Should creationism be taught in school...and why/why not

[demorgan]

Im eager to hear people's opinion about this one.

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

I believe it should be taught as part of Comparative Religion (as it is the UK), but it scares me that it appears to be taught with the same emphasis as Biology in some places.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Todash]

Not unless you're talking about a private religious school, where the parents are paying for, in part, religious instruction. To teach Creationism is to teach about God, and that is not something I, as a parent, would want a state-run school doing. Imparting a belief system is part of the parents' job.

For the record, I believe in God. I believe he created the world. But my answer to the question would be the same even if that were not the case.

[rjt65]

I like the separation of state and church-- to many issues--if we all agree on the science stick to science.

more challenging question is do we force our beliefs on others? so if we leave this decision to locals versus federal gov't--than a local school may choose creationism and leave off darwin... hmmm

IMO we should enforce the science be taught all over and if a local school has backing of the local municipality and is ok with adding in the religious side I am ok with it... for their choice.

prefer religion be taught in religion science in school

thought peeps?

haha this could have been redirected to the inpolitically correct thread ;-)

[Roseasharn]

Sure. I think comparing and contrasting theories is an interesting way to get people thinking. The crux of the matter is that we don't know what the truth about the initiation of the whole of existence is as of yet. We have some good ideas, some bad ideas, some so-so ideas. But nothing concrete. This might be because none of us were there, but I could be wrong about that. :p
The only thing you can't ignore is the adaptation (evolution) in the multitude of species on the planet when dealing in science lessons. It would be stupid to do that and I would have a problem with that. The idea that god said "hey, we need some light in here" and started things moving is perfectly fine with me. The idea that species don't change is not. Because it is obvious that they do.
I think the creation stories of all cultures have a place in history lessons for sure. After all, they are very good at helping to explain the some of the key beliefs in those cultures. They also help to outline our similarities. Which is also good. And they show something else that I think is very valuable. We, as a species, have been looking for the answers regarding our origins almost since we showed up on the playing field. That gap was filled by various religions that worshipped invisible or sometimes visible gods for a very long time. Then it was replaced by some with a god we call science. Because you can treat anything like a religion. I think its almost as crazy a leap of faith to think that the universe exploded into its current incarnation for no reason as the leap of faith that someone told it to and it did.
But that's just me.

[aptpupil]

No surprise that "Creationism" should be such a big deal in the USA, the most extreme fundamentalist Christian nation in the free world. I guess until the existence of God is either finally and irrevocably proved or disproved, there is an argument for the teaching of Creationism, as there is for all other plausible options.

I'm not a fan of this "halfway-house" of Intelligent Design though. That just comes across to me as a ploy by a certain section of Christian Creationists who, fearing that they are losing the battle with the Evolutionists, have gone back to the drawing board and come up with something a little more acceptable to the Science community, and to the "God sceptics" in general.

[Kim L.]

In comparative religion, yes. It has no place in a scientific curriculum, however. It would be similar to teaching that alchemy is a science (true in Discworld, of course).

[coolambindang]

I do not mind my kids knowing the story of Adam and Eve and other bible stories but they also know that evolution is the accepted school of thought on origin. It is scary about those who reconcile creationism with actual scientific fact, there is even a musuem where you can go and learn about creationism, you see "first Man" right next to dinosaurs and wolly mammoths. You get to see the whole 4000 years of the history of Earth. Those that work there treat the bible as actual historical fact! D'oh!

[JRLauer]

Science can't explain how all this came to be, not conclusively so why not tell the whole story. I think all views should be heard in a case like this and let the student make up his/her own mind.

[OhmyGod!]

No. I think it shouldn't be taught in schools at all. Specially not as the 'truth'. It can be taught like all religions: How they influence culture and how they work and the basic facts about those religions. I think it's pretty sad some schools teach children the earth is like a couple of thousand yrs old.

[PatInTheHat]

No.
(unless of course, in due course, Prof. Flintstone taught the course...why then of course:wink2:.

That Creation Museum mentioned by coolambindang, is just a hop skip & little jump away from me in Petersburg Ky., between Big Bone Lick State Park, and Beaver Lick Ky....I think Fred & Barney have the X on the Rockola Cola & DinoDawg Concession:laugh:.
It's been pretty popular...lots of pilgrams.

[BlackThorn]

Sure. Teach it in mythology class.

I read an article in the paper a week or so ago, explaining that Texas just changed it's laws a bit... they used to have to teach the flaws in every scientific theory they explained, in order to back up theories of creationism and such. It was seriously a law, that when they explained evolution, they had to also explain why we might be wrong about it. That twisted my gourd a bit to read, I must admit.

Creationism is a strange one. I mean, isn't it so damn close it's scary, to the way things worked back in the middle ages? It was common knowledge back then, that if you left raw meat out on your table, after a few days or so, it would just magically produce maggots. They had absolutely no clue, it was the flies landing on the meat laying eggs. They thought it just happened.

Christianity, I honestly feel, is just a bunch of legends. They align, don't get me wrong. But I can't invest my everything into those stories. A boat, with every animal, one of male, one of female? And about three families on it? Polar bears and desert lizards too? For days and days and days? And we're all their descendants? Or, better yet, the bible explains to us that Noah and his family lived to be over 900 years old. Everyone used to live that long. But God decided we were undeserving, and reduced our lifespans to 50 or 90 years instead?

I think some people are taking this stuff too literally.

[Terry B]

If kids need to be taught about Adam and Eve it should be in Bible studies or Sunday School, not tax-payer funded public schools.

[phidgt]

I have a serious issue with Creationism, but then I am an atheist, so no shocker there. I think Todash said it best. Public schools, absolutely not. But if you are sending your kid to some private religious school than it is probably something that may be taught alongside evolution. It would be nice to think that parents would allow their children to decide for themselves which theory they wanted to believe in.

[Dana Jean]

No --

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

Was just discussing this thread with my daughter - does anyone happen to know what Islam's stance on this issue is?

Or Judaism's?

Long days and pleasant nights

[Kim L.]

Not unless you're talking about a private religious school, where the parents are paying for, in part, religious instruction. To teach Creationism is to teach about God, and that is not something I, as a parent, would want a state-run school doing. Imparting a belief system is part of the parents' job.

For the record, I believe in God. I believe he created the world. But my answer to the question would be the same even if that were not the case.

Me, too, exactly.

[Roseasharn]

I'm not really sure why this is such a big deal. When the topic of creationism came up in school when I was in the sixth grade, we had a lengthy discussion about it and moved on. When it came up in high school biology, we talked about it and moved on. Same with Physics. It's a theory, just like all the rest. And there are flaws in all of them. And yeah, I think that it is a weak theory, but kids are in school to learn how to make up their minds through analyzing data just as much as they are there to learn the hard facts. They can't do this if every single thing is introduced as concrete fact with no contrary views given representation.
If someone said to me tomorrow "Science has proven God does not exist" I would likely say: "Since my belief in God is a matter of faith and not science, science can't disprove God. Just like just because there might be a God doesn't mean that science has no merit."
It's just ridiculous the way people of science and people of religion go at eachother. It's like watching a mormon and a catholic argue about the fine points of Revelation. (no offense to mormons or catholics. I've just seen it. It ain't pretty.) But maybe I like that metaphor because I think people treat science like a religion, argue about it like its a religion and don't realize it.
I guess maybe the main issue here is that people don't want public schools paid for by their taxes teaching anything that remotely resembles religion. And I get that. I would be 100% behind it if my kid ended up at a public school that taught creationism exclusively. But as far as I can tell, that isn't happening around here. Besides, its a slippery slope. Make it so we can't discuss creationism and BAM! All texts with religious themes are yanked out of public school libraries. Bye-bye Hawthorne.
I guess how I really feel is that there is no reason why creationism can't have it's own paragraph and why our kids can't discuss its weaknesses or possible strengths like grown ups. They'll probably do better than most grown ups who have the discussion.

[Roseasharn]

Hi,

Was just discussing this thread with my daughter - does anyone happen to know what Islam's stance on this issue is?

Or Judaism's?

Long days and pleasant nights

I had a lengthy conversation with a rabbi about this, actually. According to him, the garden of eden and all that jazz is a metaphor/myth.

[CorbinKale]

Creationism and evolution are not incompatible. Why do people put the two concepts into opposite warring camps? If God can do anything, why couldn't he use evolution as his creation mechanism?

[Liselle]

As with part of religion is should be taught in balance with other religions or beliefs. I'm not religious, haven't had my children christened or anything like that because I believe it is up to them decide what they want to believe.

I feel that in this country we are getting scared of teaching anything remotely christian for fear of offending other faiths. I was taught christian religion in primary school and secondary and I personally thought it was a load of twaddle, but thats my belief.

If its not taught or mentioned then that is wrong as well, i feel its all about balance.

[Kim L.]

I had a lengthy conversation with a rabbi about this, actually. According to him, the garden of eden and all that jazz is a metaphor/myth.

It may also depend on the branch of Judaism--Reform, Conservative, Orthodox. Some Christian denominations adhere to a literal 7-day interpretation, while other churches see the creation story as a way of telling about our origins and our relationship to God, more like what you're talking about, Roseasharn.

[SKfan2006]

not in a public school. i find this stuff hard to believe. for example, all records and stories before the bible indicated that people lived shorter lives than us. then when the bible comes along people are suddenly 500 to 1200 years old? i don't buy it since anything that takes place immeditaly afterwards show people living barely to their 60's.
and if creationism is supposed to be made by god who is perfect then why is everything that is made by him so contradictory? you would think a perfect god wouldn't any contradition through.

[BlueCeleste]

My answer is yes and no, Yes to private catholic schools, no to public school. Yet even so I have my hesitations, I do not think Darwinism is essential teaching in catholic schools and that can be dangerous.
On a personal note, my mother was taught by nuns in a all girl catholic school (even tough her parents were buddhist) I was taught about Evolution in public school, it was a point of contention for us at the dinner table, we faught over it constantly, I kept reminding her there were proof, she kept pointing out it was planted by god...I eventually suggested that maybe evolution is God's plan...(altough I am now what might be considered an atheist), it was no use, till this day her childhood education is so deeply seared into her mind, she can no longer consider other possibilities...

[Bryan James]

Should Creationism be Taught in School?

Yes. If, and ONLY if, the teacher can adequately debate Stephen Hawking about both Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics.

I'm tired of the short-sighted debate over Darwinism v. Creationism.

Turn off Jerry Springer and think, oh, just a little bit bigger.

Most teachers are goofy tools. Many Doctors are charge 'em and churn 'em idiots. Many lawyers are completely Clouseau.

BJS

[psj77]

No how ever you belief we got here, it should be up to you to teach that to your kids. There are too many different beliefs for the schools to try & teach them all.

[smooth operator]

It is like walking a tight rope, isn't it? As a tolerant person, I believe everyone has the right to their own beliefs. But as a rational person, I do not believe that it should be taught as "fact." I do not want to try to force others to believe as I believe, and I want the same treatment myself. There is a reason that Church and State are supposed to be kept separate.

[tillyn]

Leave the religion to the church and teach our children had to read , write and do their math. A good percentage of kids these days can't read at a high school level when they get out of high school.

[Leighjavu]

Classes should focus on evolution brought to us by facts that We have solid proof of!
If one teacher chooses to use creation as a topic, some students may get confused as to what the truth really is, then parents get upset and insist that their book needs to be read as well! Then the arguments start. ( and never cease )
As We all know there is some really bad shtuff going on in our world. BUT We always have a book to excuse that away. If it's a good thing that happened then "why" it was
from God. If it was a bad thing, then it must be that God let us choose to be rotten evil.
They are afraid of the permanance of death for themself nevermind the scores of other creatures that share this planet.

[Matticus]

I think the idea of an all powerful should be taught at home. I don't consider it a big deal in "religious studies" but it is in fact not hard science.

You should learn love and the very deep, complex ideas of universal creation from your family imo. Then go from there.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Harsh religious upbringings produce atheist and the opposite produces fundamentalists at any given time. I sure don't go nuts if someone mentions God to my kids in school.

[Dani~]

I think both theories should be presented, they are theories after all neither one is hard science.

If intelligent design was good enough for Einstein to seriously consider, it's good enough for me to do the same.

I have to admit I am proponent of a combination of the two. Until further notice at least.

I'd like to qualify my statements by saying that belief in intelligent design does not constitute affiliation with any religion.

[LadyPain]

Yes, of course, in parochial school.

Absolutely not in public school unless it is within the confines of a religious study course.

[Tooley]

I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. I've been raised to believe "if you are not for it, you are against it". I don't believe this is true. I believe as God believes - free will. So, no, I don't believe creationism should be taught in schools unless it is taught in a very objective manner. I don't believe it should be taught to young children - because they usually rap what they learn around their heads from a young age and live it out.

[Drawn to Ka-tet]

Teach it in Sunday School.

Leave it out of public school. It isn't scientific theory, it's religious theory.

[jamconsulting]

Im eager to hear people's opinion about this one.
A person believes in Creationism or in Darwinism or in Mayan Time Cycles or in whatever one believe to be truth. We are a product of the social order we come from and evolve as we add knowledge and experience. I believe in God but less and less about what organized religions teaching about him. I do not oppose others believing as they will but draw a line about what I will tolerate from fundamentalists. We should know what others believe but have the character and the freedom to decide for ourselves. My mother was shocked by my choice a while back. Do you believe in predestination or preordination? It's a favorite question of mine. Never could answer that one - but I mumbled something and they stopped asking me so I passed. Do you believe the world is 7000 years old or much older? Yes - the earth was created. Yes man has been here longer than 7000 years. No I don't know when but I have my own beliefs - some science based and some from other idealism's. Teaching Creationism is OK, but there is more to creation than what is written. That's why I enjoy SK's books. :laugh: There is may be more to the story than what is written.

[Tery]

Absolutely not in public schools. In a parochial school, they may teach whatever they like.

In Comparative Religion courses (in public schools), all creation theories must be taught.

[poisonbat]

Some things are better taught by the parents to their children. I believe in God, but I don't believe or belong to ANY organized religion. I would rather teach my children my own beliefs and then let them make up their minds on what THEY believe. It should not be taught in public schools. My son went to a private "christian" school, and was taught what THEIR religion states. It is far from my beliefs and my sons. Keep it at home, that is where it belongs. :bat:

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

Just while we're on the subject, I find Genesis a deeply dubious, misogynist book.

Man's love for gold is mentioned twice before Eve even puts in an appearance, and then she immediately gets the blame for everything going wrong.

For wanting to know the knowledge of good and evil?

Surely it's the knowledge of good and evil that (should) make us a higher species, not blissful ignorance?

Sorry if that offends anyone.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Kim L.]

A scientific theory is hard science. What most people think of as a theory ("This sounds like a good idea") is, in science, a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a scientist's idea of how something MIGHT be; it is then tested rigorously, with the goal of proving it NOT to be true. (Called "proving the null hypothesis.") If statistically significant results are found, they are then published, and other scientists then run their own experiements to see if they come up with the same results. Only after many studies are done, with similar results, can the hypothesis be called a theory.

[EXISTESS]

Creationism and evolution are not incompatible. Why do people put the two concepts into opposite warring camps? If God can do anything, why couldn't he use evolution as his creation mechanism?

My thoughts exactly. Well put.:smile2:

[jacobtlong]

No to public schools teaching about religion unless it's in a unbiased comparative religion class.

Yes to private schools teaching religion if they so choose.

[Sweet One]

Hi,

Was just discussing this thread with my daughter - does anyone happen to know what Islam's stance on this issue is?

Or Judaism's?

Long days and pleasant nights



I found this page while looking for info on ambulocetus, the prehsiotric walkign whale:

http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/7EZU2FZ0164/productId/3378/A_WHALE_FANTASY_FROM_NATIONAL_GEOGRAPHIC

It's a creationist article, offering the familair anit-evolution arguments. But I was surprised to foind out it's on a Muslim site. Here in the U. S., we're used to creationists beign fundementalist Christians. But there are plenty of MUslim and Jewish creationists as well. Judasim? Go see Ben Stein's Expelled.

This is the sort of subject found on the Sam Harris board. Only most board members there are atheists, who don't even accept moderate religion. I believe in some sort of theistic or deistic God, and I am often criticised on that forum, even for this. I beleive in theistic evolution, and growing up, I just kind of assumed God was behind it all--I didn't know the term "theistic evolution", and did not hear of the Biblical creation story until fairly late in my childhood. I was recently a Christian, but I found that scripture is just too condradicotry to be trusted.



Hi,

Just while we're on the subject, I find Genesis a deeply dubious, misogynist book.

Man's love for gold is mentioned twice before Eve even puts in an appearance, and then she immediately gets the blame for everything going wrong.

For wanting to know the knowledge of good and evil?

Surely it's the knowledge of good and evil that (should) make us a higher species, not blissful ignorance?

Sorry if that offends anyone.

Long days and pleasant nights

I once had a Christian friend (deceased) who was one of the nicest guys I ever knew--much more so than many non-beleivers. But he held the opinion that women should not be allowed to teach sunday scool or hold postions of authority in the church. Since he beleived God wouldn't have anything in the Bible He didn't want there, this had to be true. He got this from writings of St. Paul in the Bible, who clearly beleived women were to be subservient to men. so how do we reconcile teaching like this with modern ethics?

[Anton177]

I have two words for the original thread question.

The first word begins with F, and the second word is off. I am not a antagonistic atheist, more of a cold-hearted cynic, and I don't think stupidity should be taught as formal education.

Don't forget, you can be educated without being smart.

[Q'smum]

The interesting thing about this thread is that I went through this some 20 years ago in high school. We were not even allowed to breath any form of creationalism. I was quite the scientist in high school, so for me to challenge the science teacher on evolutionism was a shocker. Our discussions took over the class for nearly a week. Conclusion - Evolution is still just a theory, it is a plausible explanation of the physical evidence we can find. Now, this theory keeps getting updated the more information is received, especially as we watch new universes being created (oops, but yeah they do use the term) deep in space. Problem, very few scientist have qualifications to teach Creation theory; and even fewer theologians are qualified. It is more than just religious belief, although that is what it begins with. As one person already noted, Einstien held a great interest in it, there's a reason for that. What is interesting is that the more science advances, the more Creation theory is being supported, not detracted. This doesn't detract from Evolution theory. The problem is that many of those arguing seem to think they are exclusive, when they are not. One theory actually supports the other if you look at the big picture. Just as we have come to a certain level of full understanding about such things as quantum physics, we are coming to a certain level of understanding about other aspects of our world and being. So as long as the teacher is truly qualified to teach creation theory, which is a great deal more that quoting the bible, torah, or quran. To those who thinks it should be taught as "mythology", I used to agree with you, but not anymore. Creation theory crosses many religious arenas, many of which are still popular and kicking (Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, Judisim, just to name a few). As long as a religion is actively and openly practiced by a designated people, it is a "religion." When that religion is no longer practiced, then it move into "mythology." Creation theory doesn't qualify.
Oh my this is long... forgive me but just one more thing to say. It is amazing to me that people on this board that can understand and accept the idea of Ka-Tet are so aligned against the melding of science and faith. Notice I said 'faith' not religion, they are separate entities.
Finally, let's end this with a quote from Carl Sagan's Contact(hope I get it about right, don't have the book here with me, so it's from memory): God, above all is a mathmatician.

[Sweet One]

The interesting thing about this thread is that I went through this some 20 years ago in high school. We were not even allowed to breath any form of creationalism. I was quite the scientist in high school, so for me to challenge the science teacher on evolutionism was a shocker. Our discussions took over the class for nearly a week. Conclusion - Evolution is still just a theory, it is a plausible explanation of the physical evidence we can find. Now, this theory keeps getting updated the more information is received, especially as we watch new universes being created (oops, but yeah they do use the term) deep in space. Problem, very few scientist have qualifications to teach Creation theory; and even fewer theologians are qualified. It is more than just religious belief, although that is what it begins with. As one person already noted, Einstien held a great interest in it, there's a reason for that. What is interesting is that the more science advances, the more Creation theory is being supported, not detracted. This doesn't detract from Evolution theory. The problem is that many of those arguing seem to think they are exclusive, when they are not. One theory actually supports the other if you look at the big picture. Just as we have come to a certain level of full understanding about such things as quantum physics, we are coming to a certain level of understanding about other aspects of our world and being. So as long as the teacher is truly qualified to teach creation theory, which is a great deal more that quoting the bible, torah, or quran. To those who thinks it should be taught as "mythology", I used to agree with you, but not anymore. Creation theory crosses many religious arenas, many of which are still popular and kicking (Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, Judisim, just to name a few). As long as a religion is actively and openly practiced by a designated people, it is a "religion." When that religion is no longer practiced, then it move into "mythology." Creation theory doesn't qualify.
Oh my this is long... forgive me but just one more thing to say. It is amazing to me that people on this board that can understand and accept the idea of Ka-Tet are so aligned against the melding of science and faith. Notice I said 'faith' not religion, they are separate entities.
Finally, let's end this with a quote from Carl Sagan's Contact(hope I get it about right, don't have the book here with me, so it's from memory): God, above all is a mathmatician.


I'm not sure what you mean by "creation theory". Please specify. Do you mean that a supreme being or designer exists? As far as I am aware the only creation"theory" thought in shcool is simply attacking evolution. That's about all that creationism amounts to. Ditto with "Intelligent Design" theory. There are Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists. The former challenges virtually all of science, but both types seem to beleive in spontaneous generation of large complex lifeforms via miracles. There is no scientific evidence at all for this ever happening--well, there are reports of "rains of frogs" what SK based his story "Rainy Seaon " upon, but I don't hear creationists menion that.

[Shasta]

Hi,

I believe it should be taught as part of Comparative Religion (as it is the UK),



I couldn't agree with John more. ABSOLUTELY! But teach it with everything else as well! Teach beliefs as beliefs and facts as facts. Kids learning about other people's beliefs can only lead to tolerance.

[Shasta]

I once had a Christian friend (deceased) who was one of the nicest guys I ever knew--much more so than many non-beleivers. But he held the opinion that women should not be allowed to teach sunday scool or hold postions of authority in the church. Since he beleived God wouldn't have anything in the Bible He didn't want there, this had to be true. He got this from writings of St. Paul in the Bible, who clearly beleived women were to be subservient to men. so how do we reconcile teaching like this with modern ethics?

According to the bible, homeosexuals should be stoned to death and women should be killed for going outside during their monthly friend. Awesome. :eek2:

And anyone that doesn't see the connections between Jesus and mythology should read the story of Prometheus.

[poisonbat]

The interesting thing about this thread is that I went through this some 20 years ago in high school. We were not even allowed to breath any form of creationalism. I was quite the scientist in high school, so for me to challenge the science teacher on evolutionism was a shocker. Our discussions took over the class for nearly a week. Conclusion - Evolution is still just a theory, it is a plausible explanation of the physical evidence we can find. Now, this theory keeps getting updated the more information is received, especially as we watch new universes being created (oops, but yeah they do use the term) deep in space. Problem, very few scientist have qualifications to teach Creation theory; and even fewer theologians are qualified. It is more than just religious belief, although that is what it begins with. As one person already noted, Einstien held a great interest in it, there's a reason for that. What is interesting is that the more science advances, the more Creation theory is being supported, not detracted. This doesn't detract from Evolution theory. The problem is that many of those arguing seem to think they are exclusive, when they are not. One theory actually supports the other if you look at the big picture. Just as we have come to a certain level of full understanding about such things as quantum physics, we are coming to a certain level of understanding about other aspects of our world and being. So as long as the teacher is truly qualified to teach creation theory, which is a great deal more that quoting the bible, torah, or quran. To those who thinks it should be taught as "mythology", I used to agree with you, but not anymore. Creation theory crosses many religious arenas, many of which are still popular and kicking (Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, Judisim, just to name a few). As long as a religion is actively and openly practiced by a designated people, it is a "religion." When that religion is no longer practiced, then it move into "mythology." Creation theory doesn't qualify.
Oh my this is long... forgive me but just one more thing to say. It is amazing to me that people on this board that can understand and accept the idea of Ka-Tet are so aligned against the melding of science and faith. Notice I said 'faith' not religion, they are separate entities.
Finally, let's end this with a quote from Carl Sagan's Contact(hope I get it about right, don't have the book here with me, so it's from memory): God, above all is a mathmatician.

This is a perfect example of why it should NOT be taught in school. I have my faith, I have my ideas, I have my beliefs. I do believe that humans have evolved over the years, that is apparent in today's sociaty. But faith should be a personal choice. So many believe different things and there are no "professionals" who can teach FAITH. :bat:

[JohnDalglish]

According to the bible, homosexuals should be stoned

Hi,

Most of my gay friends usually are, Shasta LOL.

Straight ones too, I hasten to add, politically correctly.

Long days and pleasant nights

[Shasta]

Hi,

Most of my gay friends usually are, Shasta LOL.

Straight ones too, I hasten to add, politically correctly.

Long days and pleasant nights

That, dear John, was awesome.

[Autumnlyn]

Why not teach creationism along side evolution? What a great discussion starter. Some of my favorite and most fondly remembered teachers are the ones that posed "The Great Questions" and opened a forum of ideas for us to explore and find our own answers.

I think children should be exposed to any and all questions of the universe. Broaden your mind is my thought. While I am not Christian, I still have discussions about religion with my children. I ask their opinions as they as mine.

[marew1]

Hi,

I believe it should be taught as part of Comparative Religion (as it is the UK), but it scares me that it appears to be taught with the same emphasis as Biology in some places.

Long days and pleasant nights
I agree that creationism be taught as a Comparative Religion. Science teaches the Big Bang Theory. People should also be taught how else the world was created in comparison.

[Anni M]

I'd like my kid to learn something about all beliefs...then he has the fodder to make up his own mind about what he wants for his spirit down the road...

[killyerdarlings]

I'm all for the exploration and discussion of Creationism in a Philosophy Class, and we used the Bible in high school as a Historical Reference Text because realistically you can't adequately discuss a lot of history--or even Literature--without discussing the religions of the times. However Creationism is not science and has no place in a science classroom. I don't think it's harmful for kids to discuss their belief systems in the appropriate setting, but biology or any of the physical science classes would be completely inappropriate, for the topics in those classes are subjected to rigorous testing and examination. What, someone's got an Angel's feather for Biology class? Fine. Otherwise, keep them separate.

[ginapenn]

Mmm, no. Creationism is a biblical belief and belongs in church. Individuals have a right to teach their children as they see fit and not everyone believes in God or a God or any God. If creationism were to be taught in schools then churches should have to pay taxes and allow scientists to teach evolution in church.

Just my two cents.

[psj77]

Here's a quote from the movie Dogma...


RUFUS

(Jesus) still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the **** that gets
carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of
all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always,
built a belief structure on it.

BETHANY

Having beliefs isn't good?

RUFUS

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a
belief is trickier.

[Q'smum]

I'm not sure what you mean by "creation theory". Please specify. Do you mean that a supreme being or designer exists? As far as I am aware the only creation"theory" thought in shcool is simply attacking evolution. That's about all that creationism amounts to. Ditto with "Intelligent Design" theory. There are Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists. The former challenges virtually all of science, but both types seem to beleive in spontaneous generation of large complex lifeforms via miracles. There is no scientific evidence at all for this ever happening--well, there are reports of "rains of frogs" what SK based his story "Rainy Seaon " upon, but I don't hear creationists menion that.

I have been offline for a while, so forgive my not-so-prompt response. True creation theory begins with a being or entity starting the creation ball. What most creationists then do is go to the bible, quran, torah and fix in their mind that this was all "spontaneous". True creationists theory is based on sequencial events, and the understanding that the term "day" is not our 24 hour day (since the earth and sun didn't exist, then they could not be the pivot of time); rather if you research ancient languages, you will find the terms commonly translated into latin and greek etc. as "day" refers to different time periods, some meaning a generation, others and age (such as the stone age), others denote time on a millenial level or greater. And just to get into some of the basics, look at the order of flora and fauna, in the bible and torah for example, and you will notice it is the exact same order as evolution theory.. sea, land, air, etc. I promised myself I would keep it down,:oo: but as short as I can do it, that is what I mean.

[ram623]

We are sitting on a ball of dirt and water floating around in the middle of nowhere. I personally don't think we are really qualified to lecture anyone about anything. I used to tell people that I was a Buddhist. I had read once that in order to become a Buddhist all you had to do was say out loud, "I am a Buddhist." There is a religion for almost everything that you can imagine and a handful and one in particular against almost everything you can imagine.
The question is really beyond comprehension. "The chicken or the egg?" "Who made God?" I've been reading a book by Bill Bryson called "A Short History of Nearly Everything." I recommend it to everyone who has ever contemplated the Cosmos. As pertains to this conversation is Part V, "Life Itself."
At the start of this section is a quote by Freeman Dyson which says, "The more I examine the universe and the study of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
The last two chapters in this section are "Darwin's Singular Notion" and "The Stuff of Life." Anyone who has a chance should check it out. As for me, I personally think we know less than _ _ _ _ about anything. The Buddhist simplified; Do right, be good and be good to others. Everything else is purely academic and mostly bull _ _ _ _!

RAM

[demorgan]

If everything is bllshit like ram said. then we wouldnt have nice laptops and cellphones and lcd tv to watch our blu rays on. Not everything is bullshit.

[aliphil]

we get this taught to us in school. but i dont think this should be cos religion is suppost to be taught in the church where it belongs.

this school where my kids go has just had a bad report from the goverment and that they are not teaching things like reading righting and maths enough and we xelled in the religious edducation. what to me and every1 in my village is rong. what happened to the day where you were taught the 3 r's in school?

[motocop]

I just saw a poll that said 13% of Americans think creationism and evolution should both be taught in schools. How would that work? Which teacher are you supposed to believe? Or what if it was the same teacher? Talk about messing with the kids minds.

[Moderator]

If they were going to do that, personally I'd prefer that it be presented as possible theories of how the universe came about and the teacher should then let the students make up their own minds based on their and their families' beliefs. But I also don't believe that they're mutually exclusive, so why not add the third possible theory in there as well, i.e. that there is a spiritual and scientific/evolutionary explanation for how life on this planet came to be.

[hossenpepper]

This is an old thread, but hey I will weigh in.

Creationism, regradless of which version, is a theological subject.

Think about this: If God (or whatever moniker you choose) created all that is, there was a SCIENTIFIC process based in waht we know as reality that had to be followed for thinsg to happen.

Theology debates how and if this was done a by a creative force. Science debates the processes involvedm regardles of their source.

Science seeks truth and fact, not philosophical resolution. Mixing the two is falalcious at best.

I will also direct you to one of my favorite groups of people that solicit any school board that approves or is going to approve a Creationism theory curriculum with their version of Creationism. The good old Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://www.venganza.org/

Pastafarianism is their religion. Feel the touch of his noodly appendage.

[hossenpepper]

If they were going to do that, personally I'd prefer that it be presented as possible theories of how the universe came about and the teacher should then let the students make up their own minds based on their and their families' beliefs. But I also don't believe that they're mutually exclusive, so why not add the third possible theory in there as well, i.e. that there is a spiritual and scientific/evolutionary explanation for how life on this planet came to be.

Because MM, science is the study of process, creationism is theological and theolgy is the study of philosophical theories. Creationism simply cannot pass muster when the scientific method of research and hypotheses is applied. If that cannot be applied to a subject, it cannot be measured scientifically. Evolution/big bang/ etc, is the study of scientific processes that are measurable. Faith is not measurable and faith is required to accept Creationism.

[Moderator]

I think that still goes with what I meant--they are theories and could be taught as such. Even scientific facts are disputable either because the science at the time was faulty or we make advances that give us new information to change what we previously believed. I don't think the creationism would need to be religiously denominational--it could be put forth in a way such as "this is what some people believe but others believe it is a purely scientific process of evolution."

[JohnDalglish]

Hi,

But everybody knows that it's turtles all the way down! LOL

Seriously, I don't know how anyone managed to get the theory of Creationism from the Sumerian creation myth that forms the basis of the first chapter of Genesis.

At no point are Adam and Eve described as the first people, in fact, Eve is Adam's second wife after Lilith.

Lilith

And Cain was sent East of Eden to dwell with the people in the Land of Nod. Who were they exactly?

A most confustimicated thing, Creationism IMO.

Long days and pleasant nights

Pee Ess - And the Garden of Eden was in modern day Iraq, at the Shatt-al-arab and the confluence of the deltas of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, at least that's one of the things Thor Heyerdahl proved to my satisfaction in the Tigris Expedition, that and the fact that a Sumerian boat c3000 BCE COULD have crossed the Atlantic and may explain ythe striking similarity betweem pre-Columbian pyramids and Sumerian ziggurats, but I digresss again, sorry.

Thor Heyerdahl

[hossenpepper]

Sorry, forgot to add: I think theology should be an optional class in school and Creationist theories belong there.

Besides are we really acting like kids haven't heard all this religious stuff by the time they get to school? In this country? HA!!!

This perceived need by some to include this in science class is another example of inflexible thinking. If it isn't mentioning your faith based "facts" in the lecture, well it must be saying they aren't true, right? Umm, no.

I hate to keep playing this card, but folks, I will put my experience in both volume and variety with Christians against anyone here. Oklahoma is the most religious place in the US I think. They hammer religion into you there. My 9th grade Biology teacher actually said before starting the Evolution lecture "Well we will talk about this, but I think it's a bunch of hooey. God created everything and what else is there ya need to know?" :eek2: ME=ASTOUNDED

What does it say about our society when religion is accepted as truth with very little proof, save some writings and tales told for many centuries before Christ's purported birth, yet scientific facts and processes are seen as suspect? I think this is a better question than the one of this topic, but this topic is a reflection of that larger discussion.

[GLewman]

Was it bad that after being taught about why flowers and trees blossomed in the spring, my second grade teacher, read stories from "Bedtime Bible Stories" before quiet time? Seems that anything that happened before human history is all theory and I always appreciated knowing about as many theories as possible. Whether or not I buy into those theories is another matter :)

[hossenpepper]

I think that still goes with what I meant--they are theories and could be taught as such. Even scientific facts are disputable either because the science at the time was faulty or we make advances that give us new information to change what we previously believed. I don't think the creationism would need to be religiously denominational--it could be put forth in a way such as "this is what some people believe but others believe it is a purely scientific process of evolution."

Sure, but that one sentence is all that should find its way into a science class. "Some believe this, some believe that. But that is a subject for theology, we are going to focus on the scientific processes involved, regardless of source."
Again if the scientific method cannot be applied, it simply isn't science. It's philosophy then.

I will admit I am very protective of this being a scientist at my core. Yes, I write, play music, and other art forms, but I am a pure scientist in many ways (much to the chagrin of my wife at times) and am well steeped in it. Creationism offers no scientific theory, hypotheses or factual proof beyond ancient writings, tales and theological theory.

But don't make the mistake most religious persons do. NONE of that means there isn't a God or their religion is false. It just simply doesn't belong under the "science" moniker.

[Connie Reader]

Hi,

I believe it should be taught as part of Comparative Religion (as it is the UK), but it scares me that it appears to be taught with the same emphasis as Biology in some places.

Long days and pleasant nights

That says it perfectly. It really frightens me how brainwashed some folks are when it comes to this topic. To completely discount actual science and replace it with false science is scary. Th argument I hear often is "I don't believe that we came from monkeys" or " I don't believe we crawled out of the ocean". Well, it happened. Not as they imagine it did, but those people can't imagine billions of years and how changes happen slowly over long periods of time.

The fossils of whales like the Basilosaurus found in the Egyptian desert Wadi Hitan (thousands of millennia ago it was an ocean) had fully formed hind legs, proving that some animals evolved from land mammals to water mammals. This discovery is one of the most compelling cases of Darwinian evolution.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a form of evolution as well, and that only took, what, 100 years give or take?

To say that the world is only a few thousand years old is to ignore what the earth tells us about itself when we look at the evidence all around us.

[JohnDalglish]

Was it bad that after being taught about why flowers and trees blossomed in the spring, my second grade teacher, read stories from "Bedtime Bible Stories" before quiet time?

Hi,

Yes, IMO.

It's just wrong to ever confuse science and religion, as the founding fathers of the USA were very convinced to keep seperate.

Long days and pleasant nights

Pee Ess - But saying 'For Darwin's sake' somehow doesn't cut it, does it?

[AnniesGrrl]

While I was working on my Biology degree, I took a class in Mammology. This was taught by the same professor who teaches a course in evolution (which, at the time, was not required of Biology majors! -but I think that has changed). So one day, I'm sitting in the hall, frantically going over my Mammology notes for a make-up exam, when a classmate comes along and asks what I'm doing. I tell her, at which point she says "I didn't take that class because I don't believe in that stuff." Me: "Don't believe in what??? Mammals???":eek2: :oo:

Nah, she told me - she was talkin 'bout that thar nasty Evilution stuff - on which we spent a grand total of maybe one lecture on in that particular class. And this was a science major!

To add to that, we have a professor of Biology who teaches, among other things, cell biology. He believes the world is 10,000 years old, and won't address evolution in class at all. He was also unable to explain hydrogen bonding (which is covered in the first lecture of Gen Chem, and is not difficult at all), and told us repeatedly that DNA and RNA are "special proteins" even though the whole point of Watson & Crick's work was that they are not proteins at all - they are nucleic acids. I finally got through to him that he should not call them proteins of any kind by explaining to him that, well, this is covered on the GRE and maybe the MCAT, and if you said they were proteins you'd miss the question. But he still insists that he is right; he claims they are proteins because the contain nitrogen. I asked him once if he'd call air a protein because it has a lot of nitrogen in it, and he said "you could look at it that way." :eyebrow: Scary monsters...

The anti-evolution stance is prevalent at our university. Many students cannot deal with it at all. One of my professors had practically an entire class get up and walk out as soon as he brought it up - I think this was in an Anthropology class. My husband also teaches Cultural Anthropology. and he tells students the first day that they are going to have to deal with evolution, and if they can't, they have no business taking Anthropology classes.

Now, I'm not one to step on other people's sacred cows, but I do not think that Creationism has any place in science classes. Nor do I think it should be taught at all in public schools, unless it is in the context of mythology. I mean, if you are going to cover one Creation myth, I think you should try to cover them all. I do not think that the Navajo Creation story (for example) is any more or less plausible than the Christian story. And I also think it is more fun, a better story.

As to evolution being a theory, yes, that is true, but there is a ton of evidence to back it . Creationism, in the context of science, is not a theory at all - it is an hypothesis at best. There is simply no evidence to back it, and in the case of Young-Earth Creationism, there are mountains of evidence against it. If someone wants to believe in it, I don't have any problem with that - but please don't bring it into schools masquerading as science.

[GLewman]

I don't recall ever being confused. Seeing the teacher tilt and rotate a globe made perfect sense. And the story of David and Goliath made sense because I had seen a much smaller kid send a bigger kid, to the nurse with a fat lip, on the playground. I had a roommate who was going for a masters in physics and chemistry. The subject of Darwin came up and he scoffed at the idea of evolution. He was absolutely convinced we were planted here by aliens..hahaha...Of course his dad was known to watch "chemtrails" for hours and believed the world was controlled by the Illuminati. Like I said, more theories is a good thing, but whether or not I buy them is another :biggrin2:

[Connie Reader]

Have any of you watch the documentary "Jesus Camp"? These weeks long revivals are set up to brainwash kids and teens into believing creationism is the absolute, unrefutable truth and everything else is nothing but trickery of the devil.
It's insanity!!! A step away from the kool aid imho.

[JohnDalglish]

I don't recall ever being confused.

Hi,

What? Never?

That's lucky.

Long days and pleasant nights

[hossenpepper]

Noone I can see, and certainly not I, is saying the thoeries should be repressed. They should be taught where appropriate. Theolgoical dogma is for theology class and scientific dogma is for science class is all I am saying. It should be made quite clear that a class regarding religious philosophy is just that and all religious beliefs should be included.

My statement regarding kids knowing these things is more than accurate as religious dogma is more ubiquitous than spiders and ants in our society. I knew all the main stories before I even started grade school and my parents didn't go to church nor make me go. I don't think it's possible to not have heard some sort of religious theory if yo ulive amongst humans. But I agree, accept or belief of such is a completely different thing.

I personally don't think any knowledge or theories should be supressed. But, don't teach me French and tell me it's cooking class because the French like to cook. That isn't confusing, it's brain washing propaganda to present something as absolute fact (when it isn't) and as something it isn't. (SEE: 1984)

[hossenpepper]

That says it perfectly. It really frightens me how brainwashed some folks are when it comes to this topic. To completely discount actual science and replace it with false science is scary. Th argument I hear often is "I don't believe that we came from monkeys" or " I don't believe we crawled out of the ocean". Well, it happened. Not as they imagine it did, but those people can't imagine billions of years and how changes happen slowly over long periods of time.

The fossils of whales like the Basilosaurus found in the Egyptian desert Wadi Hitan (thousands of millennia ago it was an ocean) had fully formed hind legs, proving that some animals evolved from land mammals to water mammals. This discovery is one of the most compelling cases of Darwinian evolution.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a form of evolution as well, and that only took, what, 100 years give or take?

To say that the world is only a few thousand years old is to ignore what the earth tells us about itself when we look at the evidence all around us.

Yes and then there is that pesky alpha and beta decay... DAMN PHYSICS AND IT'S RULES!! ARRRRGGGGHHH!!!!

[CorbinKale]

I think that still goes with what I meant--they are theories and could be taught as such. Even scientific facts are disputable either because the science at the time was faulty or we make advances that give us new information to change what we previously believed. I don't think the creationism would need to be religiously denominational--it could be put forth in a way such as "this is what some people believe but others believe it is a purely scientific process of evolution."

“Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.” --Heinlein

I agree with you. I don't see how science makes any sense without allowing for all possibilities. The alternative is to worship science as an exclusive religion.

[hossenpepper]

Was it bad that after being taught about why flowers and trees blossomed in the spring, my second grade teacher, read stories from "Bedtime Bible Stories" before quiet time? Seems that anything that happened before human history is all theory and I always appreciated knowing about as many theories as possible. Whether or not I buy into those theories is another matter :)

Then you are ignoring massive amounts of scientifically proven, vetted and reproven facts that all say evolution isn't a theory, but a fact. Yet due to the absence of a "missing link" the rest of the theory and processes we see in nature and have verified as true are to be called a "theory".

I am sure there are parts that aren't exactly correct, but the process of change that governs the universe, solar systems, geological processes and genetic changes is a matter of physics. Things have no choice but to change and transform. And all that we see around us has measurable properties of aging that can be verified and reproduced.

Read this article. The first paragraph talks about isolated ecosystems (sometimes called crucibles) and how evolutionary processes can be witnessed on a more rapid scale due to the finite environment. This is an article from the US Geological Survey (and I assure they are NOT a liberal thinktank :-P)

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1995/95_08_18.html

I did a paper on this subject in my advanced Zoology class. It's pretty fascinating stuff. At the time a scientist (can't remember his name, sorry) was close to determining a scale metric for evolution. Basically it would show that depending on the size of the finite system, the rate at which evolutionary changes occur.

I think there are two main problems people have with theories of both types. First, the scale on which these things exist and the time ranges are not conceivable to a being that sees 75-100 years as a lifetime and is so tiny in relation to the rock upon which we live. Second, people just have to "see it to believe it" and neither is easy to "show" someone without following a set of logical paths to understand the whole picture. I ran into this numerous times while teaching computer science classes. The speed at which they are able to process is too much for most to comprehend and the size of something like the internet is too much to visualize. The same basic understanding gap is at work with these theories.

[fushingfeef]

Any way to move this old thread to the "Hot Topics" section?:smile2:

I think public schools shouldn't espouse a particular religious belief but I have no problem with them talking about these things from a "religious studies" type of perspective. However, if this is science class, then no way do we bring up religious beliefs, no more than we talk about alchemy or "bodily humors" or other outmoded sciences.

My approach with my daughter's religious/philosophical questions is to give her several answers, then ask her which one she believes is most right, and then I tell her what I believe. We have a children's Bible and she loves when I read from it and it gives us lots of great conversations. (We also have a children's version of the Bhagavad Gita called "Our Most Dear Friend", just so she knows there are other texts that people consider to be sacred out there).

This morning she saw a crack in the clouds and rays of sunlight coming through it and she said "That's the way to heaven" and I (ever the athiest) said "How do you know what heaven looks like?" and she said "I just know." Cute.

[Moderator]

Any way to move this old thread to the "Hot Topics" section?:smile2:



I think I must have done that while you were typing your response as I'd already moved it here. :smile2: It's one that I missed when setting up the Hot Topics Forum.

[motocop]

Wheres the hot topic section?

[GLewman]

I'm with you Hoss...Evolution makes perfect sense and I'm 99% sure that is the way the world has ended up where we are now. I've found that some of the morality plays and insights into human nature, in the bible, make sense too. There is a place for both. I don't believe God talked out of a burning bush and I don't believe the Red Sea was parted to allow Moses to escape the Egyptians. But there is a value to the morals of those stories. But nothing can be proven, with an absolute certainty, because there wasn't a reality show following Moses around and science hasn't been able to prove where the spark of life came from. I do know for a certainty that if I step into the path of a speeding car, the laws of physics favor JD's wish for my vocal demise :)

[hossenpepper]

I don't see how science makes any sense without allowing for all possibilities. The alternative is to worship science as an exclusive religion.

Only if you don't understand science and the scientific method. Creationism does not offer any explantion for how things were created, just says they were, by God. OK, well we all know it was created by something as we are here talking about it. That doesn't make these conversations scientific. Creationism requires faith. Science requires proof and documentation, not belief.

The church has long known the dangers of people in the general populace studying science. This is why teh Vatican controlled wiring and scientific discovery for centuries. This is why people were locked up for saying the world is round and shunned for saying there tiny things alive that we couldn't see with our eyes. Saying we need to present a faith based theory as a scientific one is the exact same thing. It's no different than the church purporting to the populace that drilling a hole in your head would cure disease becasue it would let the evil spirits out..... at least it hasn't worked for me yet. :laugh:

Yet the fact that propaganda can be levied regarding religion or science is absolutely true. Scientists, however, don't accept things until they see the proof and the results can be repeated over and over.

Again, though, none of this has anything to do with the existence of a Creator or any religious dogma, nor does it negate it. One is just Theology and one is science.

[hossenpepper]

I'm with you Hoss...Evolution makes perfect sense and I'm 99% sure that is the way the world has ended up where we are now. I've found that some of the morality plays and insights into human nature, in the bible, make sense too. There is a place for both. I don't believe God talked out of a burning bush and I don't believe the Red Sea was parted to allow Moses to escape the Egyptians. But there is a value to the morals of those stories. But nothing can be proven, with an absolute certainty, because there wasn't a reality show following Moses around and science hasn't been able to prove where the spark of life came from. I do know for a certainty that if I step into the path of a speeding car, the laws of physics favor JD's wish for my vocal demise :)

I took a Theology class my freshman year in college and I was stunned to hear the many stories from around the world, documented on parchment, tablets and temple walls that depict the almost identical story of Jesus's birth, life and ministry. And it's not just a few or in one other religion, it is in MANY and there are many other saviors. The most startling comparisons are between Christianity and ancient Egyptian religion. The similarities are mind boggling. There is a movie out there that documents this in good condensed fashion called Zeitgeist. The first 30 minutes or so are about the origins of religion, the second part about 9/11 conspiracy and the last part about the federal reserve and the fact it's essentially a hidden tax on us and the reason why we always have to spend our way out of things. The last 2 parts are conspiracy theory stuff, so make your own judgements, but the religious section is all based on verifiable facts you can confirm yourself. It is quite interesting if it issomethng you haven't heard before.

It can be found here if you are interested:
http://www.zeitgeistthefilm.com/

The film maker also has a very interesting "part II" to this film called the addendum that presents some interesting theories on a resource based economy and goes into great detail about how the fractional reserve system works. It can be found here:
http://www.zeitgeistaddendum.com/

Anyway, they are worth a watch and consideration at least.

[hossenpepper]

This is why teh Vatican controlled wiring and scientific discovery for centuries.

LOL... I meant WRITING, though maybe they are in control of all wiring... hmmmmm...

[Moderator]

:biggrin2: I was wondering what I'd missed with the Vatican's connection to wiring. Writing makes a lot more sense. :smile2:

[hossenpepper]

:biggrin2: I was wondering what I'd missed with the Vatican's connection to wiring. Writing makes a lot more sense. :smile2:

Hey I type for crap.... Now are you going to tell us Steve's first drafts are sans typo? I am just saying if he can make mistakes, I can too... :-P

[Moderator]

Making mistakes....and learning from them....is a big part of the reason why we're here. Although I can't prove that scientifically. :tongue::smile2:

[fljoe0]

The schools should stick to known science and the church can teach creationism if they choose. What exactly is there to teach about creationism anyway? It is all kind of summed up in one sentence, "God created the heavens and the earth". How do you make a class around that?

[hossenpepper]

Making mistakes....and learning from them....is a big part of the reason why we're here. Although I can't prove that scientifically. :tongue::smile2:

Yeah I will just take it on faith. Let's teach it in science class now...:)

[GLewman]

I've had Zeitgeist recommended before, though I haven't seen it yet. I kind of look at conspiracy theories with a jaundiced eye because information flows way to freely now days to keep the big stuff under wraps. I do know that the middle east was avery small place in antiquity and everyone conquered and influenced everyone else. It is interesting that even isolated places like the Americas and Australia had a lot of similar myths and stories about creation that are found in Greek, Egyptian, and Christian writings. I have a feeling that those places were visited long before history tells us so...though I can't prove that scientifically either MS. Mod...:oo::biggrin2:

[rjt65]

Theology should be taught in our education ...simply put 90% people have no clue of the origins of religions and the reasons --real reasons certain holidays,stories, celebration days, were created, and the true similarities of religions.... all tracing back to gasp... Pagans!!!

As far s theory, Well there was a theory that doing something will take ya blind, ayuh,, and I am still sighted!!!:oo::laugh:

[hossenpepper]

I've had Zeitgeist recommended before, though I haven't seen it yet. I kind of look at conspiracy theories with a jaundiced eye because information flows way to freely now days to keep the big stuff under wraps. I do know that the middle east was avery small place in antiquity and everyone conquered and influenced everyone else. It is interesting that even isolated places like the Americas and Australia had a lot of similar myths and stories about creation that are found in Greek, Egyptian, and Christian writings. I have a feeling that those places were visited long before history tells us so...though I can't prove that scientifically either MS. Mod...:oo::biggrin2:

Well, as I pointed out, just watch the first part of it. I think the federal reserve stuff you are aware of already, via some other discussions we have had. Along those line I would also recommend Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism". And the Zeitgeist Addendum. My guess is you will probably disagree with some of the points he makes, but the concept is quite fascinating in its substance.

[hossenpepper]

[QUOTE=rjt65;427420]Theology should be taught in our education ...simply put 90% people have no clue of the origins of religions and the reasons --real reasons certain holidays,stories, celebration days, were created, and the true similarities of religions.... all tracing back to gasp... Pagans!!![QUOTE]

That is basically what the movie Zeitgeist opens with. The filmmaker presents it in a very logical, easy-to-understand, condensed format.

[JohnDalglish]

I kind of look at conspiracy theories with a jaundiced eye

Hi,

Kinda yellow, huh?

Wanna watch that liver, must be the Mad Dog 20/20.

Long days and pleasant nights

[GLewman]

Hi,

Kinda yellow, huh?

Wanna watch that liver, must be the Mad Dog 20/20.

Long days and pleasant nights

Among other things, I'm sure...:laugh:

[milkguy420]

we have it all wrong anyway. aliens created us.

[bobledrew]

A Canadian writer named Tom Harpur wrote a book in 2004 called "The Pagan Christ" (http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp). That book argued that the early church set a tradition of covering up the fact that the story of Jesus as depicted in the Bible (or, I should say, stories, as the various Gospels differ significantly in their treatment of his life and death) was a myth, based on Egyptian and other myths, and that Christianity as we see it today is dominated by, as he puts it, "conservative literalists" and is doomed without revolutionary change.

[Tery]

The use of the word "theory" in connection to evolution is often misinterpreted. Let's look at the etymology of the word:

1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see" (see warrant (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=warrant)). Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1610s. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.

That last is what we mean when we saw the Theory Of Evolution. What most people who do not understand this think of is a hypothesis. While a theory has been observed and reasoned, a hypothesis is simply a question or postulation. In this case the hypothesis of evolution would be do animals and plants adapt to their environment over time? So it is important to know the definition of the words one uses.

Good explanation here (http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html), too.

There is a book called Pagan Christs (http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christs-Studies-Comparative-Hierology/dp/1440099707/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296802425&sr=1-1)which looks at the Comparative Theology of the christos and soter mythologies.

I'm with Hoss on this 100%. School is for facts. Church is for Faith. Don't teach faith in the schools and we won't teach biology in the church. ;)

[king family fan]

No I believe it should be kept for the religious private schools.

[labyrinth001]

I think creationism can be discussed in schools. It doesn't mean you have to TEACH it as being real, but the whole point of schooling is so students can go out in the world, knowing the ideas that are out there, and be able to actively and knowledgeably discuss them. Whether or not they choose to BELIEVE in creationism is up to them, and also partially their family, as home life is a big aspect of what we know and believe. But schools can't simply ignore the idea of creationism as if it isn't there; it isn't fair to the kids. It's teaching them that they should ignore an idea because it's controversial rather than thinking about it and addressing it rationally.

[Sundrop]

I wouldn't mind it being taught as an alternate theory along with all the others that are currently being taught.
However, I don't believe that it's possible for anyone to teach about a theory to which they are strongly opposed,
or one that they strongly believe while keeping it in perspective as a theory.

[Ayla]

I have no drama's with it being taught in schools in a social sciences/human society way - as people have already mentioned, in western societies Christianity forms the basis for our morals/ethics laws etc. I do however have BIG problems with it being taught in a science class. Even in religious schools. You run the risk of your child being at a distinct disadvantage when they are older and are behind their peers at university if they attended a school that teaches creationism as scientific fact.

[randallFlaggfan1]

Not unless you're talking about a private religious school, where the parents are paying for, in part, religious instruction. To teach Creationism is to teach about God, and that is not something I, as a parent, would want a state-run school doing. Imparting a belief system is part of the parents' job.

For the record, I believe in God. I believe he created the world. But my answer to the question would be the same even if that were not the case.


If you believe that God created the world, why don't you want Creationism taught in school...?

I, for one, think it should be taught.

[omm poppa mow mow]

What was the question? Creationism taught in schools? God forbid, no, why should a subject be taught that a large proportion of instructors have an aversion for?

Kinda begs the question, doesn't it: Given our history, our time, who we are and where we came from, how was evolutionary theory taught. Someone will come in and argue semantics maybe. Have you considered the question before? I've wondered about the two issues.

Cause for me, I don't know if I could tell you much more than, okay, invertebrates, vertebrates, oh be a fine girl, kiss me (rocks, or plant/animals, one or the other). That's to say that given any subject, who is teaching it is as important, if not more important, that what is being taught. So why would a teacher opposed to all things religious be a suitable instructor for creationism? And vice versa, why do we believe we've been adequately instructed on the matter of evolution?

I mean aside from the teacher who was obviously on one side or the other of the equation.

I don't see now any threads devoted to questioning evolutionary theory. Why is that? Well, sure, there's a lot of other things to talk about and it's not like we're going to change what happened billions and billions (imagine again, Carl Sagan's voice here) years ago. I'd go on and on as the idea is interesting and maybe there are younger members on board more fluent on what is happening in our schools at present--this regarding evolution.

Questions not like should/should it not be taught. Questions like who is teaching it? Do they have a dog in that fight? I recall words like "assuming" this and "presuming" that. Was there, at some point in time, a sudden influx of life and if so, how'd that come about? Mutation? That takes billions and billions (Carl again) of years. Yet, presto! Life, multiple and varied. I understand mathematicians are an evolutionary scientist's worst nightmare. The numbers. Billions and billions. More so a matter of there not being enough time, for that ole, presto! All manner of life, rich and varied, in a certain epoch.

The thing that is troublesome is the tendency to try to set one against the other. How many years has it taken us, and have we, really, gotten over that? Faith and science are not the same thing, but really, how different is science if it can't stand to have it's theories (argue semantics if you wish) questioned?

[Tery]

Here it is in a nutshell:

1. Public schools are paid for by ALL of us, Christian and non-believer alike.
2. Creationsim is a religious "theory."
3. See First Amendment
4. Repeat #3 as needed.

There is no need to go into what a theory is or isn't. What's been proven or not. All of that is beside the point. Teach Creationism in your Church, where it belongs. Got it now?

[JellybeanJay]

When I was in high school Religion was offered as an optional course. I found it quite interesting because the focus was to teach us about the difference and similarities in all religions. IMO it should still be offered as an optional class for interested students.

I am not sure how the curriculum works now but I do think that if evolution is part of the subject matter then creation should be too.

[PatInTheHat]

Cause for me, I don't know if I could tell you much more than, okay, invertebrates, vertebrates, oh be a fine girl, kiss me (rocks, or plant/animals, one or the other). That's to say that given any subject, who is teaching it is as important, if not more important, that what is being taught. So why would a teacher opposed to all things religious be a suitable instructor for creationism? And vice versa, why do we believe we've been adequately instructed on the matter of evolution?



And vicey versy, then that begs another question.
Why in the world then, should a teacher that believes in anything at all religious , not be important, if not more important, then what is being taught...especially in any of the sciences?
I had a step daughter, that while in the sixth grade at a little rural public school, had a teacher that liked explain some of her versions of creationism mixed into her science curriculum (kinda like her own precursor to that mutt called Intelligent Design, and this was before sneaky stuff became all the rage), not to mention whip a little baby Jesus into any curriculum she could squeeze the poor little fella into.
To be fair, she also insisted we had still had bears wanderin' around in our little corner of Indiana..she was a wee bit out there:oops:.
I tried to have her fired, had to settle for a reprimand.



I'm solid agnostic (yep, I'm never happy with "answers" to hardly any big questions), which could explain why me baby girl wasn't enrolled in a private Bibley type school.
Hmm, just maybe that should be the new hotlick for teaching in public schools, if your gonna teach sciences, ya gotta be agnostic, I mean we're usually wonderin' about everything, and generally except nothing, at least not on face value or on a simple say so.
For me, if your going to teach any child of mine in my tax dollar paid for school, ooga boogas don't cut it, myths and legends neither (well, unless of course the course is myths & legends), and I don't care how comforting they make some folks feel.
They can go get comfy cozy in the comfort of their own homes, I'm all for it (couldn't be happier for 'em in fact, what ever blows their dress up), or shell out that extra tuition (plenty of takers that), is what I'm sayin'.
Best have something a little more concrete to go on to call it teaching, if not, it's just an opinion, and in at least my kiddos case, that was my job.
Evolution has some serious concrete in it's very foundation, it's more than just an opinion, creationism, not so much...well, that's just my opinion now ain't it?
You know what kind of teacher I most prefer, I prefer a teacher that causes a child to ask more questions, than one that pretends to have any real answers, in all things you can't see, touch, taste, smell, or feel.
(hey now, don't nobody try and trip me up with math stuff neither, I most certainly felt it, and I ain't lyin' when I say it made me feel reeeally sick and miserable:biggrin2:)

[omm poppa mow mow]

And vicey versy, then that begs another question.
Why in the world then, should a teacher that believes in anything at all religious , not be important, if not more important, then what is being taught...especially in any of the sciences?





Hmm, just maybe that should be the new hotlick for teaching in public schools, if your gonna teach sciences, ya gotta be agnostic, I mean we're usually wonderin' about everything, and generally except nothing, at least not on face value or on a simple say so.
For me, if your going to teach any child of mine in my tax dollar paid for school, ooga boogas don't cut it, myths and legends neither (well, unless of course the course is myths & legends), and I don't care how comforting they make some folks feel.


(hey now, don't nobody try and trip me up with math stuff neither, I most certainly felt it, and I ain't lyin' when I say it made me feel reeeally sick and miserable:biggrin2:)

Yeah, those trains leaving different stations, and you know the tracks don't run true. I can hear it now, Ms. Dempsey, are you now or have you ever been a member of the church? Congress is the setting, some wanker w/bushy eyebrows is questioning her, flashbulbs are illuminating the room, throwing shadows.

I dunno, Pat, the claim is that we're a religious nation, but I don't see it. I could go on and on, but the likelihood of teachers w/a religious persuasion having any heavy-duty influence seems remote. The pendulum's still in swing, as always, but if there is any religion being persuaded these days in school, it is the green variety. (Whew, what was that noise? Oh, okay, all those mental synapses, oh, and listen to that clatter!)

And so the other'n comes to power, they're all assembled, Ms. Dempsey, have you now or have you ever hugged a tree? I object to my colleague from Kentucky's question! It is sexist and the Sierra Club won't stand for it! (Their lobby is sitting w/the other'ns, against the wall.)

Maybe someone versed in math or science will show up shortly, set the record straight.

[PatInTheHat]

Yeah, those trains leaving different stations, and you know the tracks don't run true. I can hear it now, Ms. Dempsey, are you now or have you ever been a member of the church? Congress is the setting, some wanker w/bushy eyebrows is questioning her, flashbulbs are illuminating the room, throwing shadows.

I dunno, Pat, the claim is that we're a religious nation, but I don't see it. I could go on and on, but the likelihood of teachers w/a religious persuasion having any heavy-duty influence seems remote. The pendulum's still in swing, as always, but if there is any religion being persuaded these days in school, it is the green variety. (Whew, what was that noise? Oh, okay, all those mental synapses, oh, and listen to that clatter!)

And so the other'n comes to power, they're all assembled, Ms. Dempsey, have you now or have you ever hugged a tree? I object to my colleague from Kentucky's question! It is sexist and the Sierra Club won't stand for it! (Their lobby is sitting w/the other'ns, against the wall.)

Maybe someone versed in math or science will show up shortly, set the record straight.

:laugh:
Yyyep yep yep, that we're a religious nation is the claim all right, I often hear all about how it is anyway:wink2:.

But it does have an effect, it usurps a parents authority in things of a family's personal business, that are none of a public school teachers business, to go all willy nilly erp'n on about...did at my house, so I can only figure it to be a true.

[Connie Reader]

It should be taught with the same emphasis or catagorization as mythology.
The movie Jesus Camp scared the crap out of me on the subject of creationism and the folks that believe in it. The fact that so many people take that as truth is frightening.

[omm poppa mow mow]

It should be taught with the same emphasis or catagorization as mythology.
The movie Jesus Camp scared the crap out of me on the subject of creationism and the folks that believe in it. The fact that so many people take that as truth is frightening.

Why does it frighten you? Jesus Camp sounds like an interesting movie title, but having tried to read a book (I thought it was story; it is not.) called Deer Hunting With Jesus...I dunno, can I assume it is satire?

What I find ironic is that the subject is presented as an either/or proposition. You're either for us, or you're against us. Gee, does that make me unpatriotic if I fail to shout, shout, shout it on out! these are the things we care about! come on, now!

Earlier (and I dunno if we ought to start a new thread for this...or not. not.) I posed questions about the multitude of life that appeared in a certain time frame. An abundance of life, appeared. In the record, life, abundant and varied. Boom! Life appears at a certain time period in the earth's history, boom! There it is! Multiple forms of life, rich and varied, and abundance.

Given what we presume to know about the evolution of life, how did this miracle happen? If we are to credit life to mutation, beneficial mutation, chance mutation, that happens, not when we, a thing, a place, an idea, but by chance, mutation...there doesn't seem to be enough time for an abundance of life to BOOM! Here it is, here it is! Rich and varied, life, a myriad scheme of life. Here and now, not recently mutated, but here and now. In the record. How is that explained?

And what did the painter mean with all those characters running into the picture, their fingertips held to their temples, their eyes on one side of the face, like flounders....HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Pynchon wrote in one of his stories, Mason & Dixon: The general public has long been divided into two parts: those who think that science can do anything and those that are afraid it will.

You are afraid of folk that believe in creationism. Well, for some of them, perhaps you are safe to fear them. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows! What I fear is the people who believe science can and should do anything. In John Irving's first novel, Setting Free the Bears, he has this great line: Now science has seen to it that monstrous decisions don't need popular support. (This is a great story, by the way, three stories in one, like so many of King's stories.)

I find it ironic and very frightening that though God and religion is very much toppled in this country--oh, we may pay lip service to the idea that we are a religious people, but truthfully, we are anything but. Numbers. I'm talking numbers. We still have the salt of the earth among us, as too, we have the poor, they will always be among us. But Russia was a religious country prior to the revolution. There came a time when everything Russian was hated. They hated their culture. Their culture fell. Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy wrote about it, chronicled it. The story is there for the taking.

How was it possible, in Russia, for religion to be cast aside as it was? Am I wrong? I could be. I'm willing to admit that. This is my experience, from this I speak. Is my experience wrong? Enlighten me.

[blunthead]

I don't think anything nobody understands should be taught in school.

[randallFlaggfan1]

On a related note, every since they outlawed prayer in our schools in 1962 (I think,) our world has just continued to get increasingly worse. I'm not saying we hadn't experienced our fair share before that, but I'm a firm believer in the power of prayer.

[guido tkp]

so...first off, they did not ban prayer at school: they banned school led prayer; you can still pray as long as you do not interupt the real reason for being there - like learning real things.
every president ( (d) or (r) ) and every court has repeatedly ruled or officiated that you are indeed entitled to pray as you wish, just don't force it on anyone else.

and any a most basic,even minor use of common sense would tell any thoughtful, intelligent person that the world is, for the most part, not worse off now, then they were back in the good ole days when whites hung blacks from trees in america, whites shot blacks for sport in s. africa, communsim ruled half the world and protestants burned jews in ovens so they could steal thier land.

the only frightening thing about any of this is how abysmally stupid it is to assume god is not smart enough to have created every aspect of the big bang on down through evolution, just like darwin (and others have) assumed.

it all kinda actually makes god quite a bit more great, subtle...and , as monty python might've mused, all a bit more big than the tiny-minded, unrealistic creation theory ends up making him/she/it

[omm poppa mow mow]

"The general public has long been divided into two parts; those who think that science can do anything and those who are afraid it will."
--Thomas Pynchon (Mason & Dixon)

"Now science has seen to it that monstrous decisions don’t need popular support."
— John Irving Setting Free the Bears

"I never saw such a bunch of apple-eaters."
— J.D. Salinger nine stories "teddy"

"Nothing can stop a lie whose fashion has come..."
--Thomas Williams, The Hair of Harold Roux

The irony of it all is this: That to question Science and its makers, its creators, is to call down the the New Inquisition. We've heard time and again that man created the idea of god. Has he not, also, created the idea of Science?

[PatInTheHat]

"The general public has long been divided into two parts; those who think that science can do anything and those who are afraid it will."
--Thomas Pynchon (Mason & Dixon)

"Now science has seen to it that monstrous decisions don’t need popular support."
— John Irving Setting Free the Bears



The irony of it all is this: That to question Science and its makers, its creators, is to call down the the New Inquisition. We've heard time and again that man created the idea of god. Has he not, also, created the idea of Science?

I don't think I think so, I think we merely defined science, at least as much for the things we have, can, possibly will, or at the very least attempt to explain and understand, to any empirical degrees we're capable of understanding, at any particular moment in our upright walkin' history.
But then we continue the attempt to define a God, and that would be one thing that can't really be defined, and by it's very own definition no less:oo:...well somethin' like that, omnipotently, or possibly impotently, speaking of course:wink2:.

Ya know, while I think Pynchon might be onto a little something, his demographic should be expanded to at least include those that believe science will do for us what it can, and often whether it's a good idea or not.
It's just a path, it's not meant to be a destination.
And that Irving quote kinda makes me think he didn't get out all that much, I mean come on really, since when did monstrous decisions need anything close to popular support:eyebrow:?

[omm poppa mow mow]

Well Pat, for all of it, God Science Irving or Pynchon, a 3rd party is involved, to complete the triangle. Seems like what that 3rd leg is composed of is...well, the bottom line. Isosceles maybe? Or all 3 sides of the equation equal, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? And where does the Devil fit in, the Believer, and those suggest a second triangle, interlocking the first, perhaps?

But really, a 3rd party. None of it matters, seems like, w/o that third party on the line, listening in, being influenced one way or another. Take up you bed, come, follow me. Or whoever is leading the Big Parade. A hundred and one trombones, or Dalmatians?

So what's the story then, incomplete? Not finished? That 3rd leg?

On the third night of the journey, I was looking for a riverbed, there were plants and birds and rocks and things...

Misheard, no doubt. But control of the 3rd leg of the journey seems to be what it is all about. Where we are in relation to that journey...

Too, there's that great line in Mason & Dixon about the view. But w/all that paranoia, why trust Science?

[staropeace]

I believe in God but not really in Creationism. I believe science has some of the answers, but not all. Taking Biology made me even closer to God when I saw the timing, the interaction and the symbiotic beauty of our world. I think we should concentrate on the science and enjoy the different belief systems we have in the world. Religion doesn't have to be directed at one belief but should be encouraged as a celebration. In other words, if one is Jewish, enjoy their holidays...the converse can be true for Christianity and other beliefs. Do not shut out the spiritual aspect of our society.

[JohnDalglish]

On the third night of the journey, I was looking for a riverbed, there were plants and birds and rocks and things.

Hi,

'I've been through the desert on a horse with no name'

Long days and pleasant nights

[PatInTheHat]

Well Pat, for all of it, God Science Irving or Pynchon, a 3rd party is involved, to complete the triangle. Seems like what that 3rd leg is composed of is...well, the bottom line. Isosceles maybe? Or all 3 sides of the equation equal, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? And where does the Devil fit in, the Believer, and those suggest a second triangle, interlocking the first, perhaps?

But really, a 3rd party. None of it matters, seems like, w/o that third party on the line, listening in, being influenced one way or another. Take up you bed, come, follow me. Or whoever is leading the Big Parade. A hundred and one trombones, or Dalmatians?

So what's the story then, incomplete? Not finished? That 3rd leg?

On the third night of the journey, I was looking for a riverbed, there were plants and birds and rocks and things...

Misheard, no doubt. But control of the 3rd leg of the journey seems to be what it is all about. Where we are in relation to that journey...

Too, there's that great line in Mason & Dixon about the view. But w/all that paranoia, why trust Science?

Never said, or even meant to imply, that one should necessarily trust it, at least implicitly, more like use it, not to mention the process.
But it would sure be a shame to waste these calculatingly clever(ish) big brains and finely crafted tools in our toolbox of senses (that many say are God given), not to pay no mind to science.
Why yes, yes I am a huge fan of the various scientific arts, and yes I trust some more than others, but I also trust my own senses, experiences, and capacity for cognizant thinking, even more...okay, so maybe that's not what one shopping for the latest in lab coat fashion accessories might call real sciency (or maybe they would:eyebrow:), but it works for me:biggrin2:.



Three is a significant number with a lot o' mojo & meaning to our number obsessed species, why even comedy has a 'Rule of Three':cool2:.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_%28writing%29

:eek2:
Oh my word, as a former student of the instrument, I must state for the record...duuuude, that's like over a hundred trombones waayyy too many:laugh:!

[Tery]

Saw a great bumper sticker last week:

Evolution IS Intelligent Design

[randallFlaggfan1]

so...first off, they did not ban prayer at school: they banned school led prayer; you can still pray as long as you do not interupt the real reason for being there - like learning real things.
every president ( (d) or (r) ) and every court has repeatedly ruled or officiated that you are indeed entitled to pray as you wish, just don't force it on anyone else.

and any a most basic,even minor use of common sense would tell any thoughtful, intelligent person that the world is, for the most part, not worse off now, then they were back in the good ole days when whites hung blacks from trees in america, whites shot blacks for sport in s. africa, communsim ruled half the world and protestants burned jews in ovens so they could steal thier land.

the only frightening thing about any of this is how abysmally stupid it is to assume god is not smart enough to have created every aspect of the big bang on down through evolution, just like darwin (and others have) assumed.

it all kinda actually makes god quite a bit more great, subtle...and , as monty python might've mused, all a bit more big than the tiny-minded, unrealistic creation theory ends up making him/she/it


Well all right, I did not realize that our government had merely banned school led prayer. But, IMO, they may as well have, because I'm sure that a lot of students felt like an outsider if they still chose to pray at school. I know I would have, if I'd been overly religious during HS. Even now, if we dine out at a restaurant, I feel uncomfortable. It's like everyone's judging our faith.
And how can you say that the world isn't worse off? Sure, the examples mentioned in your post aren't really prevalent today, but look at the world we live in. We're in a bad spot, and it's only going to get worse and worse.

[sknut70]

And how can you say that the world isn't worse off?

the world is certainly not worse off because religion is not as prevalent as it had been in a bygone era. Someone mentioned earlier that in earlier times blacks were hung from trees because they tried to sit at the front of the bus, etc.. etc.. Its certainly true. there are more equal rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, (thank you hippies) and while its not perfect I would much rather live in a world where I as a female can go out and get any job i want and not be told that i cant apply unless my bra size is dcup.

In a bygone era, TV was more polite and wouldn’t dream of showing a couple having breakfast together if they weren’t married. did that mean that there was not as much premarital sex going on? no , they just didn’t talk about it. People like to say things are worse now because we hear a lot more about it. with all the different media outlets the world is smaller and news travels fast and they all want to be the channel/website/radio station that everyone is listening to so they report what people want to hear and people love it when you air your dirty laundry .

When i was in school we did the pledge of allegiance, we sang America the Beautiful, and we had a moment of silence . we were instructed that this moment of silence was for prayer, meditation, to clear our minds.. or anything you would like to think about to prepare for you day.

personally i enjoy living in a country with religious freedom. that's freedom to choose whatever religion i want or don’t want and not to feel that i will be judged based on it.

that's too bad you don't feel comfortable in a restaurant saying a prayer before dinner. a lot of women who wear burkas don't feel comfortable in public because they are given side looks. but it's a general statement of people being ignorant more than anything else. You could live in a country where if you did that you would be kicked out of the restaurant completely .

Once there was a time when Christianity ruled the world. and everyone needed to get on board with it. Unfortunately that time in history is not really a good example for today's Christians to use . The god fearing Christians killed anyone who didn't agree with them by burning them at the stake, they invaded other countries and if anyone decided to hold on to their own beliefs and gods then they were destroyed.

[randallFlaggfan1]

Hi, I appreciate your view and get where you're coming from.
I'm very grateful for all the freedom and rights we do have. I know that outside of the U.S., they aren't as well off at all.
But I was to refer to the general state of world. It's getting worse. In the future, I believe that most religions will be persecuted. There'll be but one religion. Until that day comes, we're all free to worship whichever god/deity we choose.

[JohnDalglish]

Hi, I appreciate your view and get where you're coming from.
I'm very grateful for all the freedom and rights we do have. I know that outside of the U.S., they aren't as well off at all.
But I was to refer to the general state of world. It's getting worse. In the future, I believe that most religions will be persecuted. There'll be but one religion. Until that day comes, we're all free to worship whichever god/deity we choose.

Hi,

Insh Allah.

Long days and pleasant nights

[sknut70]

If there is one religion i hope it doesn't come at the expense of everyone elses religion. as in the crusades, and most of the middle ages, I dont agree the world is worse off, i think you really need to look at the history books to see how much better off we are. I cant think of any decade or century I would rather live in. you say the general state of the world. what do you mean? the terrorism? or the political unrest? or the abortions? maybe the hurricanes and global climate crisis?

there are some countries outside the US that have their religion as the ruling ideal of the country and its not Christianity, but if Christianity ruled our country then I don't think it would amount to much difference. women and homosexuals would encounter inequality for starters. there are also many countries outside the us that enjoy religious freedom and don't harp on it the way we do

anyway I should say i do respect your faith and your beliefs, I just disagree with the statement that the world would be better off if Christianity was more prevalent. I know that was not your statement exactly but it was what I inferred.

[randallFlaggfan1]

you say the general state of the world. what do you mean? the terrorism? or the political unrest? or the abortions? maybe the hurricanes and global climate crisis?

Hi, SKnut-

The terrorism, political unrest, a bortions, and the global climate unrest are all valid examples of why I feel the way I do. But there's so much more depravity than we more-than-likely realize...

[guido tkp]

r.flagg...sorry, bud, but you cannot really be that dense or badly misled...we've always had all these problems, they have always been with us...
before you continue posting such nonsense you really need to take some serious study time on real world history, not the dreck you've somehow dredged up.
i spent most of my educational life in public schools, no kid was ever harrased by teachers or students if they prayed quietly to themselves...those that chose to be loud, obnoxious or demanding about it might 've been mocked by some, but the rest just ignored them like one would a pesky gnat.

sorry your religion allows you to be so judgemental...especially since you've come up with such a dystopian view of..well... everything : especially that which doesn't walk in lockstep with your view of how things should be !

gods real world is full of his diversity: something someone with your extremely closed, extremely uninformed mindset will never accept.

but, of course, i'm so very sorry, you must be right...after all, ever since we let blacks ride in the front of the bus, let gays hang out together...heck, maybe even get married (in some free states, that is) and let a girl decide for herslef if she should have to carry her fathers baby...the world has gone all to heck !

before all that, there was no terrorism, no rapes, no kidnappings, no one ever bombed anything no murders, everyone smiled alot and prayed out loud every momne thtey could...

before them pesky libertarians actaully tried to let the constitution mean what it said, we were all good little soldiers and never questioned anyhting or thought for ourselves...ah, the good old days

i think i need a haircut...wonder if i can get that for a nickel ?

probably not...probably it the unions fault....

[Tyrathect]

I know this thread has probably passed it's expiration date, but I feel strongly about this topic, and try to comment on it when I can.

I have a real problem with creationism, or ID, or any belief-based idea being taught alongside evidence-based theories in the science classroom.

Teaching children that the theory of evolution is merely one belief among many is not only teaching something that is obviously untrue, I would argue that it is ultimately damaging to our society.

Image a society in which beliefs and evidence are essentially equal in importance. You don't have to image very hard, these places still exist today. Now imagine that you stand accused of murdering someone through the use of witchcraft, or prayer.

In a society that values beliefs and evidence equally, you cannot refute the accusation. In that sort of society, no one is safe from prosecution of this type. In that sort of society, you'd better lock your doors because it's only a matter of time before the men with the machettes decide that you and your family need "correcting".

I'm sure you recognize from current African, and Middle Eastern news clippings that this is not simply speculation (anyone want to be an albino in Tanzania?). We in the developed world have grown beyond this sort of foolishness specifically because we have adopted scientific principles into our culture. Those who attempt to discredit the theory of evolution are effectively grabbing us all by the belt loops, and hauling us backward into the dark ages.

The most valuable course you could teach would be one comparing the history of science (and what we know because of it) to the history of religion (and what we know in spite of it). The former is a tale of a mostly cooperative, peaceful, world-wide quest for the ultimate truth, while the latter is a story about the vicious, violent, and ultimately futile attempt to block that quest.

[omm poppa mow mow]

Those who attempt to discredit the theory of evolution are effectively grabbing us all by the belt loops, and hauling us backward into the dark ages.

The most valuable course you could teach would be one comparing the history of science (and what we know because of it) to the history of religion (and what we know in spite of it). The former is a tale of a mostly cooperative, peaceful, world-wide quest for the ultimate truth, while the latter is a story about the vicious, violent, and ultimately futile attempt to block that quest.

But one problem, one question that has yet to be addressed in this thread is the explosion of life in the Cambrian period.
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/cambrian_period.html

Yet, the debate is over, it has been decided, and all heretics who question the new priest, Science, shall be burned at the stake, midnight at the oasis.
Consider an explosion of life...a hundred new phyla, thousands of species, almost overnight...in the big time-piece of things...how'd this happen? How does one reconcile this explosion of life with evolutionary theory? Ignore it? Slam anyone who questions evolutionary theory are disruptive heretics?

Ignore them altogether?

Gather in the dark and have a blanket party, after dark?

You do see the irony in all this, don't you? :)

[GLewman]

r.flagg...sorry, bud, but you cannot really be that dense or badly misled

Spoken like a true progressive, guido...Anyone that dosen't see the world or hold the same opinion as you are OBVIOUSLY dense, ignorant, or mis-lead...Some science makes sense to me and some doesn't...Some things I see and make me wonder if there isn't a bigger picture than test tubes and empirical data...Science is sooo politicized now days that it is hard to know what is true and what isn't...Kind of like the Church back in the good old flat earth days...If someone said the earth wasn't flat then they were a heretic and subject to torture or death...Today, if you say there is no measurable man made effect on the earths climate, then you are a denier with commercials and PSA's suggesting people should be put to death or "re-educated". The world is full of science and religion and I like to know as much about one as the other. But I get in trouble around here for asking too many questions...Like why does the "theory" of evolution hold more water than the "theory" of God? Neither can be proven with absolute certainty :dunno:

[PatInTheHat]

But one problem, one question that has yet to be addressed in this thread is the explosion of life in the Cambrian period.
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/cambrian_period.html

Yet, the debate is over, it has been decided, and all heretics who question the new priest, Science, shall be burned at the stake, midnight at the oasis.
Consider an explosion of life...a hundred new phyla, thousands of species, almost overnight...in the big time-piece of things...how'd this happen? How does one reconcile this explosion of life with evolutionary theory? Ignore it? Slam anyone who questions evolutionary theory are disruptive heretics?

Ignore them altogether?

Gather in the dark and have a blanket party, after dark?

You do see the irony in all this, don't you?

I'd give you the common petri dish, but instead how 'bout one really kewl one, us.
We're just a really big interesting one, though thankfully not so sanitized...holy smoke was there a lotta stuff goin' on, ain't be no time for constant washing & worryin':oops:.

Conditions got right, could be late one night, or maybe not, right?...but sometin' got tight, and all this took flight.
And as conditions became more whacky & contrapted, we got around to squeezin' up from leftover goos that adapted (yeah I know, way :cool2: for us huh?)...hmm, there's an arm of the GOP would prefer that be redacted:suspect:.
We know well how icky bugs & germs can get all exploded, prospectively speaking, the no life rule was popularly out voted.


I rather like the idea of being one big rockin' & rollin' biology experiment in the galactic laboratory of life, gives me all the more potential, no matter how seemingly small, of having a higher purpose, and hey possibly even a higher purpose porpoise (yeah, go 'head & try to say that ten times real fast I double dawg dare ya)...hope we keep gettin' that funding:biggrin2:.

[akjournalist]

Why would we not want our children to know any theory?

[tracyd]

Why is it that children think we evolved from mokeys then or that we were created from some big soup bowl? Is this not taught in school? Just asking.

[Tery]

Why would we not want our children to know any theory?

Because some theories are suited to Church. But the ones my tax dollars go to support must be rooted in fact, not superstition. Nobody is stopping you, or anyone else, from telling your kids about religious theories. But not in a public school.

[JohnDalglish]

But not in a public school.

Hi,

Unless it's clearly labelled 'Sumerian Creation Myth'.

Sumerian creation myth

Long days and pleasant nights

[omm poppa mow mow]

Heh! There was a time when a member posted something about his take on the stinkin-thinkin related to Christianity. His take. Though didn't go into it in depth, he did relate that his experience hath taught him such and such. Another member, perhaps in the same thread, or, as I recall, in another, posted in reply that, no, all you experience is for naught, is moot, as any stinkin-thinkin related to Christianity is....and here she, yes, she, laid out a whole host of reasons why the other's experience was moot, naught. So marginalized again. So accepting of diversity. Save for....yes, fill in the blank.

Well, how about this--this from college level courses where the professor might have mentioned the Genesis creation story, or the flood story, or any other number of stories from the Bible, and in the next sentence, clearly parodied the biblical version...so and so investigated, and discovered that the world began on October 4th, 4004 B.C.

Perhaps you've heard the "story"?

Well, take that to the next logical step and apply the same thinking about time to evolutionary theory. Mutation, right? Things happen because of mutation, but if time is taken into consideration....as it was so cleverly taken into consideration to belittle the creation story, more than once, in classes I took up space in....take time, and apply that to what Science has given us. There isn't enough TIME for things to have happened the way they want to say happened.

Okay, what happens next? Well, two or three, or one clever wit jumps on board and marginalizes this post, saying something about...gawd, do I need to describe it? It's like we are so often provided with two choices...do not eat from the tree, or eat from the tree, etc etc. Upright Bipolar Locomotion, stick figures, fingertips pressed to temples, both eyes on one side of the face, Picasso figurines, clamoring, munching munching, crowd noises....my neighbor, concerned about my liver. Picture a little old gray-haired lady, shaking her fist as she stands in the living room window.

[randallFlaggfan1]

Why is it that children think we evolved from mokeys then or that we were created from some big soup bowl? Is this not taught in school? Just asking.

Okay, now you've piqued my curiosity...DO most children believe that we're some evolution of monkeys? Is that what's currently being taught?

[sknut70]

when did you go to school Flagg? did you go to public school? were you not taught evolution? I am 40 and i was taught evolution. I also was required to read and watch teh movie Inherit the wind. I think that should be required in all schools

[PatInTheHat]

....so and so investigated, and discovered that the world began on October 4th, 4004 B.C.

Perhaps you've heard the "story"?


There isn't enough TIME for things to have happened the way they want to say happened.



Why again was there not enough time?
Unless your takin' about that whacky thing about the Earth being only around(ish) six millenia or so old..uhh, young (sorry Mother:down:), 'cause if that's the case, then anything ridiculous would have to become instantly believable, at least to me.
Hmm, on the other hand, speaking of unbelievable, a relatively unproven twenty to one long shot in a huge field, winds through the pack from the outside, turns it on, finds it's pace, kicks it up another notch, and wins the Derby by a parking lot:cool2:...but on the other other hand, that horse, of course, was in fact actually believable, and believing took no more faith than a two dollar ticket to win...oh, and maybe a good bookie:wink2:.

[omm poppa mow mow]

Why again was there not enough time?
Unless your takin' about that whacky thing about the Earth being only around(ish) six millenia or so old..uhh, young (sorry Mother:down:), 'cause if that's the case, then anything ridiculous would have to become instantly believable, at least to me.
Hmm, on the other hand, speaking of unbelievable, a relatively unproven twenty to one long shot in a huge field, winds through the pack from the outside, turns it on, finds it's pace, kicks it up another notch, and wins the Derby by a parking lot:cool2:...but on the other other hand, that horse, of course, was in fact actually believable, and believing took no more faith than a two dollar ticket to win...oh, and maybe a good bookie:wink2:.


Not enough time for evolution.

[omm poppa mow mow]

What I think is a hoot is the mighty morphin whale walkers. See, all these whales got tired of treading water for....)insert Carl Sagan's voice here: millions and millions of years(...so they morphed legs, so as to loco-motor on all the ribbons of a highways. Anyone read a "scientific" article that didn't have at least some variation of the word assume in it? And, as our much-loved John D has pointed out numerous times....ass-u-me...or something, I forget, exactly.

Where was I? Oh yeah...trying to post something that will be misconstrued anyway. Okay...time. If we're going to be assuming things happened anyway, why should we be concerned w/time? But if there is an "explosion of life" then how did it come about? Considering that we need all these "beneficial mutations" to make progress. PROGRESS? Oh, I see...yes, I see now. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Catch the drift yet? No? Then why bother?

[Tery]

Not enough time? Do you 1) understand how mutations and adaptations work? and 2) realize the age of the earth? Evolution happens in fits and starts; it's not linear or smooth. It does not occur in a set pattern. How old do you think the Earth is? How much time do you think an adaptation takes? Perhaps you should read something based in scientific FACT:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1997,%20Nature,%20Sniegowski%20et%20al.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html

Oh and, do you ever wonder why we need a different flu vaccine every year? Because the flu virus mutates. In less than a year. Not enough time? You are quite mistaken about that.

[omm poppa mow mow]

http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1219782432p2/1429989.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1429989.Richard_P_Feynman) "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.
"
— Richard P. Feynman (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1429989.Richard_P_Feynman)

[doowopgirl]

Yes, but as other people have said as comparative religion. Academically, not as the only truth. Just as I think religious education is not a bad thing depending on how it is presented. As a subject. For example, Judaism teaches this, Islam teaches this, different branches of Christianity teach this or that. Learning is good, and the more you know about something, the less scary it is.

[PatInTheHat]

Not enough time for evolution.


http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1219782432p2/1429989.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1429989.Richard_P_Feynman) "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.
"
— Richard P. Feynman (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1429989.Richard_P_Feynman)

Again, why wasn't there enough time?
I mean besides there's nothing to even compare our particular evolution too, so what do we really know about timelines of the evolution of a species of advanced thinking, problem solving, emotionally driven, highly adaptable super predators, that enjoys believin' in magic & so loves a good mystery?
I could make an uneducated & vastly unscientific argument, that we, the human critter, may even have an accelerated evolutionary process, possibly, or more likely, probably, due to our more advanced big ol' brains...throw a couple successfully time tested & species approved thumbs in the mix, and we got ourselves the start of one seriously industrious post- primordial party.
Just take a look at just our proven historic artifact human timeline record, seems to me we tend to evolve like fleas jump, whooosh...hmm, and come to think on it, we & the flea both enjoy a good circus...yeah I know, that's some seriously spooky schnizzle right there now idnit:oops:?
Or maybe it's due, at least in part (maybe) to that big population bottleneck thing.
I'm still trying to wrap my fat head around that one, that's some seriously random stuff, and the ultimate proof, at least to me, that it's all too often about location location location.
Gee whiz, and who knows what we, as an entire species, may have lost within our own species...hmm, and maybe we lost who the others that survived a massive die off, later then maybe they were described as many of our human histories mythical "Gods" :dunno:.
(because because becaaause, of all the wonderful things they does...okay, or maybe just because they were all that, way smooove, too groovy, hipper & more happenin', and all that cool Fonzy like stuff that might have made them a favorite of them prehistoric paparazzi bottom feeders...a precursor to the Carp perhaps:laugh:.)

Feynanm said that, and I truly respect Feynman and his monster big brain and contributions to the space program, but we are talking about a Quantum Physicist here, right?
Um, as far as I can figure, there ain't nothin' empirical to a quantum physicist, I mean just for fun they can prove an elephant could hang from the side of a cliff like Beetle Bailey's Sgt. Snorkel is so often want to do, but from a freshly sprouted daisy (well you know, if those Wallenda wannabee like pachyderms had the squeezy toes for it:biggrin2:).
There be plenty o' scientific certainties is what I'm sayin', at least in this dimension, plane, or whatever...first class or coach quantum leapin', or not.

[JohnDalglish]

http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1219782432p2/1429989.jpg (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1429989.Richard_P_Feynman) "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.
"
— Richard P. Feynman (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1429989.Richard_P_Feynman)

Hi,

My father used to say that being 'certain' about anything was being wrong at the top of your voice.

Long days and pleasant nights

[randallFlaggfan1]

when did you go to school Flagg? did you go to public school? were you not taught evolution? I am 40 and i was taught evolution. I also was required to read and watch teh movie Inherit the wind. I think that should be required in all schools

Hello, SKnut~

I graduated from a public high school, in 1997. I'm uncertain if I can give a satisfying answer, because I don't recall being taught evolution. Now, that doesn't mean they didn't teach me that particular subject, I just can't remember what was or was not taught..

[omm poppa mow mow]

No time...like the poem....not having world or time enough. I mean, seven days, come on. There's hardly enough time for all the mutations that had to happen for us to get to where we are today. I've heard it expressed that we'd need to have had a mutation every 6 seconds. Come on!

Come on, Raymond! :wow:

[Tery]

Well, there's your problem. Seven days. I have (at least) 2 problems with that. 1. The Bible is not a scientific textbook and 2. How do YOU know how long a "day" lasts for God? Maybe each day=10 million years. I mean, you seriously think God had a 24-hour clock on his bedside table? Why should the Creator be confined to a method of time measurement that was only recently (geologically speaking) put into place by mankind? You assume way too much. But literalism has that drawback.

The thing is, this isn't about who believes what. It is a question of teaching a religious theory AS FACT in a school setting with MY tax dollars. Sorry but you don't get to do that. You keep your creation myth at home, please. It has no place in a Public School. Period.

[Anni M]

Keep it out of schools, please. Isn't it taught at a church, as it was meant to be? Plus, I think it may be confusing for a lot of the kids, who are of an age when they begin to choose their personal journey. hmmm
BUT-if they teach creationism in school, I hope it is done with a non committal approach , any religion leanings omitted..gotta admit, the bible has some "Neat stuff in it", as Ritchie from It once said :)

If you can get past the Begots, that is...BORING!! :biggrin2:

[JohnDalglish]

..gotta admit, the bible has some "Neat stuff in it", as Ritchie from It once said :)

If you can get past the Begots, that is...BORING!! :biggrin2:

Hi,

Yes indeed, it's a great collection of short stories and as you would expect, some are good and some are bad, some are absolutely excrellent and some are pure crap (Begatting), but the prose of the translators of the King James Edition is superb IMO

King James Bible

Creationism is it, though?

Ah, that's a horse of another colour!

Long days and pleasant nights

[Anni M]

LMAO, JD...All that begetting. Beget this! Anyway, I was raised Anglican at Grandparents' wishes, but kind of strayed from the flock. It's my mum's fault, that heathen woman. She use to tell Johovah's Witnesses that she was Jesus Christ and answer the door in a towel and stuff...
really... :laugh:

Back on topic!

[omm poppa mow mow]

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
— Richard P. Feynman (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goodreads.com%2Fauthor%2 Fquotes%2F1429989.Richard_P_Feynman)

Does anyone look forward to the day when some wanker with one eyebrow asks someone in a U.S. Senate or U.S. House chamber:

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Church?"

:)

[Patricia A]

I wouldn't expect a Sunday school teacher to teach evolution, geology or archeology in church.

Separating church and state was one of the best ideas the US's founding fathers had so far as I'm concerned.
Keeping them apart is a pretty affective way to protect and preserve the integrity and functions of each institution.

[MelissaConstantReader]

I feel school is a place to learn fundamental education, therefore creationism lessons should be reserved for church or college courses. However, since evolution is yet to be proven, I don't believe it is a necessary course either.

[omm poppa mow mow]

Well, there's your problem. Seven days. I have (at least) 2 problems with that. 1. The Bible is not a scientific textbook and 2. How do YOU know how long a "day" lasts for God? Maybe each day=10 million years. I mean, you seriously think God had a 24-hour clock on his bedside table? Why should the Creator be confined to a method of time measurement that was only recently (geologically speaking) put into place by mankind? You assume way too much. But literalism has that drawback.

The thing is, this isn't about who believes what. It is a question of teaching a religious theory AS FACT in a school setting with MY tax dollars. Sorry but you don't get to do that. You keep your creation myth at home, please. It has no place in a Public School. Period.

I think you are responding to me. If not, ignore this. All of the scientific literature I've read on the matter has used some variation of the word "assume" to make the case for evolution. All of it.

I have also sat in class and have been subject to an antagonistic attitude from instructors who have gleefully pointed out some bishop's endeavor to age the earth--it was created on October 4th, 4004 B.C. etc etc. Said w/a grin.

This experience and others like it are what I meant--a year or so ago--when I said there is a hostility toward Christianity--my experience, but one that you negated and marginalized and minimized w/a post in another thread. You posted in that thread a list. I believe you numbered them, and said, no, there is no hostility toward Christianity/religion, and you listed the reasons someone might think so.

I hadn't listed any reasons when I posted about my experience. My experience is real, I was there.

The point about the time is that, given the how of evolution--various mutations and the like--I believe too much assumption has gone into the time factor. We've assumed so much maybe because it doesn't seem to be about science as much as it is about other things.

Infallible man has used religion to bad ends. Is there any reason to believe that by taking science we can attain utopia?

[Moderator]

Why not also consider that they don't have to be mutually exclusive?

[dsurrett]

I believe in the Biblical account of creation. I think the six days or creation were literal 24 hours days and God is big enough to create things with the appearance of age. If the six days were figurative and each of them lasted 10,000 years though, I'd be fine with that as well. Until a relatively short number of years ago, it was taught in schools, and evolution, big bang theory, etc, were scorned and laughed at. There are so many theories out there that Creationism, Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, can't be relegated to ancient religious myths if you're going to let any other theory be taught as fact. Biblical archaeology has been proven correct time and time again, even where little or no extra-biblical evidence had previously appeared. Not trying to be a smart aleck, and this is only my opinion, but it takes less faith to believe the Biblical account than to believe some of the stuff I've seen on the Discover Channel with their arguments for how the earth was formed.
So if I'm in the minority on this issue, that's fine, just allow me to have an opinion even if it's different than others.
Long days and pleasant nights.

[Moderator]

The argument could also be made that the Bible is a product of evolution as it incorporates many myths from other cultures, e.g. Sumerian, Mesopotamian, Greek, etc.

[sam peebles]

Well, a day is not some arbitrary measurement invented by man. That's like saying we made up the trees or the sky. No, we simply attached a name to them. A day is how long it takes Spaceship Earth to complete one rotation. It's been around for as long as the solar system has been in existence. A day on Venus or Jupiter is not the same length as here on earth. Ours just happens to be twenty four hours (didn't the recent earthquake in Japan actually shift the length of our day by a microsecond or something?).

That beings said, time is subjective to those experiencing it. Time flies when you're having fun and all that jazz...So, IF there is a God, and he is omnipotent, I'm sure he can make a day be whatever the hell he wants, and screw what physics and the universe demand.

To stay on topic with the thread, I have no problem with creationism being taught in school, but it should be an elective, certainly NOT a requirement. I'd rank it up there with a class I had in eighth grade, in which all we essentially did was play with legos and staple together the weekly newsletter.

Intelligent design always reminds me of a Gary Larson Farside cartoon, in which a lab coat-wearing scientist working out a long, complicated mathematical proof on the chalkboard, in the middle of which "and then a miracle occurs" is written, and his colleagues point to it and say: "I believe you've got a problem here, Smithers".

[dsurrett]

I think we'd have to 'agree to disagree agreeably' on that one. :grinning:

The argument could also be made that the Bible is a product of evolution as it incorporates many myths from other cultures, e.g. Sumerian, Mesopotamian, Greek, etc.

[Moderator]

The perfect way to disagree. :smile2:

[fljoe0]

I thought I'd bring this thread back so we could hear from the Miss America candidates on this subject


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_PlKdumDBs&feature=player_embedded

[fljoe0]

I loved the answer from one girl who said, "when it comes to little theories, you probably want to stay away from those."

[Damaris]

I think religious education is not a bad thing depending on how it is presented. As a subject. For example, Judaism teaches this, Islam teaches this, different branches of Christianity teach this or that. Learning is good, and the more you know about something, the less scary it is.

I'm not opposed to creationism being taught in school. That said, I don't think it should be required and I don't think the Christian version should be the only creation story discussed. And since (personal beliefs aside) evolution is still an important scientific theory, it should stay in the science classroom and continue being taught until a better version or more complete theory emerges. Knowledge is power, and understanding the foundations of science as we know it is just as important as understanding the principles of other religions. They both impact our world in huge ways. And teaching people about both - especially while they are young and their opinions are still forming - is much more likely to help foster tolerance and understanding. Think what could have been accomplished if all the time and energy wasted on science-vs.-religion arguments were put to good use.

Really, I don't have a problem with much of anything being taught in school ... as long as opposing ideas are always taught as well. One side of the story is never the whole story, and the more kids are exposed to the more opportunity they have to learn and decide things for themselves. That's what education is all about, giving people the tools they need to not just manage in the world around them but to progress. We do want the following generations to be better than us ... right?