Evolution vs Creation in public schools

[Creepy-bg]

For the Bible = God's Truth people the whole thing probably comes off very much as a state sponsored attack on the very core of their belief system. It's not just that the theory is out there, it's that it's a requirement that their children study and discuss it without being able to defend their own beliefs because religious arguments are pretty taboo in the system. Yes, one theory is good science and the other is not. But this isn't about science for the other side, it's about religion...

anyways... F all of you for not loling at my Roomba post. That was some funny shit

[Slacker]

i agree this seems like pretty good evidence for dbmmama as ESE. i'm having a hard time trying to remember why i thought she was EIE at one point.


partly because i don't really pay attention to her because she's virtually irrelevant to anything that goes on intellectually on this forum, this is moving slowly, but i still sort of am at a stage where i'm not sure i understand anything else.

Yeah I have to say this thread points toward ESFj>ESFp or anything else.

[Slacker]

If our school system brings in creationism a theory of equal validity to evolution, I will ask them to also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation theory.

Although I will be homeschooling at that point because if I want my daughter taught myths based on a "historical text" (LOL), I will send her to a Christian church.

[Bardia]

If our school system brings in creationism a theory of equal validity to evolution, I will ask them to also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation theory.

Although I will be homeschooling at that point because if I want my daughter taught myths based on a "historical text" (LOL), I will send her to a Christian church.

Not trying to be mean here but don't you think that is a bit much? I was forced to learn all about evolution in school and I have learned some independently. That doesn't mean I believe it to be true. Why not devote a little time in the class to show what other people might think.

[Logos]

Not trying to be mean here but don't you think that is a bit much? I was forced to learn all about evolution in school and I have learned some independently. That doesn't mean I believe it to be true. Why not devote a little time in the class to show what other people might think.

Because it's not valid science.

[Enters Laughing]

I didn't realise that there were cases of evolution being shoved down people's throats, but at least noone has been stoned to death or burnt.

[Slacker]

Not trying to be mean here but don't you think that is a bit much? I was forced to learn all about evolution in school and I have learned some independently. That doesn't mean I believe it to be true. Why not devote a little time in the class to show what other people might think.

I take my daughter to a Unitarian Universalist church to learn about various religions, including their stories and creation myths. I send her to school to learn about things based on science.

And to whoever said the Bible is a historical text - it would only be one if it were recorded when it actually happened. However, the Bible was handed down in the oral tradition for many generations before it was written down. I have no doubt some things in the Bible happened, and some of those things might even have happened as they were written, however it can't be considered an accurate representation of historical facts because of the many many years the stories were just oral stories. There is a great deal of value in the Bible, and my daughter learns about the Bible at our non-Christian church, in addition to writings and stories from other religions, because of their value as teaching tools. But the Bible is not a historical text.

[Bardia]

Because it's not valid science.

It's not really provable so I guess it isn't science but doesn't it make sense to present another point of view that people believe?

I didn't realise that there were cases of evolution being shoved down people's throats, but at least noone has been stoned to death or burnt.

The people who stone and burn others at the stake are obviously not following Christian principles. Same thing for the Crusades and other wars in the name of religion. They used religion as an excuse to attack people they already wanted to attack.

[Logos]

I take my daughter to a Unitarian Universalist church to learn about various religions, including their stories and creation myths. I send her to school to learn about things based on science.

And to whoever said the Bible is a historical text - it would only be one if it were recorded when it actually happened. However, the Bible was handed down in the oral tradition for many generations before it was written down. I have no doubt some things in the Bible happened, and some of those things might even have happened as they were written, however it can't be considered an accurate representation of historical facts because of the many many years the stories were just oral stories. There is a great deal of value in the Bible, and my daughter learns about the Bible at our non-Christian church, in addition to writings and stories from other religions, because of their value as teaching tools. But the Bible is not a historical text.

The Bible does not contain history as much as it is historiography. It's useful when analyzing history and how a community of people perceived their history, but it becomes far less useful when making historically accurate claims.

[Bardia]

I take my daughter to a Unitarian Universalist church to learn about various religions, including their stories and creation myths. I send her to school to learn about things based on science.

And to whoever said the Bible is a historical text - it would only be one if it were recorded when it actually happened. However, the Bible was handed down in the oral tradition for many generations before it was written down. I have no doubt some things in the Bible happened, and some of those things might even have happened as they were written, however it can't be considered an accurate representation of historical facts because of the many many years the stories were just oral stories. There is a great deal of value in the Bible, and my daughter learns about the Bible at our non-Christian church, in addition to writings and stories from other religions, because of their value as teaching tools. But the Bible is not a historical text.

It will save you a trip to the church then . On a serious note though I respect that but not everyone agrees that it is a myth.

How do you know it was passed down as oral tradition first?

[Logos]

It's not really provable so I guess it isn't science but doesn't it make sense to present another point of view that people believe?

If there is serious academic debate in the given field, then multiple views on the subject should be presented. While there are many debates on the fine point mechanics of evolution at a variety of levels, there is a negligible creationist views in the scientific community. Someone in the classroom may believe that humanity came from a space tyrant named Xenu who froze people on a space plane that crashed on the earth, but that does not make it a legitimate explanation worthy of merit in a science classroom.

The people who stone and burn others at the stake are obviously not following Christian principles. Same thing for the Crusades and other wars in the name of religion. They used religion as an excuse to attack people they already wanted to attack.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

How do you know it was passed down as oral tradition first?

Valid speculation based upon what we know of writing, religion, and culture of ancient Mesopotamia and the Near East. The dating of the writings would not make them any where near as old as you would probably like to hear. Similar patterns can be seen with what we know of the origin of the New Testament scriptures.

[Slacker]

It will save you a trip to the church then . On a serious note though I respect that but not everyone agrees that it is a myth.

How do you know it was passed down as oral tradition first?

Do you think someone was transcribing Adam and Eve's life as it was happening? And particularly the creation part, which is what this thread is about. Do you think someone was watching it happen and writing it down at that moment? They're stories people told.

[Enters Laughing]

The people who stone and burn others at the stake are obviously not following Christian principles. Same thing for the Crusades and other wars in the name of religion. They used religion as an excuse to attack people they already wanted to attack.

I wasn't attacking Christianity, by the way - it was you who made that inference.

Even if what you say is true, surely it would have been better for Christ to make his words clearly and less ambigious etc. or for him to have said nothing at all then to allow such actions. The historical text isn't of any value beside real hard evidence, like Jesus being recorded as saying "Oi, you! Stop that!"

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Creationists believe that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to deceive us into believing in evolution.

[dbmmama]

Not trying to be mean here but don't you think that is a bit much? I was forced to learn all about evolution in school and I have learned some independently. That doesn't mean I believe it to be true. Why not devote a little time in the class to show what other people might think.

that was all my point was. agree on everything you say here. i don't teach my children that myths are science. but i do encourage them to think for themselves. i highly value that as my own "wacky" views were not valued as a child.

[dbmmama]

I take my daughter to a Unitarian Universalist church to learn about various religions, including their stories and creation myths. I send her to school to learn about things based on science.

And to whoever said the Bible is a historical text - it would only be one if it were recorded when it actually happened. However, the Bible was handed down in the oral tradition for many generations before it was written down. I have no doubt some things in the Bible happened, and some of those things might even have happened as they were written, however it can't be considered an accurate representation of historical facts because of the many many years the stories were just oral stories. There is a great deal of value in the Bible, and my daughter learns about the Bible at our non-Christian church, in addition to writings and stories from other religions, because of their value as teaching tools. But the Bible is not a historical text.

agree. that is what i tell my children. i just do both of those things at home.

[dbmmama]

Creationists believe that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to deceive us into believing in evolution.

yes, my hubby has a friend who believes this. i abstain from those conversations, otherwise i've gotten into heated debates that get nowhere and irrevocably ruin our relationship.

[Bardia]

If there is serious academic debate in the given field, then multiple views on the subject should be presented. While there are many debates on the fine point mechanics of evolution at a variety of levels, there is a negligible creationist views in the scientific community. Someone in the classroom may believe that humanity came from a space tyrant named Xenu who froze people on a space plane that crashed on the earth, but that does not make it a legitimate explanation worthy of merit in a science classroom.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Valid speculation based upon what we know of writing, religion, and culture of ancient Mesopotamia and the Near East. The dating of the writings would not make them any where near as old as you would probably like to hear. Similar patterns can be seen with what we know of the origin of the New Testament scriptures.

See, I have read articles about various people trying to disprove all sorts of aspects of evolution, the big bang theory and what not, and then refutes to those. It just kind of goes back and forth and I don't know if the people doing those studies are considered reliable by everyone or anyone. This makes it difficult to find out the evidence.

What is this fallacy?

[Bardia]

Do you think someone was transcribing Adam and Eve's life as it was happening? And particularly the creation part, which is what this thread is about. Do you think someone was watching it happen and writing it down at that moment? They're stories people told.

I believe the Bible says that God basically told people what to write.

[dbmmama]

I believe the Bible says that God basically told people what to write.

ANYBODY can write something and say "God told me to." that's why it's up to each of us to decide what "fits" for us.

[aestrivex]

It's not really provable so I guess it isn't science but doesn't it make sense to present another point of view that people believe?

yes. in a religion class.

[Logos]

See, I have read articles about various people trying to disprove all sorts of aspects of evolution, the big bang theory and what not, and then refutes to those. It just kind of goes back and forth and I don't know if the people doing those studies are considered reliable by everyone or anyone. This makes it difficult to find out the evidence.

Magazine and newspaper articles do not form the arena of scientific debate, but rather, they are found in scientific journals.

What is this fallacy?

No True Scotsman. Christian principles are dependent on the context in which they exist. You can say that "no true Christian" would do what they did in the Crusades and in times of violence, but Christian history does not skip these incidents. It is a part of Christian history precisely because these people identified as Christian and form a part of the Christian legacy.

I believe the Bible says that God basically told people what to write.

God must be bi-polar.

[aestrivex]

anyone interested should read "the case against creationism" by philip kitcher.

[dbmmama]

yes. in a religion class.

i, personally, do not believe in compartmentalizing learning. but, if i HAD to pick where it belongs, yes, a religion class. with the students deciding for themselves their own "truth."

[Expat]

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is the absence, or the negation, of a scientific theory. It is a cop-out. To say "that exists because all-powerful entity created it" is a cop-out, exactly the same as a caveman saying that a lightning struck a tree because some spirit threw it. If you want to go for those kind of explanations, you may well apply it to everything. Why does the sun generate energy? Because it was created by God (or gods) and so it must function. And then we'll go back to the ages before any scientific knowledge. Also, as some have pointed out, if it is to be presented as a "theory", creationism should at least point out that life might have been created by any other god, not just the one described in the Hebrew Bible. If you don't want to do that, then call it religion, not a scientific theory.

[Hitta]

The theory of evolution is just as refutable as the theory of creationism. We as people judge things by our standards of what we think reality is, and in fact reality could be something entirely different than what we imagine. We use "scientific" concepts to critique things, but in the end they are no closer to the truth than anything else(as in provability). Nick makes the same argument every time someone makes an argument against him. He tells people that they are making a "pseudo-philosophical copout". Yet what he doesn't realize is that he is using his own subjective criteria to judge what is appropriate and what isn't. If you honestly think that evolutionism is more of a science than creationism, you just haven't thought about it in the right way. What makes something a science?

[aestrivex]

What makes something a science?

the scientific method ?

[Hitta]

the scientific method ?

So you don't think scientists are trying to prove the existence of god?

Besides, the scientific method applies to religion. It's just as biased as anything else.

[HollywoodWanderer]

I would largely disagree. From our own example here on Earth, there is indeed a tendency to assume a trend towards higher complexity. However, this is not necessarily a truth. Consider first the evolutionary stagnation (relatively speaking) of prokaryotes during the Archean, over 2.5 billion years ago. Then consider the numerous mass extinctions that have occured, essentially resetting the evolutionary clock. Depending on criteria, one could argue there have been several evolutionary ends within the history of the Earth. Even if you take the long view and assume that present-day human intelligence is an 'end', there is nothing to suggest evolution was destined to result in homo sapiens or that we are the culmination of evolution's path on Earth. Because indeed, it has not stopped.

I agree that we are not necessarily approaching greater complexity.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, or how you're using the term deterministic. I wouldn't have considered modern day physics deterministic, but perhaps I'm lacking some important info.

It can be considered deterministic in the sense that concepts such as free-will do not apply. Though particular outcomes are not determined the possibility range which can grow from a certain set of initial circumstances is.

One case of retrograde evolution could occur because the changes benefit the individuals, but we are tricked into deeming the change 'bad', especially ignoring a potential environmental change. Another case could be reliant on a resource suplus, for example. Do you have a specific one in mind?

I am aware that it can and does happen. I guess what I am speaking of is more of a special case application within mathematics. For example, if we see a sequence a e i many people would complete it with o u (y?). Other people might complete it with m q u y or k o s w. It seems very difficult to complete the sequence of gene sets that have existed on earth because there are so many gaps and a lot of cross-traffic. Also, if quantum mechanics is true then a lot of crazy stuff that we would not normally assume to have occurred may have which would further complicate things.

I don't think you're talking about physics, but if you are, why would a field of of cellular-level biology take special care to worry about subatomic-level physics? I don't see the connection. Moving a rock from Winnipeg to Kansas City doesn't affect plate tectonics and the shape of North America.

It does. It is just not significant to a human observer. At least not in the short run.

You're probably not a creationist, but inherent to the scientific method is this evolution of thinking, based on critical examination. This does not happen in any religion to which I've been exposed, and certainly doesn't occur in creationism.

I would tend to agree but, I think that scientists tend to (by and large) tend to only go after things that stimulate their neocortexes. I definitely think there is a right-brained bias in much of the scientific community that is trying to incorporate more aspects of the human experience but, in terms that are already familiar to them much like how catholics are more and more open to scientific explanations for many things that go on in the world. It seems to be too little to late so to speak (for both groups). It seems like the new flavor of the week is -not- to model how the world behaves/is but just to correlate data without drawing conclusions. In this respect, I feel no allegiance to the to the evolutionary model nor do I think its further propagation would be necessarily in the best interest of intellectual development (It should probably still be used as an early learning tool for students as long as the above is kept in mind).

[Expat]

If you honestly think that evolutionism is more of a science than creationism, you just haven't thought about it in the right way. What makes something a science?

God -- and to think that millions of scientists and engineers toast their brains every day to provide something like a civilized life, with the basics of water and electricity supply, to creatures like you. I wish we could pull the plug and let the likes of you sink to the dark ages where you belong.

[Logos]

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is the absence, or the negation, of a scientific theory. It is a cop-out. To say "that exists because all-powerful entity created it" is a cop-out, exactly the same as a caveman saying that a lightning struck a tree because some spirit threw it. If you want to go for those kind of explanations, you may well apply it to everything. Why does the sun generate energy? Because it was created by God (or gods) and so it must function. And then we'll go back to the ages before any scientific knowledge. Also, as some have pointed out, if it is to be presented as a "theory", creationism should at least point out that life might have been created by any other god, not just the one described in the Hebrew Bible. If you don't want to do that, then call it religion, not a scientific theory.

That's bullshit. Marduk's creation of the earth is the only valid theory. My holy texts clearly state that Marduk ripped Tiamat in half after killing her and used one half to create the land and the other half to create the firmament of the heavens.

The theory of evolution is just as refutable as the theory of creationism. We as people judge things by our standards of what we think reality is, and in fact reality could be something entirely different than what we imagine. We use "scientific" concepts to critique things, but in the end they are no closer to the truth than anything else(as in provability). Nick makes the same argument every time someone makes an argument against him. He tells people that they are making a "pseudo-philosophical copout". Yet what he doesn't realize is that he is using his own subjective criteria to judge what is appropriate and what isn't. If you honestly think that evolutionism is more of a science than creationism, you just haven't thought about it in the right way. What makes something a science?

Baloney.

[Lotus]

God -- and to think that millions of scientists and engineers toast their brains every day to provide something like a civilized life, with the basics of water and electricity supply, to creatures like you. I wish we could pull the plug and let the likes of you sink to the dark ages where you belong.

I actually agree.

[Expat]

I actually agree.

Just to clarify, my remark wasn't addressed at all those who advocate creationism, since they do it out of religious faith. One of my dearest friends is an EII who is a creationist. He is also a very competent engineer. But he understands very well what is science and what is not. He just thinks that, in matters involving his religious faith, it "overrules" science. That is a sincere stance I respect, unlike saying that there is nothing to science generally.

[Lotus]

Just to clarify, my remark wasn't addressed at all those who advocate creationism, since they do it out of religious faith. One of my dearest friends is an EII who is a creationist. He is also a very competent engineer. But he understands very well what is science and what is not. He just thinks that, in matters involving his religious faith, it "overrules" science. That is a sincere stance I respect, unlike saying that there is nothing to science generally.

I agreed in regards to Hitta. I'm tired of hearing him argue this sort of bullshit.

[dbmmama]

I agreed in regards to Hitta. I'm tired of hearing him argue this sort of bullshit.

i agreed with hitta at first, but he is going a bit too far with it for me.

i believe each person has the "right" to believe what they want to believe, whether it is scientifically based, religiously based or outerspaced based... i'm not arguing the validity of creationism as scientifically based. it is not.

i do agree with him in that "in the end" any one of those "based" might turn out to be Truth, and so, to keep minds open and to play with each and every possibility.

[Slacker]

i agreed with hitta at first, but he is going a bit too far with it for me.

i believe each person has the "right" to believe what they want to believe, whether it is scientifically based, religiously based or outerspaced based... i'm not arguing the validity of creationism as scientifically based. it is not.

i do agree with him in that "in the end" any one of those "based" might turn out to be Truth, and so, to keep minds open and to play with each and every possibility.

I agree that each person has a right to believe what he/she believes, but creationism relies on faith, which is really what religion is about anyway. It is faith, not science.

[Blaze]

For the Bible = God's Truth people the whole thing probably comes off very much as a state sponsored attack on the very core of their belief system. It's not just that the theory is out there, it's that it's a requirement that their children study and discuss it without being able to defend their own beliefs because religious arguments are pretty taboo in the system. Yes, one theory is good science and the other is not. But this isn't about science for the other side, it's about religion...

anyways... F all of you for not loling at my Roomba post. That was some funny shit

i thought it was hilarious...hahahaha

i don't think creationism and evolution are necessarily opposed. evolution is more like the nuts and bolts and technical side, whereas creationism is more like the broad brushstroke, written by Moses in the best way he could explain 5,000 years ago.

i've been taught that science and religion answer different questions. that science answers the questions of what and how....religion answers the questions of who and why.

anyway. that's how i make sense of the debate. whether creationism should be taught in schools i think it can be if it is taught as philosophy rather then science.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[dbmmama]

I agree that each person has a right to believe what he/she believes, but creationism relies on faith, which is really what religion is about anyway. It is faith, not science.

yeah, that's what i said. i just go one step further and believe that even science has it's own faith in it. for those that believe in logic, that's what they have faith in. lol i believe/have faith in both at the same time.

[Logos]

i don't think creationism and evolution are necessarily opposed. evolution is more like the nuts and bolts and technical side, whereas creationism is more like the broad brushstroke, written by Moses in the best way he could explain 5,000 years ago.

Moses did not write it.