posted on October 15, 2002 09:21:45 AM new
Debate it the best vehicle to learn about anything. If we can do it here, why not allow the children in public schools to have the same opportunity? why must they be fed only one dialogue instead of being taught with a pallette of ideas? this is how learning and analytical evaluation are formed. Do we want to turn out drones in the public school system or do we want people who can think for themselves, tolerate conflicting viewpoints, challenge the status quo. Presenting the case on both sides is interesting, thought provoking and retains a degree of passion. This is how learning should be in a public school.
posted on October 15, 2002 11:40:35 AM new
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that artdoggy and I think that most Americans would as well. The problem is the format. Should non-Science be taught as Science and science taught as phylosphy? The different Christian version of the Creation should be taught along with the Eskimo version, the Hawaiian version, the Bhuddist version, the Hindu version and so forth. However, these very same people squaking for "equal time" in the classroom of their version as "education" refuse to allow these others to be taught to our kids. Worse, the same arguement can be made for "equal time" at church Sunday School, where both Evolution and the other faiths ought to be taught to the kids so that they receive a real education there as well. But that doesn't fly either for some reason.
posted on October 15, 2002 11:52:55 AM new
Here are the classic acceptable steps of the scientific method:I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
I think that evolution has yet to meet all the criteria of the scientific method. As I said before there is no hard evidence to this popular "hypothesis". Step 4 is still yet not PROVEN. I do not advocate that any of these theories or hypotheses are credible enough to be taught as the "gospel" truth in the class room but instead should be explored intellectually. The scientific explanation must be presented alongside the creationist theory.
I would rather see the scientific method of evaluating data taught before evolutionary history.
posted on October 15, 2002 01:41:32 PM new
No hard evidence ? There is plenty of hard evidence for evolution.
But the real problem is that creationism can not meet the requirements of science. The "debate" doesn't take place because creationism would be destroyed in short order and would then be seen as an attack on students faith.
Creationism is debated in universities nationwide. Faith based "science" is destroyed in these debates. And it never fails that some literalist fundementalist is dismayed that his/her religion has been shown to be a fraud. One fundementalist college in Illinois has embraced evolution because the evidence is overwhelming, and the profs have basically stated that they can not teach modern biology and prepeare the students unless evolution is accepted and included. It has caused a problem with the board of directors at the college. By the way, all the profs at this school are fundementalists- but the evidence of evolution has forced them to deny creationism.
posted on October 15, 2002 02:24:09 PM new
well I disagree with you that creationism is destroyed in a debate with evolutionist. I once attended one of these debates and I found it to be incredibly enlightning. The creationist brought up many questions that confronted evolution theory. The creationists also peaked the evolutionarys into having to defend their position with facts. The facts were simply not there! I just wanted the facts to support the idea. The evidence was not there. It is not there. You cannot support it, it cannot be supported with data. It is not there!
I left the debate feeling refreshed that nothing is absolute and defined. I realized that science can brainwash and intimidate people into not questioning their status quo. Although the creationist could not prove the exsistence of God, they did prove that ironically, they had the more expansive questioning minds.
I question you university of Ill. story. The professors cannot on one hand be fundementalist and evolutionaries. Many people do however believe that God is the creator, the divine intelligence behind the entire world and evolution was the method or process.
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 02:27 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 03:25:08 PM new
The college i believe was Wheaton, a VERY conservative fundementalist christian college. The acceptance of evolution by the science faculty has created problems for the college. The college was featured on a PBS special about evolution - see the link.
Again, you have displayed your lack of knowledge about science in your evolution/creationism debate example. The fact that questions can be raised and answered about evolution is what makes evolution science and creationism not science.
The foundation principle of creationism is that there is a god. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove that there is or is not a being that defies all physical laws. Creationism is non-sense. Untestable and not capable of being in the realm of science.
If we allow creationism into the science cirriculum, we should also allow the notion that Mickey Mouse created the universe and all that is in it - it makes as much sense.
posted on October 15, 2002 04:12:15 PM new
"We shall not believe anything unless there is reasonable cause to believe that it is true" -- Ingemar Hedenius
posted on October 15, 2002 04:29:50 PM new
I'm sure I have a fine working understanding of science. I graduated from college, took anthropolgy classes as well as astronomy, and earth science course work. I attended several lectures of Richard leaky and have a great curiosity about the world around me.
Thank you for clarifying your post about the college you mentioned in an earlier thread as you were not clear as to what you were talking about. I will be sure and read the thread.
I disagree that "creationism" is non-sense. Do you think you just popped up out of an infinite nothing and preceeded to blow you relentless horn on these posts? you seem to have such anger about even having a discussion about the issues. Why so much anger. Its only a debate. You seem to take it all so personally.
posted on October 15, 2002 04:52:17 PM new
I read the article and I was not impressed. The content was vague. I read about similarites between the biblical Genesis and evolution. Sounds to me like the article is proving the bible's version has some credible comparisions.
I do not believe that God created the world in 6 literal days. But maybe his time is not my time. I believe that God is the divine intelligence behind the method, whatever it was this intelligene used create man. I think a lot of people believe in divine intelligence and that humans are based on a model of a superior being. That is my right to believe. I also attend church and derive a great deal of comfort from my faith. It is my right as a citizen of the United States of America. My church does much to feed the hungry and cloth the poor. I enjoy serving God and derive much happiness in knowing that I am loved my him and my destiny lies in his gift of eternal life. One day, Reamond, we will all know for sure. I look forward to seeing you on that day. I sure hope you will be there.
posted on October 15, 2002 05:41:17 PM new
"Do we want to turn out drones in the public school system or do we want people who can think for themselves, tolerate conflicting viewpoints, challenge the status quo. Presenting the case on both sides is interesting, thought provoking and retains a degree of passion. This is how learning should be in a public school."
Creationism is a religious belief. Period.
As far as people thinking for themselves, tolerate conflicting viewpoints and challenging the status quo, do you really think that teaching any sort of religion is going to accomplish that? Devoutly religious people are among the least tolerant of different beliefs and viewpoints than any other people I've ever met.
If you want your kid to learn about creationism, take them to church. Why is that so hard to do?
posted on October 15, 2002 05:45:12 PM new
As usual in this debate subject, everyone will stick to their own guns.
Although it has already been said in so many words, I'd like to repeat it. "Science" is a body of knowledge which can be disproven. Since God and the Creation can not be disproven, it is not science. Period.
Does a large body of evidence exist to support the Theory of Evolution? Yes, indeed there is! Because Creationists have made so much noise and tried to pervert science, paleontologists, biologists and just about every other discipline has come to the rescue of this body of science. They have poured much effort into what amounts to a great achievement in Science: the Proof of Evolution!
Artdoggy, even just ten years ago there wasn't nearly half the proof as there is right now. And it comes from all disciplines of scientific inquiry. To make a list of it would be to create an encyclopedia here in this forum. To close your eyes to the monumental amount of evidence accumulated deserves a non-polite title under your name.
I have recently had a Creationist try to convert me. I ended up converting him. The problem for him was that the arguments used to support Creationism are so out of date and out of touch with reality that even the Creation Movement is giving up vast tracks of ground. They partially agree with Evolution, but stop at where the evidence is not finished just yet.
Such as "The Created Kinds" argument; they acknowledge that Evolution within Kinds - Birds, Fish, Reptiles, Mammals, Insects, etc. occurs because the evidence is so overwhelming. However, they have said that species do not migrate from one Kind to another Kind; e.g. dinosaurs do not evolve into birds, for instance, and that Transition Fossils do not exist. Transition Fossils would show, say, a Dinosaur growing Hair or Feathers, not just the shape of bones. That would prove that Dinosaurs changed into Birds or mammals. Within the last five years, many such Transition Fossils have been discovered and unearthed for the entire world to see. Now the Creationists state that species can migrate between Kinds, but no new Kinds can be, since God made all that there ever was and will be.
While that last argument is clearly nonsense on their part, you can see that Creationism is getting its back pushed to the Wall.
Other tricks that Creationists like to use is the Argument Theory of Disproving Science. When convenient, they quote - and often misquote scientists to bolster their unsupported theories. But what they fail to tell you is that the opinions of scientists does not constitute Scientific Opinion. Official Scientific Opinion is based upon the Facts and Hard Data, not upon the personal feelings and religious beliefs of scientists.
How many of us have heard them use that argument? That when scientists argue, it must be Science, with a capital 'S' that they are arguing. Do they argue about Evolution? Evolutionary Scientists do argue about the tiny facts, but not one creditable Evolutionary Scientist denies the vast body of facts and hard data that supports the Theory of Evolution.
It is the playing upon the ignorance of Science that the Creationists get as far as they do, deluding millions who have not a clue as to what Science is and what constitutes science. You can see the difference right here in this thread, in fact.
posted on October 15, 2002 06:06:27 PM newIf you want your kid to learn about creationism, take them to church.Why is that so hard to do?
I think that only those who are very insecure in their faith feel the need to try to disguise their beliefs, through a form of doublethink, as something that they are not. For instance, creationism, which is a matter of faith, would be believed to gain stature in the eyes of society and increase the self-esteem of fundamentalists if it is classified with the sciences. The same is true with its direct inclusion in the political process. The other Christians in the society, a majority BTW, don't have this fundamental self-doubt and the need to create this spiritual safety net through numbers.
posted on October 15, 2002 06:44:07 PM new
Quoting Monkeysuit, Antiquary? Well, it's a good quote, but it would carry more weight if he/she had turned into Mansuit by now. It's been 3 years plus. Where's the proof??
posted on October 15, 2002 07:05:48 PM new
Oh, for goodness' sakes!
I am Pagan. I have my own views of how the Earth and the Universe came into being.
Now, what makes MY views (and therefore my 'theory') less valid than those espoused by Fundamentalist Christian ones?
I think that my Pagan Goddess Creation Theory should be taught instead of the Christian one in science classrooms.
Mine is just as 'proveable' (that is to say, NOT AT ALL!!) as it is.
C'mon, people. Have your religion, but don't try to turn your religion into science. It isn't.
I can't 'prove' that my views are right or wrong. Nor can you. Furthermore, there is NO EMPIRICAL WAY TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEITY (and therefore any 'creation theory').
That is why 'creationism' isn't science. It's just an attempt to make one faith 'more right' than the others by giving it the aroma of scientific fact.
Practice your religion. Relish it. Rejoice in it. But it doesn't belong in a science classroom. EVER.
I couldn't help but think of someone I saw on an infomercial, selling his 'creation science' tapes. He claimed to have in his museum a 'fossilized pickle' discovered in an abandoned house. This rock (which did look vaguely like a pickle) was held as 'proof' that something could fossilize in twenty years. I just shook my head. That dude frightened me.
Anyway, I have some candles to light, some incense to burn, and some drumming to do.
posted on October 15, 2002 07:14:27 PM new
People have a right to express their ideas with or without scientific proof or disproof. Science is not a God and God is not a science.
The issue here is Christians (not just fundementalists) would like to have the creationist idea of the universe presented as a theory. The idea of evolution as a method of the origin of species is not the debate. The Catholic church takes the position that evolution is not in conflict with the teaching of God.
The issue is GOD or an intelligence in the universe that "started" the entire process of life. There is no answer yet as to how life began. A ball of fire? a big bang? but where did the bang come from? What is the source of all life on earth. This is the question. Perhaps there have been new discoveries within the fossil record and perhaps evolution can be proven without a shadow of a doubt, but it still does not answer the question "where do we come from". Its a wonderful question, full of wonder and mystery. The exisitence of God has not be proven nor disproven by science. How did we get here? where are we going? what is our purpose. These are questions that all human beings have. Evolution does not answer these questions. Evolution is an explanation to biological change. I question Evolution as I question anything else. The main problem with science of today is that unlike the Renaisance period or the Golden Age of learning, it was not divorced or comparmentalized from the humanities. Cold logic without the human touch will accomplish nothing in inspiring mankind. Man will always ask how did I get here, where did I come from, is there God, these are worthwhile questions that should be explored along side the evolutionary position. Perhaps there are not absolute answers to these questions but they are the stuff that make the wheels turn in the mind.
Perhaps if science in the classroom addressed these fundemental questions there would be less desire on the part of religious groups to force the issues. Mankind is not a pointless meandering slimy thing that crawled out of the bubbling pool of cosmic ooze to simply be and die without meaning or purpose. Science rejects to tolerate PHILOSOPHY.
I apologize for spelling errors, I am spell check dependant.
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 07:17 PM ]
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 07:21 PM ]
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 07:22 PM ]
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 07:24 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 07:25:39 PM new
"The exisitence of God has not be proven nor disproven by science."
I would modify that sentence to read, "The existence of God CAN not be proved nor disproved by science."
The nature of faith precludes EVER proving it. Faith is about believing what cannot be known.
"Faith is believing in something you know to be impossible." That was said to me by a theology student once. (Where it came from, I am not sure.) It, despite its surface contradictions, holds a great truth.
"The issue here is Christians (not just fundementalists) would like to have the creationist idea of the universe presented as a theory." Does that mean that you would give EQUAL TIME to EVERY RELIGION'S CREATION STORIES? Or just the Christian ones? Therein lies the rub, I think.
Science has come up with and discarded ideas over time. That is the nature of experimentation. Religion cannot. The Book of Genesis is static. Whether you wish to interpret 'days' as aeons, it makes no difference. It still states that an outside influence made it all.
Science tries to ferret out 'truth' (whatever THAT means!!) through observation and experimentation. Our distant Earth history remains much of a puzzle. But with each decade, more is known. Some things continue to pass muster, some things are discarded, some new ideas are formed.
The Book of Genesis hasn't changed.
That remains the difference between science and religion.
posted on October 15, 2002 07:30:01 PM new
"Mankind is not a pointless meandering slimy thing that crawled out of the bubbling pool of cosmic ooze to simply be and die without meaning or purpose."
That is merely your opinion. We're hardly important. If every human were to cease to exist, we wouldn't be missed.
Never forget, just because we think we're Kings of the Hill, there are literally billions of other places in the Universe. Ever ask yourself why a god of infinite power would feel the need to create such measly little creatures as humans, stick them on a teeny lackluster planet on the outskirts of the universe, and demand that we worship him?
posted on October 15, 2002 07:49:22 PM new
The question has been asked in this and the other thread several times, without a clear answer. Could someone who would like to see creationism taught in public schools PLEASE answer it:
Whose version of the divine creation of the earth and it's creatures shall I teach to my 6th graders? Please be as specific as possible.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:01:25 PM new
Mankind is not a pointless meandering slimy thing that crawled out of the bubbling pool of cosmic ooze to simply be and die without meaning or purpose."
That is merely your opinion. We're hardly important. If every human were to cease to exist, we wouldn't be missed.
and that is merely your opinon.
Ever ask yourself why a god of infinite power would feel the need to create such measly little creatures as humans, stick them on a teeny lackluster planet on the outskirts of the universe, and demand that we worship him?
Actually I have asked myself this many times. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why is there evil in the world? Why do we demand justice? Why do we love our children, why do some of us abuse our children. Why? I ask myself why all the time. Society ask itself this question, great thinkers and average minds have all asked these questions. It is enough to send a person into the depths of despair and hopelessness. Why would I even get up in the morning if this is how I viewed the world? what would be the point? why not just commit suicide? there are obviously no answers that science can prove to us. What would be the point of even going on with life. We evolved from nothing and we will return to nothing. Everything inbetween is pointless. Is this what you beleive? then you have a belief system and that is your religion. Hoplessness and cyncism. It must be tough for you to have a happy day.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:12:01 PM new
I also ask myself why is every leaf on every tree different in some way from the other leaves, why are no two snowflakes every alike. Because God is infinite. If he could be explained he would cease to be infinte. Why is there evil in the world? because God did not create people do be robots, they have choices and those choices have consequences. Why should I have faith in somthing i cannot see? well it is not easy, if defys all that I am taught, it challenges all that is finite and conclusive in my thinking. But I read the new testament and I believe what Jesus taught. Love they neigbor as they self, treat others as you want to be treated, help others, be kind to the poor, help widows, all the best advice I could ever find for living a healthy life and a eternal life. Some will choose to follow the path of life some will not. Its up to the individual. But I believe what Jesus said. I just do.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:26:41 PM new
But science has and will answer those questions.
A few centuries ago humans were puzzled and demoralized by people getting sick and dying, crops failing, and bad weather. These things were determined by the christian faithful to be caused by evil spirits, devils, and witches. Many burned at the stake for these christian theories.
Science answered these questions, and went further to alieviate many of the illnesses.
If you told a dreg of the Dark Ages about the microbe theory of disease, he would scoff the same way christians scoff at the theory of evolution now. Imagine claiming that there are animals so small that they can't be seen invading our bodies and making us sick - humbug, the bible makes no mention of microscopic living things. Unbelievable- everyone knows that illness is caused by evil spirits, well at least the evil spirits theory should be taught at medical schools along side microbe theory.
Why don't we teach the evil spirit theory of illness at medical schools ? After all, microbe theory hasn't answered all questions about illnesses,and the bible does tell us about evil spirits entering the body and making people sick.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:28:30 PM new
So believe in Jesus, etc., etc. Study it, ponder it, to your heart's content. This is the function of religion. There's plenty of room in the study of religion for these questions. Science is too small for these sorts of things.
Science is the study of natural phenomenon. God is beyond the natural, supernatural, more than natural. Why keep on trying to force this fit? You can't cram the infinite of God into the confines of the study of science.
If no one else will answer your question, profe51, as to "Whose version of the divine creation of the earth and it's creatures shall I teach to my 6th graders?" I will. The answer is both specific and simple.
posted on October 15, 2002 08:36:00 PM new
"Science is the study of natural phenomenon. God is beyond the natural, supernatural, more than natural. Why keep on trying to force this fit? You can't cram the infinite of God into the confines of the study of science." donny
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. --Albert Einstein
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 08:36 PM ]
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 08:37 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 08:38:49 PM new
Artdoggy,
I certainly enjoy my life. I am a very lucky woman: I have a terrific spouse, a job that is often exhausting and frequently exhilirating, and I live in a place that is awesome.
And I can enjoy that without the need of having an 'eternal life.' I simply am. Since you made it personal, I'll do the same. Do you do all those 'good things' because they're good, or because you think they'll get you into heaven?
I do the same things as you, but I don't expect any rewards, either temporal or eternal.
Glad you have Jesus. If that is what motivates you in your life, that's wonderful. I don't want Jesus or 'creationism' in science classrooms. They don't belong there. They aren't science. They are faith.
And you again did not answer the question: Do you advocate that ALL RELIGIONS' creation stories be in the classroom, or only the Christian one?
That's the answer I am waiting for.
---SkorpioGal "It must be tough for you to have a happy day." I think I'll use that as my sig line. LOL
posted on October 15, 2002 08:50:49 PM new
One does not enter heaven by being good or doing good works. We are not good by nature, we are sinners, apart from the absolute goodness of God. We are given eternal life through Jesus Christ who paid a price to ransom our souls from this earth. He gives a gift we could never earn in a million life times. I am glad that you are happy in your life and I only made it personal because you asked me first what I thought about a God that sticks us in a spritual out post and then you debased by belief system by comparing it to Horton Hears a WHo. I highly doubt you would have been so flippant if I had been buddhist or a muslim or even a Goddess worshipping pagan.
I think the answer to the question is quite simple. It would not be practical to present every creation theory but all creation theories do share the common denominator that a GOD created the world. So it would be objective for the teacher to teach his or her evolution but also inform the class that not all religions of beliefs in the world support evolution some people believe a Divine Being created the earth. I think that is the truth, and educational and perhaps wouold inspire children to learn about other religions.
[ edited by artdoggy on Oct 15, 2002 08:52 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2002 09:11:30 PM new
Artdoggy says: "I think that is the truth"
and that's her basis for insisting that non-science should be taught as a component of science.
Take a quote by Einstein. Well, who hasn't wondered about the big God questions? But when Einstein formulated his scientific theories, he worked within the framework of science. E=Mc2(unquantifiable God Factor)isn't going to be any use in advancing scientific theory.
Fine, have students learn about other relgions. This is what comparative religion courses are for.
posted on October 15, 2002 09:20:55 PM new
Yes donny but the quote tell us of his inspiration, his passion for learning the science, what motivated him. He worked within a framework but he also acknowledge his belief in God and openly and freely acknowledged it was is driving force in his scientific pursuits. Would you object to his quote being in a classroom?
