mutually exclusive. That they can coincide. Creationism in schools. Evolution from the pulpit.

 

I don't know....how are the church going folk gonna react if I request the homily center on evolution this Sunday?

 

Awwhhh, dang....whatever....I'm sure they'd be cool with it. They seem like a pretty open minded crowd.

 

Good point RP. You win yet another thread. :tip_of_the_hat:

 

Honestly though....religion provides contour to all the facts science derives. The two could compliment each other very well if people opened their minds to it. Still...that doesn't mean ID/Creationism should be taught in classrooms...at least not in science classes....where scientific thought should be instilled.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

Has anyone claimed evolution and religion are mutually exclusive?

While some people believe both, one is based on faith, which is the antithesis of the scientific method from which the theory of evolution is derived. Hence the lack of ID-confirming experiments.

[Voltaire 4,554]

Still waiting on a Biblical explanation for any of the items I listed above. The Bible does talk a lot about eternity.....so.....it could be a while.

 

To pass the time, maybe I should do a quick search of experiments focused on evolution.....you guys feel free to chime in with some ID/Creationism experiments. OK?

 

Here's one:

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029150610.htm

 

And another:

 

 

 

http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/e120.html

 

Some dude at Michigan State seems to have a pretty cool experiment running right now:

 

 

 

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ResearchInterests.html

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-capture-evolution-lab/story?id=13197168

 

 

And this is just the first page.

 

I also did a quick search for ID experiments.....but there aren't any.

 

How 'bout this....how 'bout we teach kids something worth knowing in a science class rather than the epistemological correlate of affirmative action.

What an excellent post and the concluding line if freaking hilarious. Nice job.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Still waiting on a Biblical explanation for any of the items I listed above.

 

Omnipotence should cover it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I presume from your question that you think they're not mutually exclusive. That they can coincide.

 

Correct.

 

Still...that doesn't mean ID/Creationism should be taught in classrooms...at least not in science classes....where scientific thought should be instilled.

 

I've never said otherwise to either of these points.

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

I also did a quick search for ID experiments.....but there aren't any.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just googled "intelligent design experiments"

 

Got this:

 

About 1,510,000 results (0.22 seconds)

 

[IMMensaMind 459]

Okay, let me try to wade through this a piece at a a time without my head exploding.

 

Since you have your own internal conflicts, I'd suggest you stay away from the elitist smug attitude when responding on this topic. What is it that stops you from disagreeing without being so damned disagreeable?

 

 

First, I'm not an atheist at all. I have beliefs of a spiritual nature...

 

 

I prefer to believe in fact rather than supernatural.

 

And right here is the perfect illustration of your own conflicts. There is nothing "scientific" about being "spiritual". You have no way of measuring a 'spirit'; you have no way of knowing that it exists. There is nothing scientific about 'spirituality'.

 

You're just as wacko as anyone else who has built a religion around spirituality.

 

You give me some examples of things in nature that can only be explained biblically, and we can talk about it.

 

Give me an example of things in nature which can only be explained 'spiritually'.

 

If you cannot, start being more civil to people with whom you disagree.

[FeelingMN 273]

I've got nothing.

 

:disappointed:

 

Just googled "intelligent design experiments"

 

Got this:

 

About 1,510,000 results (0.22 seconds)

 

 

Doesn't surprise me. A whole bunch of words....and no proof. It's par for the course.

 

 

I'd suggest you stay away from the elitist smug attitude

 

 

 

 

And right here is the perfect illustration of your own conflicts. There is nothing "scientific" about being "spiritual". You have no way of measuring a 'spirit'; you have no way of knowing that it exists. There is nothing scientific about 'spirituality'.

 

I can see where FrankM is coming from....I tend to have the same beliefs. I don't adhere to any religion because of the inherent dogma. It's too limiting for me not to be able to question....and religion does not provide a vehicle to question.....anything.

 

That's what science is good for. Questioning. Incorporating new facts.....ways of thinking into your worldview. And yet, armed with all these facts, you're still left feeling pretty empty in the grand scheme of things. If you combine factual knowledge with a feeling of reverence and awe for the order of things....that could be a scientific spirituality. Does that make sense?

 

Science and Religion don't have to be orthogonal in nature....at least in how any individual can apply those respective approaches to their own lives in search of meaning.

 

[Frank M 181]

Since you have your own internal conflicts, I'd suggest you stay away from the elitist smug attitude when responding on this topic. What is it that stops you from disagreeing without being so damned disagreeable?

 

I've got no internal conflicts on this subject at all. And by this time, it's obvious you find everything I say disagreeable, so you'll just have to deal with it. It's not my problem.

 

 

And right here is the perfect illustration of your own conflicts. There is nothing "scientific" about being "spiritual". You have no way of measuring a 'spirit'; you have no way of knowing that it exists. There is nothing scientific about 'spirituality'.

 

You're just as wacko as anyone else who has built a religion around spirituality.

 

That makes a lot of sense. When you point out anything I've said that indicates that you cannot be spiritual and still prefer scientific explanations of natural phenomenon, we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking out of your ass.

 

Give me an example of things in nature which can only be explained 'spiritually'.

 

If you cannot, start being more civil to people with whom you disagree.

 

WTF are you talking about? You make absolutely no sense, since I never have said that you cannot believe in some sort of higher power and still believe in evolution.

 

And I'll say anything to anyone in any way I choose and you can kiss my ass if you don't like it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

:disappointed:

 

Omnipotence is nothing? Gotcha

 

 

 

Doesn't surprise me. A whole bunch of words....and no proof. It's par for the course.

 

Didn't say there was proof in there. You said when you Googled ID you got nothing. I just figured your Google was broke since I got all those hits.

 

 

 

 

:

[Frank M 181]

Just because you don't believe it needs a Biblical counterpart doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

 

Well, in the past, people with schizophrenia were subjected to exorcism to remove the demons from them. SInce we know now that medication can control schizophrenia, should we medicate as well as perform an exorcism on people with the disease, since, according to your line of reasoning, things like this might be caused by both brain anomalies and demons?

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Well, in the past, people with schizophrenia were subjected to exorcism to remove the demons from them. SInce we know now that medication can control schizophrenia, should we medicate as well as perform an exorcism on people with the disease, since, according to your line of reasoning, things like this might be caused by both brain anomalies and demons?

 

 

Lots of crazy sh!t happened in the past that has no bearing on this discussion. So, unless you can show where I claim demons cause schizophrenia you are just talking out of your ass.

[Frank M 181]

Lots of crazy sh!t happened in the past that has no bearing on this discussion. So, unless you can show where I claim demons cause schizophrenia you are just talking out of your ass.

 

Fine. Give me an example of a natural phenomenon with a spiritual/biblical explanation, since I've already provided examples of scientific explanations for natural phenomenon that were thought to have spiritual/biblical causes, and you've brought nothing except for answering questions with questions.

 

I get that this is just an exercise in double talk for you and your really not that interested in a discussion, but give it a shot.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Fine. Give me an example of a natural phenomenon with a spiritual/biblical explanation, since I've already provided examples of scientific explanations for natural phenomenon that were thought to have spiritual/biblical causes, and you've brought nothing except for answering questions with questions.

 

I get that this is just an exercise in double talk for you and your really not that interested in a discussion, but give it a shot.

 

 

Was there a question in my last response?

[Frank M 181]

Was there a question in my last response?

 

So you got nothing.