|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...volution_debateQuote:
Wisconsin City Allows Teaching Creationism
GRANTSBURG, Wis. - The city's school board has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.
School board members believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.
Last month, when the board examined its science curriculum, language was added calling for "various models/theories" of origin to be incorporated.
The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.
"Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," said Don Waller, a botanist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught, but school districts are free to create their own curricular standards, said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction.
There have been scattered efforts around the nation for other school boards to adopt similar measures. Last month the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to require the teaching of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent design" — the idea that life is too complex to have developed without a creator.
The state education board in Kansas was heavily criticized in 1999 when it deleted most references to evolution. The decision was reversed in 2001.
In March, the Ohio Board of Education narrowly approved a lesson plan that some critics contended opens the door to teaching creationism.
Thoughts?
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I honestly don't think it belongs in a science class, simply because it doesn't have any bearing on anything else students will learn. I believe that God created everything, although the process used is unimportant. Honestly, the Bible doesn't say how it was done, just that God spoke and it happened. That doesn't establish anything except for God being responsible for everything getting here. Essentially, that's all the Bible has to say about it. You're not gonna get a lot of scientifically relevant content outta that. Now, it might be worthwhile to mention creationism in parallel with the biographical information on Darwin and the history of origin theories that are found in most science curricula, but you can't toss out all information that might presumably support Darwinism, as there's some hard science in there.
I don't think it's possible to remove all speculation of a philosophical nature from the science books. Honestly, things we assume are scientific fact are disproven rather frequently. Science can only explain what normally happens in the physical world, which separates it entirely from the sphere of influence with which people's religious beliefs concern themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,028
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,028 |
there is no science to Creationism, it should be kept out of the science curriculum. I dont think religion should be involved in school systems, if wanna learn about religion go to a place of worship or in a school that affiliated with religion, not public schools.
The Leg Breakerer: Kung Fu Masta!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I'll agree that Creationism isn't a science. There's no evidence for it, like there is to support Darwinism, and science requires evidence. At best, it's a philosophy.
I do think, however, that religion has a place in our schools, just as philosophy does. I think religion can have a positive effect on our world, one individual at a time, if taught in an unbiased manner. I wouldn't study it if I thought otherwise. But if a school is going to teach one religion, and I think that, if it is taught, it should always be an elective, then that school should be required to teach a number of religions without undue bias. At least teach the major religions and broaden the view of those students who want to learn but would probably never be exposed to alternate ways of thinking otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
I'll agree that Creationism isn't a science. There's no evidence for it, like there is to support Darwinism, and science requires evidence. At best, it's a philosophy.
Not true. You just haven't heard any of the evidence because they aren't allowed to in school. It becomes a ciclicle argument we create in our head. I learned in school that darwinism is true and I never heard any evidence contrary therefore no contrary evidence should be allowed in school. Durring the Skopes monkey trials Creationism was the only option and the evolutionists argued that children should be allowed to hear both sides and decide for themselves. Now that they're the only game in town they aren't so concerned with the equality they once fought for.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
What IS the evidence for creationism, then?
I see no need for Creationism to be taught in a science class. It should only come up in discussion of debates over or arguments against Darwinism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
What IS the evidence for creationism, then?
God and Adam and Eve, duh! And snakes with useless feet bones inside of them proving that they used to have legs and God removed them as punishment for tricking Eve.
Oh, and the Garden of Eden they found last week in Chicago.
Plus the fact that people are so fuckin' stupid sometimes. We MUST be the result of billions of years worth of inbreeding.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
DK, thanks for getting this thread started. I was debating doing it myself. Quote:
winged creature said:
there is no science to Creationism, it should be kept out of the science curriculum. I dont think religion should be involved in school systems, if wanna learn about religion go to a place of worship or in a school that affiliated with religion, not public schools.
This is essentially the argument, to me, in a nutshell.
There is no science in Creatiionism. It is not science when the theory is presumed to be correct prior to beginning any kind of investigation. The whole point of SCIENCE is that a theory is submitted for refutation. That is, the goal of science is to put a theory "in harm's way" to determine if it stands up to rigorous empirical scrutiny.
Creationism fails to do this because its whole premise is that "there is a God," which is not subject to empirical refutation or support.
I'm not saying Creationism does not have a place in somewhere in public education. Perhaps a philosophy class or an Ethics class. But it does not belong in a science class.
Is our country going backward?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Creationism fails to do this because its whole premise is that "there is a God," which is not subject to empirical refutation or support.
And the "natural sciences" as defined by Darwin and later by Leaky rest on teh premise that teh world formed independant of God. As unscientific as it seems to assume there is a God, it's equally unscientific to assume there is no God.
As far as being placed in "harms way" that is exactly what natural design theorists want is to be juxtaposed in the pubic sphere so people can make up thier minds for themselves. When public schools consistantly teach evidence that has been roundly rejected even by other evolutionists, we know there's a problem.. If evolutionary science was as strong as ,perported they would jump at the chance to put thier theories in harms way as having to prove itself against opposing viewpoints, but like I said, if you're the only game in town then open diologue doesn't seem as apealing as it once did.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And the "natural sciences" as defined by Darwin and later by Leaky rest on teh premise that teh world formed independant of God. As unscientific as it seems to assume there is a God, it's equally unscientific to assume there is no God.
No.
The natural sciences make no claims regarding a god. They rest on the premise of investigating pheneomena using the senses (Empiricism). There is no claim about a god one way or another.
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2004-11-07 10:29 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Teaching Creationism is really the church's job. Long time ago in my bio class it was brought up & briefly explained in the section about various theories. That was valid but forcing science to include teaching faith based principles is just nutty.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
As far as being placed in "harms way" that is exactly what natural design theorists want is to be juxtaposed in the pubic sphere so people can make up thier minds for themselves.
Most scientists you're going to come across are going to vehemently disagree with the idea that in a science class, people should make up their own minds. It's not Philosophy. It's Science. It's about empirical investigation using methods of systematic inquiry, scrutiny, and rigor. It's not about, for example, making up your mind if the atom is made up of protons and neutrons.
You may come up with an idea and decide you want to test its empirical validity, but the answer isn't about making up your mind based on whether or not you like the outcome.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
The prescence or lack thereof of a deity of any sort is not (yet?) scientifically testable, so it cannot come into play in science, which involves hypothesis-experiment-theory. It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Uschi said:
Plus the fact that people are so fuckin' stupid sometimes. We MUST be the result of billions of years worth of inbreeding.
This would make a great signature.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
The prescence or lack thereof of a deity of any sort is not (yet?) scientifically testable, so it cannot come into play in science, which involves hypothesis-experiment-theory. It's as simple as that.
In here, I've found that nothing is as "simple as that." But I dig where yer coming from... 
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Not true. You just haven't heard any of the evidence because they aren't allowed to in school. It becomes a ciclicle argument we create in our head. I learned in school that darwinism is true and I never heard any evidence contrary therefore no contrary evidence should be allowed in school. Durring the Skopes monkey trials Creationism was the only option and the evolutionists argued that children should be allowed to hear both sides and decide for themselves. Now that they're the only game in town they aren't so concerned with the equality they once fought for.
Yes, I have been taught creationism, but there is nothing scientific about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,236
The Swizzler.... 6000+ posts
|
|
The Swizzler.... 6000+ posts
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,236 |
I think its important to teach both views! The school's are already teaching evolution which is still a theory and not a fact. I'm in favor of Creationism...the sciences sure point towards it more. Kids should be able to get both sides of the fence and left to decide for themselves.
They already are using the same kind of thinking for sex ed: teaching about abstinence vs. "safe sex."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587
7500+ posts
|
|
7500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,587 |
Problem is that there are lots of different religions. Creationism really just applies to Christianity. Why not teach Hindu creation? Or Shinto? Why don't we see how the Algonquin Indians match up?
This is great for a philosophy class, not for a Biology classroom.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I'll agree that Creationism isn't a science. There's no evidence for it, like there is to support Darwinism, and science requires evidence. At best, it's a philosophy.
Yes there is, it's been proven and both our senior pastors at my church are biologists. In facte Scott, one of the co senior pastors, just did a sermon on proving the Case for God's Exsitence, 2 weeks ago and he disproved Darwinsism. You can Listen to it here. You'll need Real audio to listen. I was there the night of first serivce and it was a great seromon. For anyone having problems with that link, you can find the page with all the seroms and links for each one acrrodingly, here. This is the third week of the series and it's a great one.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
Problem is that there are lots of different religions. Creationism really just applies to Christianity. Why not teach Hindu creation? Or Shinto? Why don't we see how the Algonquin Indians match up?
This is great for a philosophy class, not for a Biology classroom.
Christianity abides all science. The other religions you noted don't as much.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
PrincessElisa said:
I think its important to teach both views! The school's are already teaching evolution which is still a theory and not a fact. I'm in favor of Creationism...the sciences sure point towards it more.
That is completely ridiculous.
Evolution is a well -supported theory. If the evidence continues to add up and add up, then it's a legitimate position.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
|
|
[insert non-dated reference here] 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,392 |
Does anyone have any a link to an actual curriculum that is now being taught in schools? I don't simply mean a creationism website, since there are plenty of those -- I mean an online curriculum being taught in at least one school somewhere in the U.S. I'd be interested in seeing what will actually be taught, and whether it leans more towards science or more towards philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Evolution is a well -supported theory. If the evidence continues to add up and add up, then it's a legitimate position.
Quote:
That is completely ridiculous.
1) A theory is a theory.
2) Read up a bit more on a subject before you defend it. "Add up and add up" isn't an accurate description of the evidence pertaining to evolution over the past century.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Evolution is a well -supported theory. If the evidence continues to add up and add up, then it's a legitimate position.
Quote:
That is completely ridiculous.
1) A theory is a theory.
2) Read up a bit more on a subject before you defend it. "Add up and add up" isn't an accurate description of the evidence pertaining to evolution over the past century.
You may not believe this, but Science is all about testing theory.
But hey, let's set aside Evolutionary Theory.
Criticism for or agaisnt Evolution does nothing to elevate Creationism into the realm of Science.
This argument in this thread is less about Evolution and more about the inadequacies of Creationism as a scientific theory.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
 It's hard to tell from the "thrown-togetherness" of that post, but I think you just tried to derail my point. Eh. Whatever. You're still on the defensive with that "inadaqcuecies in Creationism" comment. And that speaks vloumes. So I'm heartened anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
It's hard to tell from the "thrown-togetherness" of that post, but I think you just tried to derail my point.
Eh. Whatever. You're still on the defensive with that "inadaqcuecies in Creationism" comment. And that speaks vloumes. So I'm heartened anyway.
Do you genuinely think Creationism should be taught in a Science cirriculum?
There are reputable scientists who disagree with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. There are other theories of evolution than Darwin's. If an evolutionary theory passes muster as a scientific theory, I'm all for its inclusion in a cirriculum.
My focus in this thread is not to pit Darwinian Evolution against Creationism as if those two positions are the only theories of the development/relationship of species. My concern in this thread is about the scientific validity of Creationism and the teaching of Creationism as if has scientific merit.
It certainly has philosphical merit and I have no problem with its inclusion somewhere else in a cirriculum.
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2004-11-08 2:01 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
The Time Trust said:
Does anyone have any a link to an actual curriculum that is now being taught in schools? I don't simply mean a creationism website, since there are plenty of those -- I mean an online curriculum being taught in at least one school somewhere in the U.S. I'd be interested in seeing what will actually be taught, and whether it leans more towards science or more towards philosophy.
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/standards/scif12.html
Here're the performance criteria for 12th grade in Wisconsin for for Life and Environmental Science.
Performance Standards
By the end of grade twelve, students will:
THE CELL
F.12.1 Evaluate* the normal structures and the general and special functions* of cells in single-celled and multiple-celled organisms
F.12.2 Understand* how cells differentiate and how cells are regulated
THE MOLECULAR BASIS OF HEREDITY
F.12.3 Explain* current scientific ideas and information about the molecular and genetic basis of heredity
F.12.4 State the relationships between functions* of the cell and functions of the organism as related to genetics and heredity
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION*
F.12.5 Understand* the theory of evolution*, natural selection, and biological classification
F.12.6. Using concepts of evolution* and heredity, account for changes* in species and the diversity of species, include the influence of these changes on science, e.g. breeding of plants or animals
THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF ORGANISMS
F.12.7 Investigate* how organisms both cooperate and compete in ecosystems
F.12.8 Using the science themes*, infer* changes in ecosystems prompted by the introduction of new species, environmental conditions, chemicals, and air, water, or earth pollution
MATTER, ENERGY AND ORGANIZATION IN LIVING SYSTEMS
F.12.9 Using the science themes*, investigate* energy* systems* (related to food chains) to show* how energy is stored in food (plants and animals) and how energy is released by digestion and metabolism
F.12.10 Understand* the impact of energy* on organisms in living systems*
F.12.11 Investigate* how the complexity and organization* of organisms accommodates the need for obtaining, transforming, transporting, releasing, and eliminating the matter and energy* used to sustain an organism
THE BEHAVIOR OF ORGANISMS
F.12.12 Trace how the sensory and nervous systems* of various organisms react to the internal and external environment and transmit survival or learning stimuli to cause changes in behavior or responses
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
There are reputable scientists who disagree with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. There are other theories of evolution than Darwin's. If an evolutionary theory passes muster as a scientific theory, I'm all for its inclusion in a cirriculum.
My focus in this thread is not to pit Darwinian Evolution against Creationism as if those two positions are the only theories of the development/relationship of species. My concern in this thread is about the scientific validity of Creationism and the teaching of Creationism as if has scientific merit.
OK, on your first comment. There are reputable scientists on both sides of the isle. Af far as passing the muster of scientific theory. When I was in High-School they taught us about Lucy, without mentioning that it had been discredited the day of it's unveiling by fellow evolutionis and I've recently learned that now, a decade later, they're still teaching it.
OK and your second statement, first your saying that Creationism is automatically invalid because it assumes there is a God, but evolution assumes that creationism is false and DOES assume that the world developed independant of God. Now since you say it has NO scientific merrit you must have exaustively studied it in order to rule out any scientific merrit, so if you would please, without using google, tell me 5 thinks you KNOW about intellegent design theory.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK and your second statement, first your saying that Creationism is automatically invalid because it assumes there is a God, but evolution assumes that creationism is false and DOES assume that the world developed independant of God. Now since you say it has NO scientific merrit you must have exaustively studied it in order to rule out any scientific merrit, so if you would please, without using google, tell me 5 thinks you KNOW about intellegent design theory.
Evolutionary theory as I understand it makes no comment about a God..."God" is not something approachable by Science.
Creationism assumes the causal state, that there is a God. Science NEVER assumes the causal state. It seeks to find the causal state. That fact right there rules out Creationism as a scientific theory.
Why is it such a big deal to those of your more religious than I to have Creationism taught in a science class?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK and your second statement, first your saying that Creationism is automatically invalid because it assumes there is a God, but evolution assumes that creationism is false and DOES assume that the world developed independant of God. Now since you say it has NO scientific merrit you must have exaustively studied it in order to rule out any scientific merrit, so if you would please, without using google, tell me 5 thinks you KNOW about intellegent design theory.
Evolutionary theory as I understand it makes no comment about a God..."God" is not something approachable by Science.
Creationism assumes the causal state, that there is a God. Science NEVER assumes the causal state. It seeks to find the causal state. That fact right there rules out Creationism as a scientific theory.
Why is it such a big deal to those of your more religious than I to have Creationism taught in a science class?
First off simply by ruling out creationism you are assuming there is no devine intervention. THAT is an assumption. The theory in creationism is that creatures are intellegently designed. It's babble fish logic to assume that because the theory is that there is an intellegent force involved it can't be scientific. So what you've done is ruled out a possibility without testing it and THAT is unscientific.
What most of "creation science" does is challenge the theory of evolution. The reason why relegious people want the science of creation taght in schools or at least a challenge to evolution is because otherwise kids are taught wrongly that what they're taught at home is anti-scientific that thier belifs aren't an option outside of theoretical. As I've mentioned before only to fall on dead ears what most schools are teaching are debunked theories. So i would ask you why would you be apposed to legitimate challenges to YOUR unprovable theory? Why are you opposed to both sides of this story being told?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
On a similar note: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debateQuote:
Evolution Case Opens in Georgia Court
ATLANTA - A warning sticker in suburban Atlanta science textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact" was challenged in court Monday as an unlawful promotion of religion.
The disclaimer was adopted by Cobb County school officials in 2002 after hundreds of parents signed a petition criticizing the textbooks for treating evolution as fact without discussing alternate theories, including creationism.
"The religious views of some that contradict science cannot dictate curriculum," American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) attorney Maggie Garrett argued Monday before U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper. The trial is expected to last several days.
But a lawyer for Cobb County schools, Linwood Gunn, held up a copy of a textbook's table of contents Monday that showed dozens of pages about evolution.
"The sticker doesn't exist independently of the 101 pages about evolution," Gunn said. "This case is not about a sticker which has 33 words on it. ... It's about textbooks that say a lot more than that."
The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
One of the parents who filed the lawsuit, Jeffrey Selman, said the stickers discredit the science of evolution.
"It's like saying everything that follows this sticker isn't true," he said.
The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled in 1987 that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.
Gunn said he expects the warning will hold up in court, saying it "provides a unique opportunity for critical thinking."
"It doesn't say anything about faith," Gunn said. "It doesn't say anything about religion."
Thoughts?
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
First off simply by ruling out creationism you are assuming there is no devine intervention. THAT is an assumption. The theory in creationism is that creatures are intellegently designed. It's babble fish logic to assume that because the theory is that there is an intellegent force involved it can't be scientific. So what you've done is ruled out a possibility without testing it and THAT is unscientific.
Ok, tell me how one goes about submitting intelligent design theory to an empirical test.
Quote:
What most of "creation science" does is challenge the theory of evolution.
Which theory of evolution?
Quote:
The reason why relegious people want the science of creation taght in schools or at least a challenge to evolution is because otherwise kids are taught wrongly that what they're taught at home is anti-scientific that thier belifs aren't an option outside of theoretical. As I've mentioned before only to fall on dead ears what most schools are teaching are debunked theories. So i would ask you why would you be apposed to legitimate challenges to YOUR unprovable theory? Why are you opposed to both sides of this story being told?
For the same damn reason I've been harping on this! Intelligent Design or Creationism all ASSUME some sort of divine/supernatural force/being/entity created life on earth and is responsible for the evolution of species. The cause of everything is, therefore, assumed from the outset. And that is not Science. Science works to find the cause and it goes about without presupposing the cause.
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum. You can put it in a philosophy cirriculum or a comparative relgions cirriculum. But not a science one.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
I see everyone ignored what I posted.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Ok, tell me how one goes about submitting intelligent design theory to an empirical test.
Gods existance cannot be tested, but is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” confirmed by tests in the empirical world?
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
So lets be fair, eh?
Quote:
For the same damn reason I've been harping on this!
At least this is a question of science rather than an emotional debate.
Quote:
Intelligent Design or Creationism all ASSUME some sort of divine/supernatural force/being/entity created life on earth and is responsible for the evolution of species. The cause of everything is, therefore, assumed from the outset. And that is not Science. Science works to find the cause and it goes about without presupposing the cause.
God's involvement shouldn't be assumed any more than it should be ruled out. Evolotion ASSUMES we evolved! My only contention is that itellegent design THEORY is no less reasonable than evolution THEORY. If kids can't be taught that we are intellegently designed then why should the be taught that we weren't? You're arguing on behalf of one unprovable theory against another. If you want to argue that ONLY FACTS can be taught in science class in school, fine then make that argument, but if you're going to allow one unproven theory then you should be allowed to teach others. I wonder if you're opposed to school vouchers?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum.
Agreed it should be taught along side evolution theory wich also has no place in our science classes.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Question for JJ and all:
Is the SETI a scientific endevor or not?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum.
Agreed it should be taught along side evolution theory wich also has no place in our science classes.
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Yes there is, it's been proven and both our senior pastors at my church are biologists. In facte Scott, one of the co senior pastors, just did a sermon on proving the Case for God's Exsitence, 2 weeks ago and he disproved Darwinsism. You can Listen to it here. You'll need Real audio to listen. I was there the night of first serivce and it was a great seromon. For anyone having problems with that link, you can find the page with all the seroms and links for each one acrrodingly, here. This is the third week of the series and it's a great one.
Quote:
Batwoman said:
I see everyone ignored what I posted.
You'd probably get more responses if you summarized the sermon and listed specifically the different ways you feel your pastors disproved Darwinism and proved God's existence. That way people will be able to support or refute your points.
Also, you might wanna keep in mind that Darwinism doesn't work to disprove God's existence. It doesn't even touch on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum.
Agreed it should be taught along side evolution theory wich also has no place in our science classes.
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
I dunno, MICRO-evolution, survival of the fittest, Kingdom,
Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. I don't think macro-evolution needs to be taught and i don't think all other topics are exhausted to the extent that if you don't teach it there will be a vacume where the kids stare blakely not being educated.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
