Evolution vs Creationism [Archive] - Page 2

Tom Tuttle

07-02-2006, 06:03 PM

Well, thank you, Ms. Manners (hope it doesn't hurt your feelings if I use a name for you since you don't seem to have one of your own). Sorry if I hurt anyone's tender feelings.

Just to clear the air, the well-funded campaign to supplant science with religion in the American educational system is not silly. Untaxed organizations with billions of dollars of money to pour into the democratic mix are not childish. Maybe if we had been less critical of the Third Reich they would not have had their feelings hurt and we could have avoided all of that nasty conflict.

If you are telling the truth and you have had to repeatedly defend your teaching science because people like me have hurt the feelings of parents who are coming to your classroom to tell you which religious doctrines they want you to teach instead of sceince, then you need to grow a spine. If teachers have to apologize for teaching curricullum then we've gone too far down the road of pandering to these Theocrats. Of course, if the efforts to change the curricullum to teach Creation side by side with Evolution succeeds, you won't have to apologize anymore.

I wonder why those who drafted the Constitution weren't more worried about rude people and less worried about religious groups? Maybe it's because they knew the history of our civilization has been a bloody struggle against, guess who?

Unregistered

07-02-2006, 09:07 PM

The last time I looked, Christians were entitled to an opinion and were freely allowed to raise money to further their opinions. That's the American Way. If they want to lobby local governments to change the way their children are taught, that is their right. Naturally the courts will decide if their desires step over the line. If you want to stop them, by all means raise the money and lobby your government.

But insulting them and their beliefs is immature and improper. By attacking their beliefs, you are making it very easy for them to generate support. I am not a supporter of Creationism, but if every teacher was as arrogant as you, I would side with them in a heart beat.

MIldred

07-03-2006, 12:19 PM

Individuals of all faiths are allowed to raise money for politcial purposes, but under current law, religious organizations are not permitted to use their non profit status to infiltrate the democratic process. The current administration has turned a blind eye to this breach of basic constitutional balance between church and state, giving some church folks the impression that they are entitled to disproportionate say so in policy making. As humans inevitably do, they then interpret this breach of the public trust as a right, which the last poster represented in her scold aimed at Tom.

She also tells us she would side with Creationists if Tom continues to behave badly, leading me to wonder if she has been ingenuous about her affiliation or is merely shamelessly wishy-washy.. Tom is not the most tactful person who writes here, but he knows what he stands for and is not about to change his beliefs about the importance of protecting pure science from doctrine because a minority group of strident parents are offended by his teaching science in his science class.

Unregistered

07-03-2006, 10:24 PM

Individuals of all faiths are allowed to raise money for politcial purposes, but under current law, religious organizations are not permitted to use their non profit status to infiltrate the democratic process. The current administration has turned a blind eye to this breach of basic constitutional balance between church and state, giving some church folks the impression that they are entitled to disproportionate say so in policy making. As humans inevitably do, they then interpret this breach of the public trust as a right, which the last poster represented in her scold aimed at Tom.

So, religious organizations have the right to influence politics... until they actually exert influence. If they attract too many followers, or are highly organized, or attact too much financial support, then at that point they are "infiltrating the democratic process" and are enjoying a "disproportionate say so in policy making."

Unless of course their views side with your own. Then I am sure you don't mind opening up the political process in every way you can.

She also tells us she would side with Creationists if Tom continues to behave badly, leading me to wonder if she has been ingenuous about her affiliation or is merely shamelessly wishy-washy..

I can live with Creationism, but not religious bigotry. Your characterizing of Tom's views as mere untactfulness misses the mark; he is a religious bigot, pure and simple. If he made similar remarks about any other cultural group in this forum, everyone would be all over him.

MIldred

07-04-2006, 02:18 PM

So, religious organizations have the right to influence politics... until they actually exert influence. If they attract too many followers, or are highly organized, or attact too much financial support, then at that point they are "infiltrating the democratic process" and are enjoying a "disproportionate say so in policy making."

Unless of course their views side with your own. Then I am sure you don't mind opening up the political process in every way you can. .

You missed the point.

Under the current law, if an organized religion wants to use its influence and money to dabble in politics, that group must give up its tax exempt status. That is the law. If the government would clean house on these jerks, they would go back to taking care of religion and leave politics to the citizens. That is the way the process was designed because our history is one of religious oppression, one church over another. That's where this will lead if we keep letting churches run the political process.

Your claim that I would be okay with breaking the laws to protect the democratic rights of the individual from organized religions if they agreed with my position is patently ridiculous. I don't agree with murder, whether I like the victim or hate him.

Democracy works precisely because it is not based on majority rule but on a balance that protects the rights of individuals whatever the majority believes.

Like most religious people, you pass judgments about issues you haven't
bothered to make even the slightest effort to understand. Belief alone works fine for issues like the afterlife and morality, but its a poor substitute for thinking and learning when it comes to issues like curing disease, investing money, or making complex polticial decisions.

I have strong religious beliefs of my own. I don't try to impose them on other people. When I see people who claim to represent Christ messing around in politics, science, or medicine without bothering to even try to understand whats going on, it angers me. Not only are they acting in a very unAmerican way, more like the Islamists then Christians, but they are driving non Christians away from Christ.

Unregistered

07-05-2006, 02:09 AM

The 1976 Lobby Law, however, established clear guidelines for lobbying expenditures. The Lobby Law allows nonprofits to choose to be covered by a clearly defined set of lobbying rules. This law clarifies that 501(c)(3) nonprofits that elect to fall under these rules can spend up to a defined percentage of their budget for lobbying without threatening their tax-exempt status.

It is up to the COURTS, not you or me, to decide if these organizations have broken the law. If these non-profit organizations were lobbying for extra teacher benefits, we wouldn't hear a peep out of you. And you know it.

Unregistered

07-05-2006, 04:14 PM

It is up to the COURTS, not you or me, to decide if these organizations have broken the law. If these non-profit organizations were lobbying for extra teacher benefits, we wouldn't hear a peep out of you. And you know it.

Once you've sold out your ideals, I guess you need to convince yourself that everyone else has done the same. I don't expect you to believe this, but just for the record, there are people in the world who believe in doing the right thing and not just the thing that makes the most profit. You probably think teachers are just in it for the money. You are a sad person.

Unregistered

07-06-2006, 01:24 PM

I will say it once again:

[It is up to the COURTS, not you or me, to decide if these organizations have broken the law. If these non-profit organizations were lobbying for extra teacher benefits, we wouldn't hear a peep out of you. And you know it.

It is up to the COURTS, not you or me, to decide if these organizations have broken the law. If these non-profit organizations were lobbying for extra teacher benefits, we wouldn't hear a peep out of you. And you know it.

You think you can fool me into believing you would fight an organization that was rallying for more teacher protections and salaries? C'mon! Why not at least be honest about your stances? (As if the NEA doesn't try to exert enormous influence on the political process.)

Unregistered

07-07-2006, 04:19 PM

First, I do believe in Evolution. I have sat here for about an hour and have read the majority of the postings.

Here is what I have gotten out the postings:
1. the majority of you are well educated individuals
2. some of you are well educated followers
3. very few have looked at both sides (evolution vs. creationism) with an open mind. That the two can and should co-exist. But not in the public school system.
4. that all of you, including myself, has spent to much time on this debate. For the following reasons:
a. Are goal should be that are children receive a excellant education and are successful, productive, INDIVIDUALS.
b. that are children have the skills they need to make good choices using their brains, and their hearts.

Culture and religion is the responsibility of the parents to teach their children not the public school system. If you believe that the public school system should take care of this then maybe you should reconsider having children. Teachers can influence children but sometimes what we get is already damaged. No one argues the what and the amount that a child learns in the first five years will be a great influence on the rest of their lives. And the public school system has very little input here.

So let us worry about are childrens education in that they have the skills to survive. The skills in reading, writing, mathamatics, social, and yes science to have happy, healthy lives in a country that allows people to be INDIVIDUALS in their choice of education, careers, religion, and a number of other things that many countries do not allow their citizens.

I get very tired of people shooting "it's my right". What everyone forgets is, it is your right until you interfer with another's right. And this is a very thin line that the majority of people walk on daily. So get of the "crywagon" and do something that really matters. Read to your child, take them for a walk out in nature, go to church just do something that is and will make a lasting impression. Do you really want you child to remember their childhood as my parents led the arguement that one is better/more important that the another.

I am a high school science teacher and I see your children everyday. I see children who have education levels that are not more than that of a 3rd or 4th grader in reading, math, and writing. Education is not only the teachers responsibility but the parents and the community.

So instead of worry about evolution and creationism, worry about the example you set for todays youth.

Take a walk on the wild side, greeting from Minnesota

Unregistered

07-07-2006, 07:59 PM

C'mon! Why not at least be honest about your stances? (As if the NEA doesn't try to exert enormous influence on the political process.)

I'll say it again: you have been crooked yourself for so long you can no longer imagine that there are people who have ideals that are more important to them then self-gain. That is pititul!

Unregistered

07-10-2006, 10:36 AM

I'll say it again: you have been crooked yourself for so long...

So now I'm being called crooked. Whatever.

You are trying to deny basic human nature: Bias.

Everyone is biased. Everyone (and that includes you) tends to be more critical of those groups they oppose. So if a Christian group exerts influence on a school board, then in your eyes they are going overboard and hijacking the democratic system. But if the local union exerts influence on a school board to raise your wages, you would have no problem with that, whatsoever.

Do you now want to publically deny that you would oppose efforts by your local union to exert influence on school boards to raise your benefits? Feel free to post your denial right here. We're waiting.

Unregistered

07-11-2006, 12:22 AM

I once heard someone say that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does creationism. People are getting away from the idea that evolution is only a theory - NOT FACT - which is being taught at every educational level.
Also, I constantly hear the age-old saying - creationists, et al, "are so closed-minded" but an evolutionist who refuses to research creationism can be accused of the same thing!

I totally agree with you. The fact that the educational system refuses to accept the fact that they are not presenting both sides of the story is precisely why we send our kids to private school. By the way, the Christian school where we send our kids teaches the kids the ideas behind Creationism and Evolution. If only the public school system were bold enough to present both sides of the story.

Unregistered

07-11-2006, 12:37 AM

Do you now want to publically deny that you would oppose efforts by your local union to exert influence on school boards to raise your benefits? Feel free to post your denial right here. We're waiting.

You are trying to evade the issue by making an illogical comparison. If my local union were a non-profit organization exempt from taxes as long as it did not use its funds for political purposes and it broke those rules to play dirty, I would oppose the union. If you find it so hard to believe that there are people who want to remain honest, and are not tempted by personal gain to relinquish those principles, than you are a very confused person.

Unregistered

07-13-2006, 01:05 PM

If my local union were a non-profit organization exempt from taxes as long as it did not use its funds for political purposes and it broke those rules to play dirty, I would oppose the union.

It is up to the courts to decide if religious organizations or unions are breaking any rules. You are naturally going to look the other way if your local union is breaking the rules because you're emotionally tied to its success. You want more money. You want more privileges. Most importantly, you want the emotional release you gain when your own team rides to victory.

Politics is like sports. We get mad when the referee blows the whistle on our own players. We also cry that the referee missed a call on the opposition.

That is normal human behavior. No human is exempt. Why not just admit it?

Wishbone

07-16-2006, 01:55 PM

I totally agree with you. The fact that the educational system refuses to accept the fact that they are not presenting both sides of the story is precisely why we send our kids to private school. By the way, the Christian school where we send our kids teaches the kids the ideas behind Creationism and Evolution. If only the public school system were bold enough to present both sides of the story.

There aren't two sides of the story for a public school.

There is either one side, if you want to present a scientifically honest view or there are thousands of sides and along with a christian creation myth you have to present native, hindu, african, etc. creation myths.

The problem is creationists want it both ways. They want creationism to share space with evolution despite a severe lack of evidence and some outright dishonest proofs BUT they don't want to have it examined alongside the creation myths of other stories and cultures.

Wishbone

07-16-2006, 02:07 PM

Everyone is biased. Everyone (and that includes you) tends to be more critical of those groups they oppose. So if a Christian group exerts influence on a school board, then in your eyes they are going overboard and hijacking the democratic system. But if the local union exerts influence on a school board to raise your wages, you would have no problem with that, whatsoever.

Do you now want to publically deny that you would oppose efforts by your local union to exert influence on school boards to raise your benefits? Feel free to post your denial right here. We're waiting.

Strange, negotiating with your employers is equal to attempting to insert a specific religious myth into secular school system?

Unregistered

07-16-2006, 07:05 PM

Even stranger, this guy is convinced that human nature means we are all corrupted by self interest. This confirms my observation that socalled religious people are often driven to these pie in the sky beliefs by dark pessimism.

The most amazing aspect of this entire "debate" is the inability of the creationists to see how different science is from their beliefs. This reoccurring claim that both are belief is proof of a lack of understanding of the basics of logic.

It boils down to what you base reality upon, something you read in an ancient text or observable phenomena. If you want to understand the origins of life, do you turn to the geologic record or to a book full of thousand year old superstition? Anyone who can't see the difference is stuck at about the jr. high level of education.

I have know intelligent people who believe in creation as a matter of faith. But, being intelligent, they don't then try to disprove scientific theory with their faith as the basis. They accept the idea that you can be loyal to Ford autos without trying to disprove the statistical record of Toyota reliability. "No matter what car you choose, it is all a matter of faith." No need for further thought, understanding, study, or learning.

Unregistered

07-16-2006, 09:08 PM

Strange, negotiating with your employers is equal to attempting to insert a specific religious myth into secular school system?

Both are examples of non-profit organizations attempting to influence local politics, which is the real issue here, not if religion is the same as wages.

Even stranger, this guy is convinced that human nature means we are all corrupted by self interest.

Ask any scientist why we even bother to have controls on how we perform experiments and he/she will tell you the same thing. Bias is inherent in every individual, and anyone that thinks they are above it is simply deluded.

The fact that people are biased and let their own biases color their perceptions is as unarguable as it gets. How can anyone deny such an obvious weakness of human beings?

After all, if we think that our own motives are pure, wouldn't the same apply to Creationists?

The most amazing aspect of this entire "debate" is the inability of the creationists to see how different science is from their beliefs.

That, and the ability for those on the other side of the political fence to understand how Creationists feel about the teaching of content that runs counter to their beliefs. Both sides are equally guilty of exacerbating the situation beyond what is necessary.

For the record, I am an evolutionist. But I understand how bias has colored the argument on both sides. Creationists and evolutionists (and teachers) will always struggle to separate their own personal biases when judging the others. That is a fact of human nature that cannot be seriously denied.

I have know intelligent people who believe in creation as a matter of faith. But, being intelligent, they don't then try to disprove scientific theory with their faith as the basis.

I have known intelligent, however, that do. I think their attempts are misguided, but I am not going to call them unintelligent based on that alone.

Wishbone

07-17-2006, 11:29 AM

Both are examples of non-profit organizations attempting to influence local politics, which is the real issue here, not if religion is the same as wages.

Negotiating for wages is not local politics. A union that represents employees of a school board is in no way comparable to an outside religious group. Negotiating wages is in no way comparable to forcing religious values into classroom. They may both be non-profit and have some relationship (though only one is a valid relationship) with a school board but that's it.

You're argument make as much sense as comparing as me maintaining cereal and blenders are the same thing because they both come in boxes are belong in a kitchen.

Unregistered

07-17-2006, 11:36 PM

Negotiating for wages is not local politics.

It is when you're a public servant paid by public monies.

But it matters little, since unions and the NEA obviously argue far beyond mere wages. After all, look at the headline article on the NEA's main web site:

http://www.nea.org/lac/index.html

Look at one of the blurbs from that page:

Help spread the word and build momentum toward repeal of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).

The page is titled "Legislative Action Center." Sure sounds political to me.

Now for the record, I am all in favor of the NEA being able to influence politics. I just extend the same freedom to those who want to influence local politics to favor their own religious beliefs. Naturally, the Supreme Court limits what they will be able to attain, but they should still be able to voice their opinions, even if I oppose them.

Tom Tuttle

07-18-2006, 12:32 PM

Wishbone, don't you get the idea that this person isn't interested in examining the validity of his argument? Seriously, how can you hope to make any sense with someone who ostinately refuses to see the difference between asking questions in search of reasonability versus trying to prove a position regardless of what evidence arises?

I am a person of faith, but I am baffled by the necesity of other believers to wage war with science based on beliefs. It's as if, loving my wife and believing her to be the best of women, I must then argue with every other husband about the merits of his wife. "My wife makes $8000.00 a year and yours makes $80,000.? Well those numbers are simply your belief and my wife is a better earner than yours because I love her."

How can you expect reason from those who have abandoned its basic demands?

Unregistered

07-19-2006, 12:25 AM

Unregistered

07-19-2006, 01:05 PM

You can claim to be whatever you want here, but, oh nameless one, all we have to go by is what you write, and your arguments are clearly those of someone who not only doesn't understand science but opposes the spirit of enquiry.

Wishbone

07-19-2006, 01:37 PM

Wishbone

07-19-2006, 01:41 PM

Once again, I am an evolutionist. I do not think Creationism is a valid substitute for science.

Can you let that sink in before you post?

I've never heard 'evolutionist' used except by creationists. Sort of like how I believe in the theory of gravity but don't call myself a 'Gravitist'.

Unregistered

07-19-2006, 01:52 PM

I stumbled on this thread, read through some of the comments and then felt compelled to post.

It's all about presentation... how does one present evolution? Is it the only theory of creation? Not, it's not. Reality is that there is more than one theory. Teaching the various theories is what education is about. We're supposed to be creating critical thinkers.

Unregistered

07-20-2006, 01:20 AM

I've never heard 'evolutionist' used except by creationists.

Okay, let me say it again:

Evolution provides a better explanation of nature than Creationism. Creationism has no business being taught in a science class because it is not scientific.

Now, does that sound like a Creationist talking?

I know you may find this hard to believe, but it is possible to respect an opinion, even if you don't agree with it. It is not necessary to belittle those on the other side of the fence. Why take it to the personal level?

Wishbone

07-22-2006, 09:29 AM

Wishbone

07-22-2006, 09:40 AM

Okay, let me say it again:

Evolution provides a better explanation of nature than Creationism. Creationism has no business being taught in a science class because it is not scientific.

Now, does that sound like a Creationist talking?

I know you may find this hard to believe, but it is possible to respect an opinion, even if you don't agree with it. It is not necessary to belittle those on the other side of the fence. Why take it to the personal level?

Then I think the problems may be that your point need a different thread. The focus of this one is evolution versus creationism and you seem to have a point to make about the NEA. In the context of this discussion it comes off looking like a creationist playng evolution supporter.

Unregistered

07-22-2006, 02:51 PM

I skimmed through alot of these posts, there were many, but here is my experience and views on the subject. Any subject that involves religious views will always be controverisal, with strong opinions one way or the other.
As a science teacher, I need to follow the state standards and benchmarks. That does not mean I have to agree with what is being taught.

As a long term sub I taught evolution. I did feel a little uncomfortable with some of the subject matter, but it's science and not religious beliefs that I was teaching. I am a christian, but also a science teacher, the views of these two need to be kept separate from one another.

When teaching the students I made it clear that this is the scientific point of view and that school & church are being kept separate. I told them my views on the subject and that those were my personal views, not those of the school and not those of scientistists. I tried to teach them that evolution is about change over time and also about the scienctific evidence on evolution that is available today. I also explained that this is the current evidence that is available and, as with a lot of scientific finding, is more than likely to change. I feel that as long as it is made clear that this is a sceintific point of view, then more students can accept that I am not trying to change their religious views.

Sue

Unregistered

07-22-2006, 08:37 PM

Sounds like a reasonable approach. There is no need to "attack" opposing viewpoints, just present the content within the proper context.

Unregistered

07-22-2006, 08:40 PM

Then I think the problems may be that your point need a different thread. The focus of this one is evolution versus creationism and you seem to have a point to make about the NEA.

The NEA would never have entered the discussion if it hadn't been for the attack on religious organizations for their attempts to persuade their communities. It was never about the NEA, but rather the freedom to express one's opinions. The NEA was simply an example I offered of an organization exercising its freedom of speech.

Tom Tuttle

07-23-2006, 04:14 PM

thanks Sue, for expressing the position so clearly. there's been this discussion about the mental ability to walk and chew gum, or hold two thoughts in the same head, a scientific and a religious. It isn't necessary to make them agree or to choose one over the other.

Yes, there's been some rancor expressed here, and i've been guilty, but that has not been to attack anyone's beliefs. The frustration has been directed at those who want to control school policy. Religious beliefs cross the line from something beautiful to something frightening when they stop becoming a matter of individual piety and starts becoming a jihad to control the behavior or beliefs of others. The history of science and free enquiry has been a struggle against religious bigotry, often at the cost of life and freedom. The tension continues with current opposition to research and the efforts by religions to control curricullum.

I for one see no reason to be polite to organized groups who attack science and individual conscience. I respect everyones beliefs. I don't respect efforts to control the beliefs of others.

Once again, Sue, you are a breath of fresh air to this discussion because you combine faith with respect for the intellect and free enquiry.

Unregistered

07-24-2006, 02:44 AM

I have only viewed a smattering of these replies so if I am repeating what someone else has said, please forgive me.

Evolution v. Creationism

It's not really a deabte about wheater or not it should be taught--but in what context

I think this debate belongs to a humanities/comparitive religion/ philosophy class. its a interesting debate and to best expose our own beliefs and to express them is at the heart of education. Confronting new ideas and puttign them into context with our faith!! (goose pimples just thinking about it)

Having said this--it does not belong in a science class. Science by DEFINITION is the study of the known and the observable. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY must be independantly tested and be able to withstand scrutiny. It must be able to be proved or disproved. Creationism CANNOT be independently scrutinized, proved or disproved. It is a matter of faith--and faith although lovely is not the basis of scientific discovery.

Take for example the Earth-Centered Theory of the Solar system. this theory took 1500 years to be discarded. It too faced enormous amounts of opposition from religious organizations and people who spoke (or taught) the Sun-Centered theory were branded has heretics and usually inprisoned. Geocentric Theory persisted because of FAITH not SCIENCE.

It seems as though we have not learned from history--agian.

Tom Tuttle

07-25-2006, 10:16 PM

That was an excellent summation of the topic, unreg. I suspect the future generations will look upon this period in history as very anti knowledge/science. The stem cell research situation is another example of how "religious" people impede progress by trying to impose their personal morality on an entire society.

Christ taught the power of influencing the world through personal example and love of fellow man. He always spoke against those who thought religion was a tool for legislating against others. Hypocrites are those who think morality is them judging others. For most of my life, I loathed religion, because I thought it was all hypocrisy. I am a Christian now, but I still am amazed by people who think that means controlling the behavior and thoughts of others. For me, that is the opposite of Christianity.

There is no conflict between science and religion, as you point out. the conflict is in the mind of small minded people who want to exercise power against people with brains.

Unregistered

07-25-2006, 11:14 PM

Yes, there's been some rancor expressed here, and i've been guilty, but that has not been to attack anyone's beliefs. The frustration has been directed at those who want to control school policy.

Every group wants to control school policy, because every group thinks that kids should be taught according to ideals they hold. All groups have a right to express their opinion and petition government.

Religious beliefs cross the line from something beautiful to something frightening when they stop becoming a matter of individual piety and starts becoming a jihad to control the behavior or beliefs of others.

It is mention of the word "jihad" that causes these discussions to climb out of control. This isn't a holy war being waged, but a cultural struggle. We all fight the culture battle; it is just that some of us want the opposition to suppress its own voice and lay down like lambs. I don't think they should have to do that.

Whether are the Moral Majority or multi-culturalists, we all want society molded in our own ideals. It is the demonizing of opponents that is the real trouble with these discussions.

Unregistered

07-26-2006, 02:16 PM

Every group wants to control school policy, because every group thinks that kids should be taught according to ideals they hold. All groups have a right to express their opinion and petition government.

It is mention of the word "jihad" that causes these discussions to climb out of control. This isn't a holy war being waged, but a cultural struggle. We all fight the culture battle; it is just that some of us want the opposition to suppress its own voice and lay down like lambs. I don't think they should have to do that.

Whether are the Moral Majority or multi-culturalists, we all want society molded in our own ideals. It is the demonizing of opponents that is the real trouble with these discussions.

So, all political forces are equal and mistrusting one is "demonizing". So I suppose you'd apply this logic to Islamists?

A group of people who hide behind religion for the express purpose of creating an authoritarian power structure that supplants democratic institutions is just a bunch of friendly church ladies, huh?

Can you name an authoritarian regime that emerged from a republic that didn't begin by disguising itself behind morality?

There is a big difference between groups whose main purpose is ending dissent and those who seek to implement public policies meant to benefit society.

Wake up and smell the incense! The Ayatollah's have no interest in science, reason, democracy, or in upholding the rights of minorities. Do you really think there's a difference between religious despots based on brand names?

Real Live WI Teacher

07-28-2006, 12:32 AM

When Tom breaks out his flame thrower it all goes crispy, doesn't it?! I've noticed Mildred comes charging in from the flanks with cover quite frequently. ....I think she has a thing for you.

I understand your fire better, Tom, and your position, too. After the torching, you stuck around a bit longer and shared more of the substance that is usually obscured or consumed. Interesting. I may have a thing for you too =)

Yes, religion has been misused to incite and inflict man's inhumanity to man, often by unbelievers. And Supressing and oppressing religion and faith has also been the basis for equivalent wrongs. And reductionist maneuvers, or marginalizing vocabulary, or verbal BBQ's don't really provide the injury or the protection we may be shooting for, do they? That sort of temporary satisfaction is the equivalent to empty calories when sustenance is needed.

I just wanted to point out-- your flaming holds real fire, clearly. I regret the circumstances that have built up that friction. And you're very good at it. It also has the effect of blinding others and possibly yourself- and changes the focus from the substance to the flames. Makes it something to escape and disparage, not ponder.

But as you continued, calmed (cooled?)... shared more, uncovered more... that was powerful, and I appreciated the perspective and understanding I gained.

You're wrong, but I can prove that now in a reasonable debate. LOL.

Your words with a twist:
The evolutionist's myths and stories have a strangle-hold on our curriculum and educational system, and you are all trying to control our minds and dictate our beliefs with your own anti-Christian views.

(Mildred's chaser)
Diversity should be respected, open-mindedness and cultural respect dictate that all myths and stories be validated in our socialization machine by having every child exiled who tries to pose as normal and good, but who is actually an infiltrater spying on the obviously heroic and righteous Evolutionists just trying to give the truth and facts to the little children, and protect them from the little liars who want to spread "faith," and veneral diseases; because they are monsters, with fangs - or turbans - who are plotting to destroy the schools in order to undermine democracy in order to eat all the children. You are either a child protector (pro-union, liberal, evolutionist, 'faith-but-anti-religion' reasonable, open-minded, tolerant person) or a child eater (capitalist, independent, evolution+ advocate, religious, unreasonable, dogmatic, fascist, terrorist, theocrat, frothing at the mouth liar). It's simple, it's a shame you are so ignorant of my truth. Cake, anyone?

(Tom, mixing drinks again)
What, can't we talk, move our lips, our tongue, our breath, and our throat at the same time? Only morons think we might consider discriminating between things or using them in tandem, ordering or integrating different aspects available to one whole organism! What, can't you separate them?! You probably think they all go together and aren't even separate?!

(cherry or olive?)
Or possibly we could be neutral, and teach nothing. That way those who know that Aliens created us as a science experiment won't have to hear the stories and myths created by Evolutionists as their crutch to limp along in the world that they need to cram down everyone else's throat because they can't just believe it privately, they live to make sure every other human being has to hear it too!

(Mildred's hangover)
But wait.... only one is based on FACT. As far as FACT is defined by the one that happens to be that one singular belief system based on FACT, that it validates itself by- meaning the definition it gives to define the way to define what's valid is what defines it as valid.... or is that the reverse??

Anyway, at least the NEA keeps us all from being homeless, because they don't just want to destroy the facts, they want to destroy public schools, and teachers, and children! The NEA protects us, because we'd all be fired without them! Since all the rich church people flood their non-taxed voluntary donations that they paid the tax on first, after the employer paid tax on it too, and would use that great wealth gained by taking the governments money to hire the millions of family members related to principals that they are waiting to hire... but the union, it's our salvation! They don't need donations, they demand fees. They take them from the government check teachers receive, without giving them a choice or a voice, and they would never use them to influence democracy or spread lies in school. The NEA wouldn't be the biggest single financial lobbyist purchasing our democracy right out from under us-- like those CHURCHES must be. And they would NEVER be found to have used Dues for political activity without reporting it and not paying taxes on it for violating THEIR nonprofit tax status- since 1996. They aren't like those organizations that haven't been found legally to have violated nonprofit tax status, but you know they are liars so they are doing it, clearly.

A belief system is a belief system, a world view is a world view, and they can ALL qualify as religion if you want to go there. Your science book is your bible, accordingly. Aren't there different denominations of science - er- 'schools of thought'? Are they all represented in the curriculum and standards? Do you present String Theory? Christianity, faith, religion... it has all become whatever anyone individually interprets it be... the Gospel of whatever I think right now. Distinguish or define the difference in beliefs and religions, and beliefs and FACTS with a clear dictate for curriculum. But remember... prove it.

Who is fighting to control the 'curriculum' or what the government endorses to be taught as the true and only origin of humans, or mass belief system for the creation and origin man, his raison d'etre or n'ete pas, the eternal spiritual hinge of all the world's religions, and which can be inferred but not proven? Isn't the only real method of endorsing one belief system over another to exclude all others and present only one as true? What is dogmatic about that?! Isn't the way to include all, and not establish the government endorsement of one belief as well as to encourage open-mindedness, to present the major differing opinions or theories that prevail in this time and culture?

Although sarcasm and irony are my favorite company, I hope they entertained and didn't scald.

So Tom, the tendency for abused children to become abusers relates also to those who have suffered chronic dogmatic attacks or vicious narrow-mindedness. Never live by generalizations to combat generalizers.

I bet you are a great teacher.

(no sarcasm there...)

Unregistered

07-28-2006, 02:45 AM

So, all political forces are equal and mistrusting one is "demonizing". So I suppose you'd apply this logic to Islamists?

I have no idea what you are referring. Are you talking about violent Islamic extremists? If so, then I would be the last to defend Christians who advocate illegal activity. So I am not sure how you are connecting Christianity with Islam.

A group of people who hide behind religion for the express purpose of creating an authoritarian power structure that supplants democratic institutions is just a bunch of friendly church ladies, huh?

The above is a perfect example of the demonizing I mentioned earlier. Sure, there might be some extremists inside the Christian Right who advocate the overthrow of our democratic government, but they don't speak for the majority. Naturally, that doesn't stop you from painting with an exceptionally large brush.

Can you name an authoritarian regime that emerged from a republic that didn't begin by disguising itself behind morality?

Straw man. You first have to show that Creationists as a group (and not just a few select nut cases) advocate the overthrow of our government.

There is a big difference between groups whose main purpose is ending dissent and those who seek to implement public policies meant to benefit society.

C'mon, every group thinks that the policies it advocates are meant to benefit society.

Do you really think there's a difference between religious despots based on brand names?

Loaded question.

Tom Tuttle

07-30-2006, 01:23 AM

To Real Live WI:

Man, I don't understand everything you say, but I'm not sure whether that's due to my lack of intelligence or yours.

But I do know when I've been nailed properly, and I take your point to heart. I realize I will not sway many minds by insulting people. In my defense, I must tell you I never meant to sway those "creationists" who seek to replace science with religion in the educational institutions.

The discussion held on this forum is proof enough that people who put thier personal beliefs before scientific enquiry are not going to listen to reason. You could sweet talk the Ayatollah or Bin Ladin till judgement day, and he won't budge an inch because he already has all of the answers. No matter what new truths or facts are discovered by human endeavor, these "true believers" will cling to their thousand year old world view, seeking to enforce it upon others. The ugly truth behind that agenda is that it always masks political power that is repressive.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the one president who claims to have a direct connection to the almighty is the same one who decreed torture to be the law of the land and who premptively attacks nations, now bringing us to the brink of a worldwide war based on his "holy" beliefs.

Whether they hide behind Islam or Christianity, these folks are dangerous. Anyone with a glimmering of history knows this. I attack them openly because I hope to wake up others to the danger, not because I want to convince those who refuse to listen.

I respect the open minded person who has beliefs but is open to new knowledge, even if it does not immediately fit into previously held beliefs. Those who refuse to think beyond their own narrow ideas are dangerous because they seek to force those views on others regardless of the consequences. I ask you to consider which type of person crucified the Christ.

Let those with ears hear and eyes see.

Unregistered

07-30-2006, 03:13 AM

I respect the open minded person who has beliefs but is open to new knowledge, even if it does not immediately fit into previously held beliefs.

And I respect those that attempt to understand the beliefs of others and do not resort to personal attacks and outlandish leaps of logic, as if Creationists are out to overthrow the government and violently attack the civilian population.

Unregistered

07-30-2006, 08:10 PM

Creationists are out to overthrow the government and violently attack the civilian population.

They are? Probably not conciously. Those who would restrict the freedom of others probably don't realize that violence is inherent in oppression. Wherever theocracy has been allowed to supplant democracy, the results are a society controlled by force. Do you think the Taliban are violent because they follow Islam rather than Christianity? If so, you ought to crack a history book. Let me ask you: do you respect Osama bin Laden's beliefs? Would you have respected those beliefs before 2001? Or would you have recognized that his beliefs entailed suppressing those of others and therefore were inherently violent?

Unregistered

07-30-2006, 08:51 PM

They are? Probably not conciously. Those who would restrict the freedom of others probably don't realize that violence is inherent in oppression. Wherever theocracy has been allowed to supplant democracy, the results are a society controlled by force.

Again, you slip in the supposed fact that Christians want to replace our democracy with a theocracy. I see no basis for that statement.

Do you think the Taliban are violent because they follow Islam rather than Christianity?

The Taliban is violent because of their religious indoctrination, which does not imply that Creationists must be so inclined. Yes, both Creationists and the Taliban are considered on the fringe of their religions, but that doesn't make them equally violent. It is quite possible to have strong religious beliefs without advocating violence. For example, Creationists are often the biggest opponents of the death penalty.

To equate Creationists with Islamic terrorists is plain sick and beyond rational thought. It is nothing more than a cheap attempt to paint the opposition as a dangerous enemy. And it lies in the gutter of logic: that since the Taliban is dangerous, then so must be Creationists. Only a kid would fall for such a ridiculous stretch.

The Taliban and Creationists are different people. They believe in differerent things. Sure, they may have some things in common, but to think they are in lock step with each other ideologically is plain silly (and downright bigoted).

I think people should be ashamed of themselves for such wild stereotyping. We wouldn't tolerate such stereotyping with other subgroups of our society, why should we tolerate it when it comes to Christians?

Unregistered

07-30-2006, 11:38 PM

Your opinion of Christians and their reputation for non-violence comes from an insulated perspective. Talk to anyone from the Middle East right now about this topic and they will tell you about the long history of Christian violence. That you are offended by these accusations says more about your own prejudices than any grasp of world events or history. It is this ignorance and tunnel vision that makes you and your religion so dangerous to the rest of the world.

Unregistered

07-31-2006, 04:21 AM

Your opinion of Christians and their reputation for non-violence comes from an insulated perspective.

No, it comes from the fact that the vast, vast majority of Christians (even those on the fringe) have not been charged or convicted of violent crimes. They are generally peaceful and law-abiding.

Talk to anyone from the Middle East right now about this topic and they will tell you about the long history of Christian violence.

Violence in the name of Christ, or violence committed by those that happen to be Christians? (And how many of those perpetrating the violence are radical Creationists?)

Sure, you have The Crusades... 700 years ago. What about today?

The Mafia is largely composed of Catholics, but I certainly don't label the Catholic Church according to gangland activities. Isreal is now pounding the Hell out of Lebanon, but I don't consider Judaism dangerous on account of it. It is perfectly possible to be Jewish (even radically Jewish) and be peaceful.

Talk all you want, but your view of Creationists as dangerous is based on stereotyping and hatred, not on the facts. It is the same form of stereotyping used against all cultural subgroups. And you're teaching our kids?

Unregistered

07-31-2006, 08:37 AM

Why would you teach evolution, since there is not true evidence it? It seems to me that people are trying to find any reason to not believe in creation.

Unregistered

07-31-2006, 03:43 PM

How can you have an intelligent discussion with "true believers" who have no interest in history, reason, or scientific enquiry? The answer is, you can't. They already have all the answers: they made them up to support their position. When humans turn off their brains and agree to be led they are at their most dangerous.

Unregistered

07-31-2006, 08:59 PM

Again, we get the "dangerous" crap, one of the oldest propaganda tools in existence.

Cut the fear talk and discuss the issue on its own merits.

Unregistered

08-01-2006, 12:17 AM

According to quantum physicists, the entire universe is continuously being created from waves of just 4 fundamental force fields - electromagnetic, gravitation, weak and strong forces. All these fields are based on the Unified Field of Natural Law. From this perspective everything in the universe is a vibrational expression of the Unified Field and that includes the human body and all the complexities that go with it! Incidentally (if you truly realise) none of these force fields can be seen - they can only be experienced. This may be the fundamental basis of creation and also of evolution. So I see no difference between the two i.e. creationism and the theory of evolution if we really try the understand who we are and our relationship to the entire universe from the perspective of mathematics and quantum physics.I recommend all those interested to see the movie - "What the Bleep do we Know". A difficult concept for many brought up to think in traditional ways. But it would be worth the try - I believe.

Bebetto

08-01-2006, 05:09 PM

<a href="http://www.games-texasholdem1-2006.info/ ">http://www.games-texasholdem1-2006.info/ </a>, <a href="http://www.games-texasholdem1-2006.info/custom.html">custom texas holdem chips</a>

Roben

08-01-2006, 05:12 PM

<a href="http://www.games-bingo1-2006.info/ ">http://www.games-bingo1-2006.info/ </a>, <a href="http://www.games-bingo1-2006.info/freebingogameforprize.html">free bingo game for prize</a>

Unregistered

08-01-2006, 05:31 PM

Again, we get the "dangerous" crap, one of the oldest propaganda tools in existence.

Cut the fear talk and discuss the issue on its own merits.

Are we still talking about Al Qaeda?

I'm with you, I truly wish every American would cut the fear talk and get on with being a great nation again. Ever since the Neo.Cons got into power, we have become obsessed with security rather than quality of life. I, for one, would rather travel free from the strip searches and take my chances with the terrorists.

We have nothing to fear but fear. People who are afraid of one another are easily taken for a ride by power hungry types.

Unregistered

08-02-2006, 04:34 AM

I, for one, would rather travel free from the strip searches and take my chances with the terrorists.

Until the plane starts pummeling towards the ground.

This whole comparison of Creationists with Islamic terrrorists is pointless and stupid.

Unregistered

08-03-2006, 01:38 AM

Until the plane starts pummeling towards the ground.

This whole comparison of Creationists with Islamic terrrorists is pointless and stupid.

You seem not only unable to understand any point of view besides your own, you are unable to believe such a thing exists.

You cannot believe there are Americans who would choose death over a lose of freedom/

You cannot believe there are people in the world who see Christians as being more violent than Muslims?

You need to get out more or read something besides Teachnology.

Unregistered

08-03-2006, 02:27 AM

You seem not only unable to understand any point of view besides your own, you are unable to believe such a thing exists.

I understand their points quite well. That doesn't make them reasonable.

You cannot believe there are Americans who would choose death over a lose of freedom.

I can believe it... once the real danger comes to them personally and they have to make a real choice between the two. But as long as they think it will likely happen to someone else, then it is easy to talk courageously.

If a line of people were told that someone on their plane was likely going to blow it up, you know very well that everyone in the line would demand invasions of privacy to uncover the terrorist. Talk is cheap.

You cannot believe there are people in the world who see Christians as being more violent than Muslims?

People believe all sorts of things. Until you can establish a connection between creationists and violence, or creationists and extremist muslims, what's the relevance?

Unregistered

08-03-2006, 03:35 PM

People believe all sorts of things. Until you can establish a connection between creationists and violence, or creationists and extremist muslims, what's the relevance?

Timothy McVeigh destroyed the Fed. Bldg in Ok. as a response to the battle between Branch Dividians and the U.S. Gov.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the violence against medical personnell by "pro-life" fundamentalists?

I have a teacher friend who was attacked for teaching science in Middle School.

We won't go into the lives that will be lost because of opposition to medical research. Many non-fundamentalists regard the war in the Middle East and American support for Israel to be modern Christian Crusading.

But you won't get any of that because you are a true believer and can only see your side.

Unregistered

08-05-2006, 04:17 AM

Timothy McVeigh destroyed the Fed. Bldg in Ok. as a response to the battle between Branch Dividians and the U.S. Gov.

Timothy McVeigh wasn't carrying out a religious battle with the Feds, but rather a political battle. I am not even sure he was a devout Christian.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the violence against medical personnell by "pro-life" fundamentalists?

Sure, but you have to make a connection between the tiny number of violent Christians and the average Creationist. The number of attacks by Operation Rescue extremists (and just about any Creationist will tell you that he/she abhors the violence these extremists perpretrated) is dropping rapidly, not rising. How many murders or attempted murders have we had in this country over the past five years? One? Two?

Many consider Pentecostals to be on the extreme of Christianity. There are over six million Pentecostals in the US, and over 100 million worldwide. Even if only 0.1% of the Pentecostals were dangerous, the violence in this country would be intolerable.

According to a Gallup poll, more than half the people in the US believe in creationism over evolution. So we are not talking about a small number of people here.

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

Again, steretyping an entire class of people based on the actions of an incredibly small number is the real danger. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that those who are devout worshippers and believe in Creationism are more dangerous than the public at large?

I have a teacher friend who was attacked for teaching science in Middle School.

A worthless anecdote. Anyone can dream up these scenarios and offer them as evidence. Can you verify it?

We won't go into the lives that will be lost because of opposition to medical research. Many non-fundamentalists regard the war in the Middle East and American support for Israel to be modern Christian Crusading.

I really don't care what they "regard." As I said before, anyone can have an opinion, no matter how off base. There are some that believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.

Tom Tuttle

08-07-2006, 11:10 PM

Quote: 307 But you won't get any of that because you are a true believer and can only see your side.

[QUOTE 308 I really don't care what they "regard." As I said before, anyone can have an opinion, no matter how off base. There are some that believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.[/QUOTE]

sounds like you two finally agree on something.

Sandy in Illinios

08-08-2006, 01:18 AM

Creationism does not belong in the science curriculum. Theories in science are based on evidence and inferences. Creationism is based on faith, so it should probably be taught only in a philosophy class.

Theories in science are there to explore possiblities. Theories are not natural laws, they are educated guesses based on experimental exploration. Validity and reliablity are two factors that add to the integrity of the research. If is study is valid, it accurately measures what it set out to measure. If it is reliable, the experiment can be repeated over and over with the same results.

I'm sorry, but what you take as scientific proof of evolution is nothing more than an untestable theory of a man who never meant for his postulation to be taken seriously. Creationism, on the other hand, is both reliable (things continue to be created) and valid (these created things can be scientifically studied). Hopefully, science teachers will err on the side of balanced scientific principles, such as living things only come from living things. On another level, there is the hope that they will stop arguing about the chicken or the egg problem, and realize that without the created chicken, there would be no eggs.

Unregistered

08-08-2006, 05:15 PM

Sandy, do you see the difference between attempting to find explanations to verify previously held beliefs and attempts to explain the unknown through dispassionate testing of theories?

Who would you trust more: the party who tests all cars to find the most reliable under a variety of conditions, or the party whose efforts are purely to convince self and others that Ford Motor Company is superior?

Do you get the difference between a witness who does not know either contestant and one who openly holds a bias towards one party?

From what I have read here, the gist of the Creationist attack on the theory of evolution is that scientists are attempting to defend their "belief" system. My problem is this: I can understand why you would choose belief over reason; I can't accept the inability to imagine pure reason in others.

Tom Tuttle

08-08-2006, 05:52 PM

I can understand why you would choose belief over reason; I can't accept the inability to imagine pure reason in others.

Precisely! I choose loyalty over reason in every relationship worth having, including my relationship with my Maker. But I know when I'm doing it and why. And I don't try to enforce my passionate response as the only one for all people. I don't question that my wife is the greatest woman alive. But I don't ask others to make that same choice. Somebody said earlier that the disability to accept science while holding a personal faith is the intellectual equivalent of not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I suspect that those who feel compelled to challenge science with their beliefs are uncomfortable with those beliefs. Why else would they have the need to conquer the minds of others? You have a religion? Fine. Enjoy. Why the compulsion to cram it down throats? if your city on a hill is what its suppossed to be, you wouldn't need to kidnap inhabitants.

Florida Teacher

08-11-2006, 12:32 AM

Responding to "IB Student" about the Constitution. There is a lie about the First Amendment that has been repeated enough times that it is taken as fact. The lie is that the Amendment prescribes a separation of church and state. If one simply reads the First Amendment it says, "Congress has make no law regarding an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Notice that the words "separation," "church," and "state" are not found in the First Amendment. Those words come from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1803, who, by the way was not involved in the writing of the Constitution. Study the debate that went on in the Constitutional Congress, and find that they had several possible versions of the 1st Amendment. In the end, they chose their words carefully. When it says "Congress" it means Congress. Simply stated, they did not want to have a state church in America like the European countries did. At the same time, they did not want to prohibit the free exercise of religion. So, for people of the 21st Century to say the writers meant that God and State should be separate is a total misconception of what the writers intended. That idea turns their intent on its head. Jefferson himself went to a church in Washington for many years that met in the US Capitol building. Do you think the founders meant that religion should be something personal, but kept out of the public domain? That's ridiculous!

How does that affect the Creation/Evolution debate? Well, several in this forum have stated that Creation should not be taught because it is based on faith. Their inference is that Evolution somehow is based on fact. Come on, let's be real. There is no evidence that macro-evolution has taken place anywhere on earth. Yes, micro-evolution occurs where species adapt to their environments, but to make the quantum leap that this "proves" (macro) evolution is fact is not real science. Science, as you say, is based on observation. Why have the basic assumptions of Evolutionary science (the amount of years, the missing links, etc.) changed so many times in the last 40 years? Because there is no real evidence for any of it.

None of us can go back to the beginning of it all and observe it for ourselves. Besides, we can run computer models that simulate the supposed conditions of the beginning of time. We can simulate millions and billions of years. But every time simulations are run, do we get a world like we have. No, we get nothing. So, in reality, both Creation and Evolution are based on faith.

To me, observing all that is around me and seeing the grand design in all things (for example, the miracle of reproduction) leads me to say that it is easier to believe in a Designer/Creator than in a world where this all happened by chance. In the final analysis, to believe in Evolution takes more faith than to believe in Creation. So maybe Evolution should be taught in a Philosophy class too, because it is a system of belief about the beginning of the world based on faith.

Unregistered

08-11-2006, 04:03 AM

I suspect that those who feel compelled to challenge science with their beliefs are uncomfortable with those beliefs. Why else would they have the need to conquer the minds of others?

Creationists think that scientists have it all wrong regarding the creation of the universe. They feel that the truth (as they know it) needs to be taught in our public schools. That is perfectly normal human behavior.

I don't think their truth is correct, but I certainly would understand why they would want their version of the truth taught. After all, who wants something "incorrect" taught to children?

The inability to understand those with differing opinions, and the resulting personal attacks on those with differing opinions, continues.

Unregistered

08-11-2006, 07:17 PM

ok evolution is science

creationism is religion

two different things

obivously.

does anyone remember the law that no public school shall teach any type of religous belief

cuz of this same contraversy we are basically discussing?

Unregistered

08-12-2006, 02:46 PM

does anyone remember the law that no public school shall teach any type of religous belief

That is precisely the issue. The courts will decide what can, and cannot, be taught. In the meantime, everyone has the right to petition local governments to have children taught in the manner they see fit. Naturally, local governments do not have to abide their wishes (and cannot if their decision proves unconstitutional).

Why insult? Why label? Why get worked up? We're all human beings here, with our own opinions and desires. Let the courts decide.

Madology

08-12-2006, 09:10 PM

I have 3 degrees in biology and I am a faithful and devoted Christian. I teach zoology and most certainly teach evolution. I have no doubt that God created the evolution. The way I look at this is: Life according to evolution began in an organic soup or muck environment but I NEVER question who the "cooK" was.

I tell my zoology students that they can choose to believe the concept of evolution or not, it is up to them, but they still have to know it for the exams!

Sure there are holes in the evolutionary theory, but there is far more evidence than lack of evidence.

Hope this helps

Unregistered

08-13-2006, 06:01 PM

evolution is a part of science

creationism is a part of religion

they both clash and science and religion are two different things

this whole contraversy is like mixing oil with water!

Unregistered

08-13-2006, 06:48 PM

people have to remember that there are a lot of people who don't have a faith or don't believe in such thing as a god.

but this is just like what i go through, my friends who are religious always tend to push THEIR beliefs onto me and i don't go that way, so in a it's somewhat offending when you're in a SCIENCE class being taught something that has to do with RELIGION when you don't have one.

if you want to lean about creationism fine go to a church or a religious school

but if you want to learn about evolution go to school.

the reason why these two are taught in different places is because they are two different things, there is no use into mixing the two.

and if we did teach creationism in schools it wouldn't be called science because truth be told....it's not.

Unregistered

08-14-2006, 05:46 PM

This is a very touchy subject for me and I actually have to stop reading some of the posts because it really fires me up. For those that think religion should be seperated, I ask you what is printed on the money you use, could it be "IN GOD WE TRUST"? This country was founded by a group that wanted religious freedom. Back to the evolution topic. It is a crying shame that a majority of the textbooks focus on evolution. I am trying to find a zoology course for high school that would even mention creationism, impossible task. It is sad that one man's theory (Darwin) has become so mainstream that it overshadows centurys of knowledge. For the critics out there, say creationism is a theory, then evolution would be a theory as well. Why are we so quick to believe that we came from apes and so quick to discount that we were created by the maker of the universe? Why is one theory focused on over the other? When people take God out of the picture, then you take away the ten commandments as well. So our laws come from man so why should anyone obey them? Lets just party it up! No laws then inscest, rape, murder, it is all okay. Things that are morally accepted today were punishible by even 50 years ago (adultry). Where will that leave us in another 50 years? By then pedophilia will be socially acceptable. I think we were created and Darwin has his theory reversed, we are become a bunch of animals.

Unregistered

08-14-2006, 06:14 PM

everybody has a right to believe whatever they want to. nobody has a right to project personal beliefs into science education. anyone who thinks that evolution is just a personal belief simply does not understand what science is.

look at it this way. maybe you believe you can make a car run on tap water. that doesn't give you the right to fill up my tank from your garden hose. because it doesn't matter what you believe, internal combustion engines need gasoline (or whatever fuel they were designed for). that's science. don't just put what you like in the tank, put what has proven consitently to make the car go.

Unregistered

08-15-2006, 01:25 AM

I find many of your resonses very interesting, yet no one is really addressing the original question. The person asked if they should include Creationism in an essay- not teach it in a school. I also find it somewhat disconcerting that a comment was made about how theories and faith shouldn't be taught in the public school. Need I remind you that Evolution is still (and in my opinion) always will be just a theory. This is due to the lack of proof and evidence. Now God may or may not be a part of who you are, but don;t our students deserve to know that their are more then one solutions to a decade long question? I teach Literature at the high school level and I would never limit my students by only teaching them half of a story- even if I don't believe in it. And I certainly don't prevent my students from exploring all possible options!

Unregistered

08-15-2006, 07:55 PM

I try to work in creation myths whenever I can. There are hundreds of them. They tell us so much about the cultures. Of course, the Adam and Eve creation myth is shared by Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and it is very compelling. Daniel Quinn's analysis of that creation myth in "Ishmael" is great and gives a real understanding of western history and how we got into the mess we're in. By the way, I don't use "myth" to mean a story that is not true, but rather a story that tells truths that cannot be explained rationally.

However, mythology does not belong in science class. Science is for the technological aspects of human endeavor. We need science to help us accomplish tasks such as overcoming disease or solving global warming. In those cases, we need testable theories, not beliefs. Evolution is science's best explanation to date of how life has adapted into so many variations. I believe in God, but when it comes to finding a cure for AIDS or West Nile Virus, I depend on those who study how viruses evolve. The myths explain why man must suffer from disease, but they do not give us cures.

Daniel Goldberg

08-17-2006, 12:05 AM

I don't normally disrespect a site and post not against their wishes but against protocol for not having registered first. But this unregistered member was upset at your question. Not because you asked, but because an intelligent person would even think to ask it. Don't you know that science requires falsifiability and testability to even consider an idea as science per se, and not a belief system, usu. that's religion. Creationism fails both requirements science demands in order to be cloaked in the well-respected matle science wears.

One cannot disprove creationism. Whatever it is, and I'm not interested in almost radicalized, right-wing, organized religion's Fairy Tales for grown-ups, and neither shd you be, the point, though is creationism is a belief, not science. If I say I can see dead people. You might balk. Asking me to prove it to you. I'd say tap your heels together three times, say "abracadabra" and open your eyes and lo! you'll see dead people. So you do that. And don't see anything that is any different than before the small ritual. Your friend tells you that your too much of a doubter, skeptic, non-believer to see the dead people... this kind of evasion is classic and common with charlatans taking money from the credulous (tarot card readers, ear wax cone burners, and lots of other quacks). You cannot prove that I cannot see dead people because you cannot enter my personal, internal world to find out. As for testability. The same excuses is used when tests come out equal to, or less than, chance, which is what they always do.

Look. It'd be great if there were some way to communicate with personalities that are disembodied (I presume). But I would not want to know that Aunt Sally says she loves me; or Uncle Joe thinks I should get married. I would ask, and any putative spirit that knew me in life would know that I'd be curious about bigger things: Is there really an afterlife? A Heaven? Hell? Where do you believe you are. Some other dimension we cannot see or feel except via Madame Medium RipYouOff LaughToTheBank.

Sir or madam. Grow up some. Adults have let go of the kind of baloney creationism espouses which, trust me, science and scientists would love to be true (like UFOs, for example). But every test ever authentically conducted by scientists has come up with nothing. Every one for one-hundred years or more of valid tests. James Randi (The Amazing Randi) offers a prize of a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate any paranormal activity, from dowsing to speaking with the dead. In forty years or so, no one has stepped forward and proven their case. In fact, Randi is a magician (and a genius--a child prodigy you may recall). Being a magician, he knows how the art of illusion works and not one claim either performed better than chance or put one over on him. Randi even embarassed the great Richard Feynman (albeit indirectly) by showing that he, too, can bend spoons just like Uri Geller (the Los Alamos crowd for some reason had a bout of temporary insanity and Nobel laureates and world-changers (i.e., this world and our world) like Feynman were taken in, fooled by Geller. Randi explained how the trick works and with him present, Geller could not, even a little even once, bend anything. You see? Believe what you wish on Saturday or Sunday. But stay away from my kids during the week. My God, there are still people who fall for this claptrap even here in the Northeast. It's sad.

DG

Follow Logic

08-18-2006, 05:27 PM

Evolution is a theory, and a poor theory at best. It contradicts the accepted, undisputable, scientific 2nd law of thermo dynamics (ie. everything is running down). If one follows the 'logic' of evolution, one would have no choice but to conclude that all things are getting better with time. Therefore, could someone please explain death, aging, rust etc. to this simple minded Christian?
Did you know the Bible contains scientific facts about the Earth that were not discovered to be true by the scientific world until thousands of years after the written word came in to existance? (ie. "...the circle of the earth, (Isaiah 40:22); the Earth's invisible axis (Job 26:7); the channels in the sea (Ps 18:15) and there are a host of other passages as well. How would the common man of that era know and write about all these scientific facts not yet discovered by man? Perhaps the creator of the heavens, the seas, and all that in them is, told them. Food for thought.

Unregistered

08-19-2006, 12:05 PM

Evolution is a theory, and a poor theory at best.

Most of the arguments presented here by Creationists begin and end with a simple misunderstanding about what "theory" means. If you have an interest in defending your faith and really feel there is some need to attack science in order to defend those beliefs, you should take the time to understand the nomenclature. It is as if I were to attack your belief in the Bible and go on about the Bible as an icon hanging above the altar. No matter what my thoughts might be, the fact that I confuse the Bible with the Cross would make me appear foolish in the eyes of those who have some basic understanding of the subject. Spend a few hours reading up and really trying to understand Scientific Method. When you understand what scientists mean by "theory" you will save yourself (and other Christians) much embarassment. Remember that a little knowledge is dangerous. If people of faith would have the humility to admit they are not experts in science, they would appear less repellent to the educated.

Unregistered

08-19-2006, 12:47 PM

I try to work in creation myths whenever I can. There are hundreds of them.

Honest discussions require the use of language we know will be interpreted correctly.

I would never use the term "myth" to describe anyone's religious beliefs. Sure, there is a technical definition of the word that accurately describes religious stories, but the layman's definition of the word is "make-believe." Using the term in one sense, knowing full well that the parents will interpret it differently, is the very definition of "disingenuous."

Unregistered

08-19-2006, 12:56 PM

Here is what is NOT included in James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge:

Claims of a Religious or Spiritual nature.

Not even James Randi (and I'm a fan) equates belief in the paranormal with religious beliefs, primarily because they cannot be tested scientifically (and not because he feels they are hokum).

Sir or madam. Grow up some.

Is this the sort of reasoning you espowould use in a science class?

Unregistered

08-19-2006, 01:00 PM

When you understand what scientists mean by "theory" you will save yourself (and other Christians) much embarassment.

The rational way of debating is to state the scientific definition of "theory," then reason why the opponent is using the term incorrectly. But for some reason, rational debate appears to be lacking in this thread. Instead, it is apparently dominated by insults.

Unregistered

08-19-2006, 09:27 PM

Honest discussions require the use of language we know will be interpreted correctly.

I would never use the term "myth" to describe anyone's religious beliefs. Sure, there is a technical definition of the word that accurately describes religious stories, but the layman's definition of the word is "make-believe." Using the term in one sense, knowing full well that the parents will interpret it differently, is the very definition of "disingenuous."

Your "layman" definition of "myth" is inaccurate and this is really the crux of much of the disagreement here between fact based and belief based understanding. Just because you react so strongly to a very important word, you should not assume that "the parents will interpret" anything.

Though you could not know this, I teach the unit on mythology with every precaution, including letters to parents before the unit begins and careful explanations to students throughout. I am fully aware of the delicacy of the subject. But a lack of knowing the particulars does not seem to stand in the way of blanket judgements.

We have a serious disconnect between the realms of belief and reality in our culture. That disconnect is dangerous to individuals and to society on a spectrum of levels. Wars have been waged over this misunderstanding. Even educated and otherwise rational beings have puposely disconnected their ability to think rationally about the most important choice, the guiding force of their lives.

Most people adopt the religion of their parents without much thought about the ramifications. Now that the world is no longer geographically segregated, educated people need to garner knowledge of other religious thoughts besides the ones their mommies taught them. Educators have a duty to present all ideas. Students who understand that there are many religions in the world and that most are worthy of reverence are more able to live in a pluralistic global society. Sectarians will always object to the efforts of educated persons to present the larger picture, but educators need not narrow their range to suit those who would divide humanity along the thin lines of doctrine.

Purposefully limiting the understanding of your own mind and spirit is an individual choice. Attempts to extend those limits to the education system are perceived as a threat against liberty and the development of the intellect. I can think of nothing more "disingenuous" then attempts to limit knowledge because of personal belief.

Unregistered

08-19-2006, 10:12 PM

The rational way of debating is to state the scientific definition of "theory," then reason why the opponent is using the term incorrectly. But for some reason, rational debate appears to be lacking in this thread. Instead, it is apparently dominated by insults.

I'm sure you would love for me to give you a simplistic, five word definition of a term that requires a thoughtful study to fully understand. Then you could poke holes in my manner of expression and ignore the entire point, which, believe it or not, is not to insult anyone. The point is, once again, that those who claim to represent Christ to non-believers would do less harm to His person and His message by taking the time to understand the ideas they attack in His name.

Unregistered

08-20-2006, 01:58 AM

I'm sure you would love for me to give you a simplistic, five word definition of a term that requires a thoughtful study to fully understand. Then you could poke holes in my manner of expression and ignore the entire point, which, believe it or not, is not to insult anyone.

Anyone can use the old "if you disagree with me, then you're not properly educated" bit. Let's shoot for something higher.

Unregistered

08-20-2006, 02:10 AM

Your "layman" definition of "myth" is inaccurate and this is really the crux of much of the disagreement here between fact based and belief based understanding. Just because you react so strongly to a very important word, you should not assume that "the parents will interpret" anything.

There is a popular television show on cable called "Myth Busters." Obviously they are not using the term "myth" in the same sense as you. The notion that the majority of parents use the term myth in the same sense as you is pure fantasy.

Calling people's religious beliefs "myths" is disingenuous. You know very well that the public uses the term to mean "something that is make believe, not true." Most people associate myths with old Greek and Roman legends, precisely because no one believes them anymore. Almost no religious people would call their beliefs "myths." Go to any church and ask the parishioners whether they believe that Jesus' dying on the cross is a myth.

Honest discussion requires a thorough attempt to communicate in a language that is least likely to lead to misunderstanding.

Unregistered

08-20-2006, 03:16 PM

There is a popular television show on cable called "Myth Busters." Obviously they are not using the term "myth" in the same sense as you. The notion that the majority of parents use the term myth in the same sense as you is pure fantasy.

Calling people's religious beliefs "myths" is disingenuous. You know very well that the public uses the term to mean "something that is make believe, not true." Most people associate myths with old Greek and Roman legends, precisely because no one believes them anymore. Almost no religious people would call their beliefs "myths." Go to any church and ask the parishioners whether they believe that Jesus' dying on the cross is a myth.

Honest discussion requires a thorough attempt to communicate in a language that is least likely to lead to misunderstanding.

You seem to derive your meanings from television shows, while the person who teachs the unit on myths is referring to the academic definition. Maybe the tv watcher is more representative of the average American. That seems to be the crux of her attack. If the myth teacher is, as she claims, sending a letter of explanation to parents defining terms and explaining to children, what is your beef? Or is it really just your second point, that you don't like hearing YOUR beliefs described as myth. Okay to describe the beliefs of the Native Americans or the Chinese, just not your own? Maybe the problem is that getting your ideas from tv is rather narrowing and not really appropriate to an intellectual discussion?

Unregistered

08-20-2006, 11:44 PM

Maybe the tv watcher is more representative of the average American. That seems to be the crux of her attack.

Of course that is what I am talking about. Didn't I make that crystal clear?

If the myth teacher is, as she claims, sending a letter of explanation to parents defining terms and explaining to children, what is your beef? Or is it really just your second point, that you don't like hearing YOUR beliefs described as myth.

I don't like describing ANYONE'S beliefs as myths... not as long as the average person holds a completely different understanding of the word.

This is no different than calling parents ignorant when they lack knowledge of a subject. Sure, the technical use of the word may be accurate, but only an idiot would use the term publically and not expect a backlash.

A letter home is no substitute for honest language. Some teachers think that as long as they send a letter home, they can do anything.

I have a better idea: Instead of using the term "myth," call them "religious beliefs." This way, you wouldn't have to send the letter home.

Okay to describe the beliefs of the Native Americans or the Chinese, just not your own?

Oh ho! Let's just insult me with no justification. Show me anywhere in this thread where I said it was okay to call the beliefs of non-Christians "myths."
The only non-Christians I mentioned were the Romans and Greeks regarding their ancient religions, and I said use of the word "myth" was acceptable because no one practices those religions anymore.

Maybe the problem is that getting your ideas from tv is rather narrowing and not really appropriate to an intellectual discussion?

Let me give you a short reading comprehension lesson: I brought up tv as evidence that parents are more familiar with the non-academic use of the word "myth." Is that clear? Do I need to explain any further?

Sorry to those who are watching about my nastiness, but I am tired of those who constantly embellish what I stated.

Unregistered

08-22-2006, 12:50 AM

in your passion, you once again miss the point. the word myth, as defined by literature discipline and not pop culture, has great merit that cannot be discarded to bow to the uneducated. teaching students to view religious teachings as "myth", once the correct understanding of terms has been accomplished, allows them to avoid the pitfalls made by so many uneducated or poorly educated americans. myth is the language of the human spirit. it speaks to us of the dreams we share. those who think their beliefs are concrete and steel, like scientific law, have designed for themselves a cage of intolerance and arrogance. the ancients refused to even name their Maker. they feared doing so would be a kind of idolatry. those who define the Almighty as if they have total knowledge have lost the humility which is required to approach the throne. (you choose whether to call that throne science of religion, for those who understand myth the name of truth is irrelevant). based on your responses, you could lose a great deal of defensiveness and hostility by learning a bit about the study of mythology.

Unregistered

08-23-2006, 02:06 AM

in your passion, you once again miss the point. the word myth, as defined by literature discipline and not pop culture, has great merit that cannot be discarded to bow to the uneducated.

Again, you can teach the meaning of the word "ignorant" without directing the use of the word in a fashion that will cause misunderstandings. I wouldn't call a students' parents "ignorant," even if the technical usage is correct.

Keep in mind that defining the word "myth" to mean "something obviously untrue" is not incorrect. It isn't as if the parents are using the word incorrectly. So there is no need to straighten them out on anything.

Teaching students to view religious teachings as "myth", once the correct understanding of terms has been accomplished, allows them to avoid the pitfalls made by so many uneducated or poorly educated americans.

Using the word "myth" can lead to misunderstandings, therefore avoid it. That is the number one rule in communication; choose words appropriate to your audience. Being correct in itself is not enough.

Unregistered

08-23-2006, 11:23 AM

Using the word "myth" can lead to misunderstandings, therefore avoid it. That is the number one rule in communication; choose words appropriate to your audience. Being correct in itself is not enough.

Where did you find the list of rules for communication? In your head? Interesting use of the appeal to authority with your own imagination as the all-knowing.

Too bad Joseph Cambell didn't have access to your mandates about which words are okay to use and which are not.

Since I teach a course in mythology and have written several books, including one for children, on the subject, you'll forgive me if I don't heed your Fatwah. There are a great number of people who rever the word "myth" as the highest expression of the human spirit. I don't doubt that there are many who view the creation tale of the Koran as somehow holier than the thousands of other creation tales. I don't doubt that there are many who believe they have the right to enforce their will on others or who believe that women are created secondarily. As an educator, I accept the responsibility to enlighten those who suffer from such delusions. I do so with the hope that the human race might someday begin to live up to the potentiality endowed upon us by our Maker.

The word "myth" is desriptive of the most sacred ideas that link us to God. Those who seek to denigrate the word are either ignorant or disrespectful. I shall continue to oppose ignorance and disrepespect whether that violates your personal list of communication rules or not.

Thank you for you opinion of my beliefs. It is not very original, but you certainly give it a unique sense of self importance.

Unregistered

08-23-2006, 07:10 PM

It seems the discussion around the use of the word myth is interesting but perhaps the two parties are not as far apart as they seem to think they are. Who can disupte that the use of the word may offend those who know only the popular definition rather than the academic? But the myth teacher states repeatedly that this was dealth with by letters home to parents and explanations to teachers.
Furthermore, I find the idea that we humans are only able to describe the awesome divinity through metaphor to be an enlarging idea. Once that is understood, how could any reasonable person object.
The argument that popular misconceptions of terms that have assumed a perjorative context can never be used regardless of their original meaning is one which is linguistically impractical. For example, I think I should be able to refer to my aunt as a gay dame if I take the time to inform my audience that the word "gay" originally has no sexual contotation and that the word "dame" means she was married to a knight. If my listener then refuses to consider the classical definition and stand on popular usage as an excuse to take offense, then the listener owns his own discontent.

Unregistered

08-24-2006, 01:32 AM

There is so much that Darwin did not know. He was sure that fossil evidence would support his theory, but that has not been the case. There is just so much more to the picture that Darwin was never aware of or could even imagine. Read Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Creator" which features today's most brilliant scientists and experts throughout the world discussing the big bang, evolution, and many other topics. Also read Dr. Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box". I think you will find these findings most interesting and stimulating to your students conversation in class over these topics.

Unregistered

08-25-2006, 10:12 PM

I've heard this point that Darwin didn't know everything so many times. People who feel the need to equate their personal faith with the cold reasoning of science love to point out that there were many errors in his writings.

I know it's hard for people who believe that there are humans who are infallible to grasp this, but educated people don't expect Darwin or Freud or Newton or Einstien to be flawless. Those men are respected because they took their observations and put forth reasonable explanations that were original enough to start many other great minds working on their fields of study.

Oppossing the Theory of Evolution by criticizing the fine points of Darwin's work is like saying that airplanes are not safe because the Wright Brothers had an impractical and dangerous original design. Scientists who study adaptive life forms in modern times are aware that Darwin's original observations and conclusions were far from conclusive. That science is still mining the rich field originally plowed by Darwin is a testimony to his genius.

Everytime a religous person attacks science or a great scientist, their cause falls back another giant step. Educated people will never willingly return to the Middle Ages. If you have a relgious system worthy of sharing, find ways to share it without attacking brilliant historical figures. It just makes you look petty and makes your religion seem like just another throwback to the dark ages before science.

Francis Chortita

08-26-2006, 01:00 PM

I am a religious person who has no doubt that I owe my existence to a loving Creator. I read the Bible daily and believe the Bible is the word of God. I also teach science and follow the advances of science avidly. The reason I write this is to let those who have been writing here about evolution, Darwin, and myth that it is possible to have faith and still keep an open mind to new discoveries. When the Bible says the world was created in seven days, I accept that as a metaphor. Exactly which stories in the Bible are metaphors and which are factual, the mind of man is still discovering. The metaphors are not less important than the facts. I don't know why some of my fellow Christians only honor linear thinking and must have absolute knowledge in order to have faith. I can believe without full understanding. that's how the Apostle Paul defined faith, isn't it?

Unregistered

08-28-2006, 09:02 PM

Where did you find the list of rules for communication? In your head? Interesting use of the appeal to authority with your own imagination as the all-knowing.

Okay, don't use words appropriate for your audience. Good plan.

Unregistered

08-29-2006, 03:25 AM

Unregistered

08-29-2006, 07:55 PM

The basic definition of science is that it is knowledge gained by observing our physical world. It must be observable, testable, and repeatable!!!! Evolution does not meet a single one of these criteria. I am a scientist and teach students everyday that observation is the first step in the scientific method. I get so upset by people saying that creation is religion and that evolution is science. Neither one is science! Both require faith in an unknown. It is more reasonable to believe in a creator who spoke the world into existence, than to believe that chemicals just happened to come together in exactly the right combination to form the first amino acids, that just happened to come together to form the first single celled organisms, that just happened to mutate into something more complex, etc. What we have to remember is that evolution is just a THEORY. That means it is a guess that can not be observed, tested, repeated, or proven. Evolution can never be a fact. Why is everyone so afraid of there being a God who made us? Could it be that we would be held accountable for our actions if that were the case? One more thing in response to the comment about "seperation of church and state". The constitution does not say anything about seperation of church and state. You need to go back and read what it says!!! That statement was a fairly recent one that was never in the constitution and was never intended to be implied. At least 90% of the authors of the constitution were christians who believed in God, PRAYED in public, and wanted religion to be part of every aspect of life. They would be horrified to know what has happened to our society in the past 50 years.

BLBO

08-30-2006, 12:14 AM

Tom Tuttle

08-30-2006, 11:32 PM

Evolution and creationism BOTH deserve to be taught in schools. BOTH are "religions" by the fact that they both require believing in something that cannot be absolutley proven. For creationists in the beginning was GOD and for evolutionists in the beginning was a rock or dust or dirt, you pick.
.

You'll be comforted to know that both are taught in most public schools. Evolution is taught as a very small part of the units on biological diversity and adaptation of life forms in genetic mutation. This is taught, of course, in science classes.
Creation is taught in Language Arts and in Social Studies. When we study Islam, for example, we teach their creation story with Adam and Eve. It is not the only creation tale we teach, of course. There are many. We also teach that the Japanese believe their islands were created by two gods with a spear whose water drops formed the islands.
We don't teach children about our personal beliefs because the U.S. is a land of many faiths, and teaching one over another is against the principles of fairness that are foundational to public education.
For those who wish their children to learn religion in school, I suggest a parochial school or sunday school.

kchap

08-31-2006, 08:28 AM

To Bilbo, Technology Old-Timer,
Ditto! I loved your response. It hit every single point square and on target. Thank you!

Unregistered

09-04-2006, 05:50 PM

Evolution is a fair tail for adults, so say leading evolutionist. Theory of evolution no more falls under the umbrella of empirical science than the theory of Creationism. However, most evolutionist admit the evidence clearly supports Creationism.

Unregistered

09-04-2006, 08:42 PM

I think it fascinating that the very ones who should have an open mind do not. I am for creatiionism and the reason is very simple; evolution doesn't make sense. Let me explain...
Evolution as I understand it says that change basically comes from mutation. What happens is that there is a change of some sort and that change leads to a change in the structure of a creature. Evolution also says that most mutations are bad. Witness such things as birth defects, Tay Sachs disease and other things. Some mutations are good however and because they are good, the creature is is mutated in a positive way has a greater chance of survival than either the "bad" mutation or the creature who does not mutate at al. One of the finest exmaples of this is the moths who if they are not the tight color end up being eaten because they stand out whereas the moths that did change or " mutated" survive and are then able to procreate. So then evolution says 1) most mutations are bad and 2) "good" mutatioins help keep the species alive even if it has changes somewhat.

Mathematically, a mutation is a rare event. I am not a mathematician so I cannot give the the exact numbers but I know it is rare just as birth defects are rare though they do happen. If most mutations are bad and a mutation happens very infrequently, the chance of a good mutation is rarer still. The chance of two rare "good" mutations becaomes a very large number ( i.e. one in several millions) The subject then shifts to the possibility of a number greater than two and how many good mutations can happen simultaneously becomes astronomical.

Witness the human eye. Not only is it a good thing which I doubt few would argue against it, but it has to have five, count them five different highly delicate and specialiozed things to all work at once in the proper sequence for it to happen. YOu need, the cornea, lens , optic nerve, rod and cones all working together at once in order for the eye to ever work. How can this happen in the evolutionary setting? An optic nerve without anything else would be a detriment because one could not utilize the optic nerve by itself therefore it would be a liability and would cause the demise of the creature quicker because it would not be as fit as the other creatures. How could the lens eveolve without somethign to hold it in place? Too many issues. I don't even want to get into the ear (no pun intended) because that is the same issue. THe only conclusion then is that there has to be a Creator greater than the subjects to exist and most folks call that Creator God. By their own standards evolution doe snot make sense. I believe mathematically, the odds are far too great for it all to happen by accident or mutation. THere has to be somethign greater than blind chance becuase it just doesn't make sense to me.

Hello, I was doing a essay on the Evolution vs Creationism argument and just wanted to ask what you people think of it

Unregistered

09-04-2006, 09:52 PM

The chances of human beings being able to evolve into their present form are indeed pretty fantastic. Of course every second on Earth provides an opportunity for such rare combinations of events to occur, so it is left to anyone's guess as to whether evolution is likely or not. Those who are skeptical can use this skepticism to refute evolution, and it is a reasonable argument. I tend to think that the opportunities are high enough to explain our current world using evolution, but I have been wrong before.

In short, no one knows for sure. But evolution (unlike creationism) is a scientific explanation, so it belongs in a science class. That doens't make it correct, or even likely. As I stated before, Newtonian physics was a given at one time in history as well. Now we know better.

R.R. from SW. L.a

09-06-2006, 12:56 AM

Science doesn't need you to believe in it. If you study long enough you will understand it. Most will not understand, and that's okay. You don't have to understand electricity to watch your boob tube because the folks with the knowledge made it simple and all you are suppossed to do is look at it and buy what it tells you to. They don't care if you think the pictures come from a spirit in the sky.

Science does not depend upon popular acceptance to proceed. So whether you and Earl believe in it or not is really not that important to science. It doesn't work by popular acceptance. You can't vote out evolution because science isn't a reality tv show.

We have to push religion hard because it takes faith. We don't have to "sell" science. Those who attain an educated view will simply see the clear reality. Science is based on reason and observable phenomena and those who attain the education to understand it will accept the principles as understanding grows. Every major scientist accepts the adaptation of living things and the origin of species, what we are calling here "evolution." Many of those scientists were educated in the Christian religion as children.

Go ahead and teach creation stories in the public schools. You can say the world was made in 7 days or you can tell the kids the Raven made it but those who grow up to become scientists will no longer need the fairy tales to advance the scientific knowledge of the human race.

Sorry Jihadists, but the genie is out of the bottle and the world is just not going back to Theocracy. Why, because the truth has a life of its own, or haven't you noticed?

Unregistered

09-06-2006, 02:49 AM

If evolution is the way things got to be the way they are, then we are in sad shape. If creation is the way things got to be the way they are, then there is definitely a hope in this world.

Unregistered

09-06-2006, 02:49 AM

Why, because the truth has a life of its own, or haven't you noticed?

Do not equate science with truth. Science seeks truth, but can never attain it. That doesn't mean it isn't useful or insightful, but at no time in history can scientists claim to know the truth. (Those that have often end up with egg on their face.)

Lunarious

09-06-2006, 08:59 PM

Creationism does not belong in the science curriculum. Theories in science are based on evidence and inferences. Creationism is based on faith, so it should probably be taught only in a philosophy class.

Teachers should only teach Fact, and if tehy can't, than teach both sides of the debate.
Evolution has large gulfs and Mistakes agaisnt it, so Saying it's fact and brainwashing kids to think so is not the right thing to do.
If you can't disscuss Creationism than at least let them hear the Gulfs and problems with evolution. Evolution and Aethism is no less a matter of faith than relegious beleifs when it comes to not being proven.
Let the kids form there own opinions, just give them the facts.

Unregistered

09-07-2006, 12:10 AM

Do not equate science with truth. Science seeks truth, but can never attain it. That doesn't mean it isn't useful or insightful, but at no time in history can scientists claim to know the truth. (Those that have often end up with egg on their face.)

I think in your rush to quote a cliche, you missed the writer's whole point. Science does not deal with truth, but with facts, as you state However, the scientific process has freed the human race from ignorance and superstition. That is a "truth" worth defending. The writer wasn't talking about a particular truth but the process of basing our understanding of the world around us upon reason instead of 5000 year old myths or wishful thinking. Get it?

Unregistered

09-08-2006, 01:26 AM

Paul R. from Boston

09-08-2006, 10:28 PM

If you want to talk about the scientific process, fine. Just be careful about using the term "truth" cavalierly. Too often we think that evolution, as a means of explaining our origin, must be true because it has been proven. Nonsense. It is a model, a highly successful model (so far). But it may be no more true than the ether.

One more time. Truth is not the concern of scientific theory, but, as you correctly state, rather to set up a working model for further exploration. On the other hand, defending the historical movement of humanity away from superstition and toward scientific enquiry can be described as a search for or defense of truth, without being in the least cavalier. I know that there are many who have published here who are incapable of appreciating that words like "truth" and "myth" can have more than one definition or conotation, but then there are others who require a degree of complexity to find clarity. To those I say, "the truth will set us free!"

Unregistered

09-09-2006, 08:53 PM

I have never defended Creationism here, nor do I even believe in it. But there is a big difference between a Creationist proponent and someone who advocates respect for other people's religious beliefs. I certainly believe that science classes should be left to scientific approaches, but we can do that without attacking those who disagee. Many of the posts in here are not only antagonistic towards those with Creationist beliefs, they are insulting as well. There is no need for that.

It is all about respect.

Paul R. from Boston

09-10-2006, 04:15 PM

I not only respect Creationists. I am one. But I also believe that when people seek to use political pressure to enforce personal beliefs in public schools or, as been happening, disasterously, in scientific research, that's a different matter. Respect for the faith of others is important. Standing up to those who wish to control the beliefs of others is very much another. I've noticed that the far right tromps all over everyone else until someone stands up to them and then they cry, "you hurt our feelings." I for one am a little tired of it and am always gratified when someone puts them in there place. These folks use religion as an excuse to tamper with the scientific findings on global warming and stem cell research. They seek to turn science classes into places where their narrowly paternalistic faith is taught to children of many faiths. Yes, there are ordinary folks who are just simple people looking for answers who are upset because science currently does not dovetail with their ancient explanations for the origins of life. But the leadership that is taking advantage of their simplicity to attack free thought is insidious and dangerous. I don't like to see Aunt Sally or the lady next to me in the pew offended, but I'll risk that rather than see the facists who use religion as a tool subvert our education system.

Unregistered

09-11-2006, 02:53 AM

I not only respect Creationists. I am one.

And an interesting Creationist you are, considering that you blast the Right and cast off your own belief as an "ancient explanation." :D

But I also believe that when people seek to use political pressure to enforce personal beliefs in public schools or, as been happening, disasterously, in scientific research, that's a different matter.

The ability to exert political pressure is a fundamental right to all Americans, not just to those that agree with your viewpoint. In fact, the entire notion of Americana revolves around our right to free speech and peaceful assembly. Are we really expecting those who disagree with what is being taught to sit quietly and allow it to take place, even though they think it is damaging their community?

I've noticed that the far right tromps all over everyone else until someone stands up to them and then they cry, "you hurt our feelings."

Everyone does that, even those on the Left. It is basic human nature.

I for one am a little tired of it and am always gratified when someone puts them in there place. These folks use religion as an excuse to tamper with the scientific findings on global warming and stem cell research.

I am not certain how one tampers with findings, unless you are accusing them of breaking into the publisher's office at night.

I don't like to see Aunt Sally or the lady next to me in the pew offended, but I'll risk that rather than see the facists who use religion as a tool subvert our education system.

And a lot of respect you show, calling them Fascists. I think I understand Fascism, and I don't see how Creationists can be so labeled. Or was this just a petty insult?

Unregistered

09-11-2006, 05:53 PM

www.answersingenesis.org

There is as much faith in evolutionism as there is in creationism... no one living today was there when the earth was created. And the theory of evolution was established by humans... fallible beings. If you want to base it all on carbon dating, well, that's not even accurate.

Look at the Grand Canyon which is said to have taken millions of years to become what it is. Now look at the gigantic crevice that is forming in Africa. It's taken only months to form.

Also, DNA proves that humans did not evolve.

Unregistered

09-11-2006, 06:26 PM

Interesting subject. If any one was interested in true science, they would be studied enough to know that most current top physicists, scientists and even evolutionists know that the science behind evolution has failed. There is actually more science behind creation (or intelligent design) than evolution. Which do you want to take by faith?

Tony Paris

09-12-2006, 12:37 PM

We have to push religion hard because it takes faith. We don't have to "sell" science.

Actually, billions of dollars have been put behind hind selling the theory of evolutionism. It takes a lot of faith to believe that you are an advanced form of an earthworm. But to many believers in evolutionism, that is better than believing that we are created, because then we would owe a duty to the creator. That is why they have falsified facts and thrown billions behind their own faith: that grandpa is a monkey. The faith embodied in the theory of evolution goes against many actual scientific laws. In the end, everything is religious: either you believe that you are a slightly advanced earthworm, or you believe that God created you.

Unregistered

09-12-2006, 10:06 PM

Despite what the propaganda says, no major biologist or geneticist questions the idea that life adapts and changes to suit conditions. What church people and teachers think is not that relevant to scientific research. Among scientists, there is no debate.

Tom Tuttle

09-12-2006, 11:08 PM

There is room in the world for faith that knows and science that questions. I also believe that great faith allows questions and great science allows people their need for security.

Paul R. says he is a believes in creation but then goes on to say he thinks those who seek to turn science class into cathecism are a threat to our freedom. An unnamed poster sarcastically calls him "an interesting Creationist." I agree with that statement. Paul, you do seem like someone who thinks outside the box.

Much has been made here about evolution being a flawed explanation. Certainly old Darwin created many more questions than answers, but as I understand it, that's was his intent. I wonder if the folks who have been treating his theories like the bogeyman have ever really studied his works. Personally, I find his writing a praise of Creation. Not many had Darwin's love of creation and respect for the mysteries of God's work.

People are just people. There are many who need the security of "knowing". For those who seek surety, religion offers a safe harbor in a world fraught with change and insecurity. I don't think we should try to shake their tree.

On the other hand there is science, which begins by questioning everything and not believing in anything without sufficient evidence. There is room in the world for both.

The danger is that those who sek security in knowing answers through faith will seek to limit those who question looking for new explanations. While there may be some who "believe" in evolution, that is not the scientific method. Scientists are constantly challenging notions of evolution in the search for new and better explanations that will be challenged in turn.

Back to Paul R. Paul, I believe in God and that he created the universe. I have enough faith in that not to have to know or pretend to know how the Creator worked the miracles that brought life in all its variety about.

I understand how folks need to have answers. But, without being critical, I would consider myself an idolator if I were to attempt to explain precisely the works of the Divine. I don't think great faith requires surety. Paul, do you agree?

Paul R. from Boston

09-12-2006, 11:36 PM

Tom, I'm not really sure I fully understand your question, but I think I agree. I must say though, that I find your line or reasoning interesting and your tone refreshingly open-minded. So much invective and attacks have taken place here by people who seem to disagree. I've often suspected that those who are not really sure of their position are the most likely to attack those who disagree with them. I would carry your reasoning a step further and issue this challenge:

Those who think that religion is merely ancient superstition should read one of the great religious texts (I am partial to the Bible) from cover to cover with an open mind.

Those who believe that Darwin's theory are a travesty should read one of Darwin's great texts. 1. Voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle
2. The Origin of Species
3. The Descent of Man

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I believe that if people spent a bit more time studying the ideas they think the disagree with instead of attacking those who have been influenced by those ideas, we'd all be far better off.

Unregistered

09-14-2006, 09:15 AM

Their seems to be talk of creation being as a religios issue and should be removed from the class rooms, I agree that religion should be removed from the class rooms so then why cant we just remove evolution and just have science, evolution in fact is not a science at all but simply another mans religion, infact lets call Evolution, Evolutionism.

Credits to Ken Ham

The term "evolutionist" is used extensively throughout the following chapters. In other parts of this book, we will discuss the ideas of Christians who try to marry the concepts of evolution and the Bible. However, because the majority of evolutionists are not Christians, I wish the reader to understand that the term "evolutionist" is used to mean those who believe that evolution -- in the sense of time, chance and struggle for survival--rather than the God of the Bible is responsible for life.

In the official journal of the South Australian branch of the Australian Skeptics (this organization has similar aims to American humanist groups), the entire 30 pages of The Southern Skeptic, Volume 2 Number 5, Autumn 1985, were devoted to an attack on the creation science ministry in Australia and the United States. On the last page, we read the following: "Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how lucky. It does not need to be explained by unobservable God." These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in saying we are a religious group are themselves a religions group. They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an authoritative document. They are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhanksy (The American Biology Teacher, volume 35, number 3, March 1973, page 129) quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in John 8:12 (NIV): "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." In Isaiah 2:5 (NIV) we are exhorted to "walk in the light of the Lord." In verse 22 of the same chapter we read, "Stop trusting in man...."

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

All the evidence a scientists has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe--in fact, everything, exists now--in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated. (Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: "... cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system--a religion!

Fossil bones to not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Nor do fossils have photographs with them telling you what the animals looked like as they roamed the earth long ago.

I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!

Unregistered

09-14-2006, 04:57 PM

Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!

if christians did wake up, they'd suddenly realize that religion is based on faith and science on reason. then, people like you would have to find a job.

Unregistered

10-27-2006, 04:25 PM

"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle. "

You think that God isn't a realist? Why, if some hand had created everything, then why bother making things follow natural laws and match so accurately with an evolutionary theory of life? The creationists make God out to be some kind of idiot, and humankind out to be some kind of further idiots who couldn't make out reality if it stood up in a purple miniskirt and started singing about kippers.

The debate about creationism vs evolution is ridiculous. There are potential flaws in the theory of evolution admittedly. Darwin himself was said to have eaten perhaps the last of endangered tortoise populations on the Galapagos islands so clearly he hardly understood himself. He was a hypocrite and a fool of sorts. This doesn't excuse the fact that the creationist theory is off the scale on the stupid-ometer. There is no argument, and no matter how much I hate the enormous sideburns of Darwin, he still had a far better idea of reality than the arbitrators of genocide for the past two thousand years who claim that "God did everything and who are we to argue about it if it doesn't make sense".

Remember, there is NO ARGUMENT as regards the world existing for a few thousand years. Why, if this is true, then surely our World could have been created this morning, and you placed on it with a bunch of memories to convince you that it's been around a while. Think about it... yeah.

And also, the words of God were written by a select number of men (yes men NO WOMEN, so that rules 1/2 of you out of any kind of intelligence in their eyes) who had completely different agendas to the man called Jesus, who merely suggested we should stop forcing our opinions on people and love each other. Even Jesus I'm convinced would be rational when faced with these two theories, and would sensibly choose evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence. Oh, but wait, Jesus was some kind of ghost-superbeing-otherworld-freak wasn't he? I doubt it.

Unregistered

10-27-2006, 05:03 PM

[QUOTE=Unregistered;15144"God did everything and who are we to argue about it if it doesn't make sense".[/QUOTE]

May I add something from the Principia Discordia...

GREATER POOP: Are you really serious or what?
MAL-2: Sometimes I take humor seriously. Sometimes I take seriousness humorously. Either way it is irrelevant.

GP: Maybe you are just crazy.
M2: Indeed! But do not reject these teachings as false because I am crazy. The reason that I am crazy is because they are true.

GP: Is Eris true?
M2: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

Unregistered

10-28-2006, 04:17 PM

Remember, there is NO ARGUMENT as regards the world existing for a few thousand years. Why, if this is true, then surely our World could have been created this morning, and you placed on it with a bunch of memories to convince you that it's been around a while. Think about it... yeah.

Except that the Bible doesn't say that. If you accept the teachings in the Bible as truth, then your scenario could not possibly be correct.

Paul R. from Boston

10-28-2006, 09:00 PM

This has been going on for page after page and one thing is clear to me. No amount of logic is going to convince someone who thinks evolution is a religious belief. On the other hand, no argument is going to make someone who seeks answers to the mysteries of life in reason to abandon that reason and take on faith.

You people of faith are going to believe what you believe regardless of what science comes up with.

You people of reason are never going to start believing in someone else's religion by virtue of argument.

If you want to convince someone of your faith, lead a life worthy of emulation. Appealing to reason is a waste of time, since you abandoned reason when you decided to base your understanding on a book written hundreds of years before science.

We live in a country where there are both kinds of folks. Unless you want to fire up the gas ovens, we're going to have to learn to respect one another and live side by side. That might be a lot to ask from Christians, but try loving your enemies. Just don't try talking them to death.

Unregistered

10-29-2006, 12:10 AM

We live in a country where there are both kinds of folks. Unless you want to fire up the gas ovens, we're going to have to learn to respect one another and live side by side. That might be a lot to ask from Christians, but try loving your enemies.

If you look through these posts, the vast majority of insults are being cast out by pro-evolutionists. I'm pro-evolution, but ashamed of some of the statements made by those who agree with me on general principles.

Paul R. from Boston

10-29-2006, 05:44 PM

Yes, Unregistered, I too have noticed the sarcasm aimed at our religious bretheran, but I think that's somewhat understandable. Rationalists have a history of persecution by religionists, not the other way around. The current efforts to label science as just another "belief" is not only frustrating to those who recognize the struggle of humanity to shake off the dark ages, it represents a very real danger of a return to those days when ignorance and superstition held sway with an iron fist. The nice church people who view science as an attack on their beliefs are not themselves violent or dangerous, but their intolerance represent a very real threat to the way of life enjoyed by those corners of the earth stlll free from Theocrats.

Unregistered

10-29-2006, 10:30 PM

The current efforts to label science as just another "belief" is not only frustrating to those who recognize the struggle of humanity to shake off the dark ages, it represents a very real danger of a return to those days when ignorance and superstition held sway with an iron fist.

I think there is a huge difference between religious persecution and trying to further a belief in Creationism. This is the slippery slope argument: that not attacking creationists will allow them to voice their opinions which will allow them to take control of government and throw non-believers and scientists in jail.

The nice church people who view science as an attack on their beliefs are not themselves violent or dangerous, but their intolerance represent a very real threat to the way of life enjoyed by those corners of the earth stlll free from Theocrats.

By the same token, those who verbally abuse people because of their religious beliefs can also be said to represent a real threat to religious freedom. I suggest that both sides try to get along, and they can begin by not posting insults at those who simply disagree and have the audacity to post their opinions.

Paul R. from Boston

10-31-2006, 11:46 AM

I I suggest that both sides try to get along, and they can begin by not posting insults at those who simply disagree and have the audacity to post their opinions.

Well said. Perhaps we could suggest a line that should not be crossed and try to remain civil until that line is crossed. That way, the fears both sides feel about being marginalized through political bullying can be laid to rest until the need for real vigilance arises.

Anybody want to draw the line?

Unregistered

11-01-2006, 09:59 AM

It's an easy line to draw: Don't get personal.

Unregistered

11-01-2006, 10:58 PM

Go to www.answersingenesis.com You'll get an abindance of information. They even have information all the so-called "discoveries" that evolution is right and show you how it can be refuted.

unregistered

11-02-2006, 11:57 AM

I have a couple of points, generally considered irrefutable by their advocates, for contemplation:

Point 1
=====
"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." - Exodus 20:4

I think that this verse, under scrutiny, does not omit the Bible itself as an Idol. Think hard before accepting the teachings of this book above all other books, as in that sense you idolise it, and thus break the commandments of God. Religious iconography in general can also be attibuted here. You don't want to go to Hell now, do you? Think of all those annoying scientists down there trying to weigh Satan and measure the temperature of his wrath to 10 decimal places!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point 2
=====
"In special relativity, clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation (the putatively stationary observer) are found to be running slower." - Excerpt from Wikipedea regarding a consequence of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity

From the theory of Special Relativity, it can be postulated that from a certain frame of reference, the time elapsed since the dawn of the planet Earth could indeed be considered as a few thousand years. Maybe we are accelerating away from God at sufficiently near the speed of light?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When facing the truths of those religious or scientific in nature, there is no real Reason to be found.

All things are True. Even False things are True. You can't blame yourself, or others, for this unfortunate nature of Reality. You just have to relax and slide...

One more thought; perhaps there is a 3rd way that this crazy World happened? Maybe, even, a 4th! Maybe there's as many as there are directions, and these two are just drops in the ocean of potential. Maybe this ocean is full of sharks like me, and you don't want to swim in it for fear of something nibbling your brain.

All hail Discordia!

Unregistered

11-02-2006, 07:22 PM

Go to www.answersingenesis.com You'll get an abindance of information. They even have information all the so-called "discoveries" that evolution is right and show you how it can be refuted.

Unbelievable. Clearly they have no interest in the advance of Mankind's understanding of the Universe or of God. This is a small collection of ultra-Conservative blind fools who probably resent the fact they cannot burn people for disagreeing with them any more.

This sort of information is just sickening, it's like finding a website containing child-pornography, just terrible. You should be ashamed for advertising this sort of stupidity. I hope you are not responsible for any child's education.

Unregistered

11-03-2006, 12:51 AM

[quote]This is a small collection of ultra-Conservative blind fools...[quote]

The original post was simply a matter-of-fact reference to a link. In response, we get an insult. Whatever happened to "Don't get personal"?

Paul R. from Boston

11-05-2006, 07:46 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566391/site/newsweek/from/ET/

The author of this MSN article addresses the issue of why rational people are so insulted by religious groups that deny scientific reason. He claims those types of religions are, by their definition, devisive and abusive. Of course, people are blind to the harmful effects of their own religious group. They sure see the harm in the faith of others though. To those without a man-made answer to the divine mysteries, the faith evinced by American fundamentalism is every bit as dangerous to freedom as radical Islamic sects. The Christian Right has given up on trying to persuade rational people and now see them as the enemy. If you really don't understand why that is insulting then you are insulated to the point where nothing can get through the self-inflicted blindness. Jesus was up against the same sort of religious hypocrisy in his time on earth. As a disciple of Christ, I discuss my faith with athiests, agnostics, or any other non-believer. I've yet to be insulted while doing so. But then, I don't think my faith requires me to narrow my perspective to exclude the ideas and explanations of others. To me, faith broadens.

Unregistered

11-06-2006, 03:33 AM

The author of this MSN article addresses the issue of why rational people are so insulted by religious groups that deny scientific reason.

The insults from religious groups are inferred. In this thread, the insults from evolutionists are blatant. So how can we say that religious groups are insulting without at least acknowledging the insults spewed out by evolutionists?

By the way, that article offered nothing that hasn't already been discussed a million times. It isn't the least bit profound. All of it centers on the argument that "I think A is best for everyone. They want B. Therefore, they are dangerous." The only problem is that those wanting B think the same about those wanting A. Any creationist could have written the same article, just different examples.

He claims those types of religions are, by their definition, devisive and abusive. Of course, people are blind to the harmful effects of their own religious group. They sure see the harm in the faith of others though.

That applies to all of us. We don't see any harm in denying Creation. But they do.

Unregistered

11-06-2006, 09:03 PM

How can we be made from monkeys? or evolve from nothing??? Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Please read the Bible!! Do yourself some good! you will finally be able to detirmine the truth!

Unregistered

11-07-2006, 12:37 AM

I am a biology major in my junior year at college. I find it odd that every debate concerning evolution and the lack of scientific proof to back it up is followed up with two statements:

"It is the best explanation that science has to offer thus far."

and

"If we choose to deny the empirical evidence of evolution as science then we might as well be back in the Dark Ages."

Since when is this science? Accept what is available as fact just because we don't have sufficient evidence to offer something else. And, if you don't accept it, then you are living just like in the times when science was oppressed. And these are supposedly very smart individuals using these arguments!

Much of the rejection of scientific findings in earlier ages was the result of the information being new. We as humans naturally resist change. We also didn't have tools to test many of the theories of those days, which led a person to believe what they always have, or believe something new that had little to no tangible proof to the individual.

Today we have many methods of being able to test scientific principles. There is a large sector of science that leans toward evolution as the explanation of how life occured. There is a large sector of science that leans toward creation by intelligent design. There is also a large sector of science that leans against evolution as the explanation of how life occured.

The problem occurs when one sector wants to say that their scientific belief is "science" and other scientific beliefs are not "science". By stating that one viewpoint should be recognized and other viewpoints should not is the definition of what science is NOT. This is exactly what evolutionists are trying to accomplish. They are stunting the growth of the scientific arena by accepting supposition as undeniable fact. Thus, suppressing what science is all about - discovery. Evolution scientists have done exactly what they criticize religion of having done during the Dark Ages. They refuse valid evidence and valid argument that creation through intelligent design is a scientific concept. Evolutionists would like only the principles which they choose to accept to be taught as science.

It's ironic that it is evolution-believing scientists and their personal biases that have sent the field of science back into the Dark Ages, the ages of limitations on discovery.

Paul R. from Boston

11-09-2006, 03:00 PM

What we are discussing here is the origin of human life. All offerings are speculative. I find this discussion is not so much between Creationists versus Evolutionists but between those who are open minded and those who are defending preconceived notions.

Creationists who have attacked Evolutionists here claim that the motives of the scientists are based on faith. In other words, they assume that all who choose to explain the variety of life on eath through adaption of species really have other motives. They are not simply seeking description, but rather are trying to influence the beliefs of others, prescriptively.

Granted that there are certainly evolutioniists who are guilty of not having an open mind, it is a real stretch to claim that anyone who disagrees with my personal beliefs is simply closed minded. Anyone who fails to see the irony in that statement is pretty much beyond reasonable discussion.

I have stated before that I am both a Christian and someone who is able to look at the world from the postulation of evolution. Why must we be limited to one explanation for a profound complexity that no one knows definite answers to? We are all speculating as to how life began and how it achieved its current diversity.

Is there anyone else out there who looks upon explanations for the unknown as descriptive? I really see no point in discussing the unfathomable with those who must impose their own narrow doctrine as the only possible answer.

Understanding begins with openness. Those who already have all the answers are like the frog in the well who has the advantage of knowing the entire universe by narrowing his vision to one tiny patch of sky.

I recommend that folks stop defending speculative explanations and try looking at the world from another point of view once in awhile. You might discover humility and an important element of real faith, that Divinity defies prescription but invites description. Religion is metaphor, friends. Don't decry it, embrace it!

Arif from Houston

11-09-2006, 08:50 PM

Everybody is right accroding to his thinking and believes. Let me start from the brain. What is human brain, every thing what we think depends upon you brain thinking and limits and some people have sharp mind and some have dull minds but still they are able to think to certain extent.

In this world the perosn who says he/she has the shapest mind can also has the limit of thinking and who defines these limits and what it the limit of our brain and what it the maximum limit we can think of.

With respect i have to say that we can not separate the religion from ourselves (does'nt matter what religion you believe in). Religion and Humanbeing are just like Our body and our soul. We can not separate the human physical body form the soul. Science is just exploration and i'm not against the science but love science because it opens the doors of our minds and make our concepts clear and tells us how the things work and gives us the answers.

Anything which science says is not always perfect or not always the final answer and the same thing with this theory. What i think in school we should talk about the evolution and leave the answer on each student to think and ask them what they think and then make a group discussion in the class.

What i believe (not necessary you believe also) that God send us in the world for some purpose and not without any reason. There is a reason we are send to earth and that reason is to worship the God Almighty. We are useless creature, humanbeing is the best creature in this whole universe.

Science can not give you answers for every thing, like what is soul and how when the person is alive the soul resides in our body and when we die, that soul goes where and what happens to that soul.

Well i have to stop here because i have a lot to say but later...........

Unregistered

11-09-2006, 09:20 PM

In order to believe evolution, you must be a religious fanatic, the religion of evolution. It is a shame that people are so anti-Christian that they will throw all sense out the window. I don't care what angle that you approach it from, evolution simply does not make sense. It is an unproven theory! Where else in our schools do we ask students and teachers to embrace something that has no evidence to back it up. I challenge you to approach this essay objectively.

Unregistered

11-09-2006, 10:51 PM

"high school teacher"?

I just realized that people come on here pretending to be Christians just to make people of faith look stupid. Is that just to get a rise out of teachers? Or is it an attempt to make Christians look like idiots?

Folks, some of us have a system of belief that means we don't accept some scientific explanations of humanities place in the universe. But that doesn't mean we can't tell the difference between faith and the scientific method.

Don't let the spoofers throw mud on people of faith. I've been going to church all of my life and I've never met any Christian as stupid as these people pretend to be.

Yes, I choose to believe in the Biblical story of man's origins. No, I don't think that means that scientists get their ideas from "faith". And no, the world is not full of high school teachers who can't tell the difference between faith and reason.

Paul R. from Boston

11-09-2006, 10:58 PM

Yes, I choose to believe in the Biblical story of man's origins. No, I don't think that means that scientists get their ideas from "faith". And no, the world is not full of high school teachers who can't tell the difference between faith and reason.

Thanks Unreg 15564. I hadn't considered the possibility that my leg was being pulled. I am comforted by your comments and by those of Arif. I too have found that most people who believe that God created man aren't trying to turn that personal belief into a challenge to science and education.

Unregistered

11-09-2006, 11:32 PM

Unregistered

11-10-2006, 12:46 AM

I taught at a University and took a poll in my class on who believed in creationism and who believed in evolution. Nine out of the fifteen people believed in creationism. I asked them why, and they said because their church (pastor) told them. Five out of the nine who believed in creationism believed that the Egyptians and the dinosaurs existed at the same time. When I laughed, they took offense and reported me to the department dean, who told me it’s not my job to question their “beliefs.” I no longer teach at that University.

What an unsettling account. Those of us teachers who are still naive enough to believe a univerity education indicates a certain degree of rational thought can only shudder to confront such startling ignorance and complacent ignorance within the hallowed halls of higher learning. Still, I am under the impression that the U.S. is unique among developed nations in remaining stubbornly steeped in ignorance and superstition. Heaven help us!

Unregistered

11-11-2006, 01:58 PM

Unregistered

11-11-2006, 05:31 PM

Yeah,what's so funny about univesity students who have completed 12 years of education and are unaware that there is a scientific explanation for life on the planet Earth? Laughter is inappropriate; completly UN PC. How dare you show your real emotions. It's okay to have emotions, mind you,just not show them. Next time you witness something that is so shocking that it forces a reaction from you, control yourself better. There is no place for honest reactions in the modern workplace. We must never offend ignorant people. Without such ignorance, the people might actually demand real leadership. The last thing this country needs is an educated public!

Unregistered

11-11-2006, 07:09 PM

Yeah,what's so funny about univesity students who have completed 12 years of education and are unaware that there is a scientific explanation for life on the planet Earth? Laughter is inappropriate; completly UN PC.

Openly mocking students has nothing to do with political correctness. It was never polite to laugh at students, even before the age of PC.

The last thing this country needs is an educated public!

What does laughing at people teach them? Nothing.

Unregistered

11-12-2006, 12:21 AM

What does laughing at people teach them? Nothing.

Well, it at least teaches them that entrenched ignorance has consequences. We aren't discussing kindergartners here, but university students. Must we now worry about offending people who refuse to learn? That does seem to me the ugly end of PC thinking.

Unregistered

11-12-2006, 01:42 AM

Well, it at least teaches them that entrenched ignorance has consequences.

No, it teaches them that university professors can be arrogant jerks.

You're simply trying to rationalize rude behavior.

Unregistered

11-12-2006, 10:51 PM

I'm bored, came across this post and thought - why not...

Simply put, regarding this contest of ideologies, they are both ideas. Some person somewhere thought about the nature of existence and decided to try and explain it. Sometimes governing laws of the universe get confused as evidence supporting one idea or another. For example, once the Earth was flat and a set of laws developed to support that idea. That is, until someone discovered that the Earth is round. Currently, great scientific minds work at using and developing a set of laws to support that idea. Perhaps in another 100 years someone will use those same laws to support the notion that the Earth is neither flat nor spherical, but rather multidimensional and a set of laws developed to support that idea.

The point one must consider and that slaps reason in the face is that correct universal law works and operates regardless of someone's idea about how or why it works. Perhaps one day we will discover that what really makes the Earth spin and the rain fall and the Sun shine is a law of obedience, or in other words a law of order that in fact there is a supreme God causing all things to be set in a proper place and motion.

'Science' as it is so apply named is a tool for harnessing these universal laws. At times science is used effectively and at other times poorly.

The question that really needs to be asked is how can one know the truth about something - scientific method, prayer, reason, experience?

That is the real question -

Personally, I have found that all of these methods work effectively and furthermore are usually, if not always, in support of one another.

Best of luck.

Unregistered

11-13-2006, 07:09 PM

You have reached the end of this topic. Please click anywhere but here for immediate transference to another insane reality of your choice.

Thank you for flying Dontc Air.

"Everybody I know who is right always agrees with ME" -Rev Lady Mal

Unregistered

11-14-2006, 09:09 PM

so may attempts to explain or evade or dismiss. what other advanced civilization debates reason vs. faith? It's like arguing which is better, emotion or thought? Prayer is a mighty pillar. Without my relationship with the Almighty, I doubt I could face the slings and arrows of life. But when your kid is turning blue from something he ate, do you want to consult a faith healer or a medical doctor? Genesis helps me to understand my place in creation. But I'm not willing to leave the question of how viruses adapt to antibiotics to my preacher either. Those who lack the ability to hold faith and reason in the same mind are rather a pitiful lot. When they try to enforce their narrow little minds on others they move down to despicable.

Unregistered

11-15-2006, 07:42 PM

Well, in order to teach evolution you have to mention creationism out of respect for the MANY belief systems out there who endorse it. Myself, when asked, I tell people/students about my theory of directed evolution... Even God has to sbide by the rules of science. the whole "build Adam from dirt" or "eve was created from the rib of Adam" matter can neither be created or destroyed... Hmmm. Just a thought.

Unregistered

11-16-2006, 01:39 AM

But matter can be created and destroyed. Perhaps that is a result of God's will? :D

Unregistered

11-16-2006, 09:34 PM

For one, im not sure where half these people are coming from when they say that science is based on observations and inferences which is why they believe in evolution. No one has been able to observe evolution considering it happens over ''millions'' if years when in fact hte earth has only been existent for 10- to 13 thousand years. The most controversial aspect of evolution has always been the origin of man kind. Most evolutionists toay believet hat apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans all evolved from a ''common ancestor,'' said to be more apelife than man like. Despite over a century of searching and discovery of thousands of relevant fossils however, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO ""MISSING LINKS"" IN TEH SUPPOSED CHAIN OF HUMAN EVOLUTION HAVE BEEN FOUND. They haev either been 100% human or a 100% ape. It takes more faith to believe that by some random chance everything landed absolutely perfectly on one sunny day than it does to believe in Intelligent Design. I believe we were all created by God without a doubt. I am a 15 year old girl who has been brought up in the church but has done her own studies to decide what she believes for herself. and i believe with all my heart that God created us adn everything we know. Even famous evolutionists believe in some form of Intelligent Design combined with evolution. FOr instance the evolutionist Home W. Smith said "' the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is the imagination. Although evolutionists are unable to trace the history of mankind's evolution nor have any evidence whatso ever.God's account of how man is created is CLEAR, CONCISZE, and COMPLETE. there is nothing in His record that would lead us to believe that man arose from animals by a natural process; on the contrary, we are told that God himself shaped and fasioned man from teh ''dus pf the ground'' and then ''breathed into his nostrils'' to give him lif. Adam was the first man, but he was no ape man. Why someone would choose something one man said that has no evidence and says me came from an ape opposed to believing in somehting more probable such as intelligent design which is proved in teh Bible, known as a historical document, due to that it has never been wrong nor controversial.

Creation is how man was created... NOT EVOLUTION

Unregistered

11-16-2006, 09:42 PM

Paul R. from Boston

11-18-2006, 09:43 PM

I don't think God would be angry with you if you were to read a book about the scientific ideas of how the biosphere came to be in its present state.

A sure sign that someone is spouting propaganda without a clue to what they're condemning is this business of trying to pass off science as just another belief system.

New theories are being proposed constantly. That's the thing about science. Science does not claim to have answers, only explanations. I don't know of a single biologist who thinks that Darwin was correct. Darwin is respected because he brought some original thoughts into play. He noticed some relationships between living things that gave rise to certain possible explanations.

If you want or need to feel like you know everything God knows, better stick to getting your information from Sunday school. Science does not offer certainty and is uncomfortable in its presence.

On the other hand, if you want to start thinking about the miracle of life in new ways that might lead to better understanding, try studying science. Wisdom really begins with knowing what you don't know. Thinking you have all the answers already is how I would define ignorance.

Unregistered

11-18-2006, 09:45 PM

Science does not claim to have answers, only explanations.

Unfortunately, not all scientists put their subject in its proper context. This leads to the type of arrogance that leads to the ridicule and insults we see in this thread.

Paul R. from Boston

11-19-2006, 03:07 PM

Unfortunately, not all scientists put their subject in its proper context. This leads to the type of arrogance that leads to the ridicule and insults we see in this thread.

Well, yes, arrogance tends to breed arrogant responses, doesn't it? And arrogant responses are insulting, yes? Do you also see that those who claim to "know" the unknowable, on either side, may be fairly described as arrogant?

I also think that some of the rhetoric, here and elsewhere, comes about because people feel threatened by absolutism. For me, personally, I have respect for the beliefs of others. But when people group together to force their beliefs on others, I get defensive. Attempts to discourage scientific explanations in favor of religious ones are percieved as a threat upon the freedom of thought that is behind progress.

Jesuit

11-19-2006, 06:08 PM

The bible is a book of science and History. Archaeologists how found and proved many of the stories like the Tower of Babel, Noah's Arch, Moses at Mt Sinai, the book of Isaiah found (Dead Sea Scrolls)etc. to be true.

Modern science has long lagged behind biblical principles of medical-science. The recent discovery of micro-scopic germs in the 19th century boosted infant mortality rates in the delivery room. This dicovery was made by a Jewish doctor reading the book of Leviticus where it says you shall wash in "running water". Before that time doctors washed their hands in stagnent water. The 100s of purification Laws in Leviticus are way before the time and advance of medical science.

I think it is the height of our arrogance and unwillingness to see these truths that keep us form examing creation and the new discoveries being made that confirm its place and validity in the scientific conversation. Mt Saint Helens is a prime example.

Main stream media doesnt want to shead positive light on the Bible why?

Unregistered

11-19-2006, 10:46 PM

Whether creationism and evolution is right or wrong, the question is what should be taught in the classroom. Since we live under the government that we do which separates church and state, legally creationism looses out. I am a student of science education who was brought up catholic. Ideas like God breathing life into a pile of dirt and Jesus walking on water sounded a little crazy to me. This was what made me want to study science. I wanted to find an answer. Hey, maybe there was a sandbar that He was walking on? The Creationism that I keep hearing about (the creationism that is most talked about in this thread anyway) is the Old Testament version. Well there are other religions and cultures that have their own versions of how everything began like the Native American version view, etc. If you are going to address creationism in the classroom you have to address every version which isn't legal anyway because we are not supposed to be teaching religion in the classroom... I think that we as teachers, science teachers, etc. should be teaching the concepts of science. Geology, Astronomy, Biology, Genetics, etc. In Darwin's "Origin of the Species" he never mentioned the theory of Evolution (yes, it is a theory, we haven't prooved it to be a clear fact, we haven't proved it wrong, but Creationism has these same qualities, so relax). However, I do feel that as teachers we should be also teaching the difference between knowledge and belief. Let the students know about scientific theories and show them all the evidence but let them know that in the classroom they are learning the concepts and if at home you believe in creationism then that's ok too. Teach the students to KNOW the science concepts, but let the students know that what they want to believe is up to them - and be nice about it. Let the parents know that Science will be taught in the classroom and if they have strong feelings about what they want their child to believe then they should take it upon themselves to provide the proper guidence for their child. Kids should not be told what to believe, but to have an open mind about the world, they should be exposed to different ideas and they can choose their own path. Knowing about the theory of evolution and believing creationism or something else is ok. Religious leaders make it their responsibility to know about other religious beliefs, but they don't believe them.

Unregistered

11-19-2006, 10:54 PM

oh whups i thought this form would facilitate html tags... i was trying to have some of my words be in italics but i guess not...

Unregistered

11-20-2006, 02:24 AM

Use square brackets, not angle brackets.

Unregistered

11-21-2006, 01:27 AM

Unregistered

11-22-2006, 12:47 AM

All i have to say is that even Darwin at the end of this writings suggested that there must me a superior being that created the universe and man! Darwin could explain all but two parts of the human body. The eyes and the ears...he said that they are too complex from both those to JUST evolve. If theories and evolution can be taught in schools, then why not creationalism?
If you would like to learn more about creationalim vs. Evolution, watch the video's done by a man named Kent Hovind! He helps explain how creationalists can teach their beliefs in a science classroom!

Hovind is not a reliable source as he graduated from the uncredentialed Midwestern Baptist College.

Rather than repeat myself for the millionth time, I offer you these arguments to rebut yours:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html

Especially #3.

Unregistered

11-22-2006, 01:42 PM

Hovind's credentials are unimportant, since we have Darwin's original writings to reference. The importance of Darwin's testimony is another matter.

Unregistered

11-23-2006, 05:08 PM

i do teach Creation in my classroom. The Popul Vuh is my personal favorite. Each time we visit a culture in Social Studies, I begin with that culture's creation explanation. There are hundreds of them. What I find most relevant is how the account of creation reveals the consciousness of the culture. Hunter Gatherer cultures nearly always have animal creators. Agricultural cultures differ in that they often depict a cyclical view of life which includes the destruction of all life. Many creation explanations are very similar to that of the Torah/Bible/Koran.
Studying the variety of creation explanations is a good experience for students who come from ethnocentric backgrounds. A few of you have commented about finding students who have never heard accounts of the origins of life outside of the story their church and family gave them. Teachers are in unique position to broaden the experience of students. Of course, students from strongly religious backgrounds generally remain steadfast in their own belief system, but I believe we do the world a service by helping to broaden understanding. I think the only hope for a peaceful humanity is either everyone converting to one religion or learning to respect the beliefs of others. I leave it to you to decide which is the more possible or desireable solution.

Unregistered

11-28-2006, 09:15 AM

Any debate on this issue is silly. I am majoring in science education, and I am frightened by the prospect of teaching something as non-scientific as Creationism. The theory of evolution is in use everyday. The strains of flu that go into our flu shots each year are picked based upon the number of mutations they've undergone the previous year. This is using evolution as a tool. Evolution is a practical tool in many more ways in our everyday life. A Pesticide is only supposed to be used for a limited number of years on a particular field because it will lose its effectiveness due to the insects adapting to it. This is evolution!! A theory is mainly 3 things: It must be falsifiable, meaning there must be a theoretical way of proving it wrong. It must be observable, this means we must be able to see real world observations and collect data on a theory. Thirdly, a theory must be predictive. This means it can be used as a practical tool in our lives. While evolution has continued to meet these crieteria for over 140 years, creationism meets none of these criteria. If you don't want to "believe" in evolution, that's fine, then don't believe in any of biology. Evolution is the foundation of that branch of science. Don't believe in vaccinations or antibiotics or any other thing the theory of evolution has helped bring into existence.

Unregistered

11-28-2006, 12:06 PM

Unregistered

11-28-2006, 12:18 PM

Creationists, when trying to prove evolution wrong, don't actually show any real evidence to prove their point. They will point to the complexity of the human eye and say something like, "The human eye is so vastly complex that it could never have occurred by chance in nature." That comment is complete silliness. Where is the evidence? Where do they get quantifiable data that supports this statement? In science, there is a need to support any statement with actual data. This includes measurable observations. I've been to intelligent design websites and they will show a series of neat looking graphs, but when you look closely at the source of the data, there is an incredible lack of scientific scrutiny. These perspectives are based purely on religious viewpoints an not at all on peer reviewed studies, which is a hallmark of science. ID advocates will say the same things I've just said about evolution. They will ask where the evidence is. They will ask questions like, "where are there examples of evolution occurring today?" The short answer is EVERYWHERE!! If creationists were really serious about this issue, they should actually learn about the facts rather that simply using flawed logic. It is flawed logic because there has never been a good argument against evolution that uses real scientific data and constructs a viable alternative to the theory. The main arguments against evolution merely try to poke holes in evolution while supplying no actual evidence for the extistance of a "Designer". I personally believe there is some higher power that set all the great scientific laws in motion, but this is my personal belief, not a science.

Unregistered

11-28-2006, 01:04 PM

Your beliefs in evolution is crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think that you all have gone nuts thinking about teaching this stuff to us. My beliefs are what I was taught in the BIBLE and I can assure you it is very True non like you junk evolution which was made up so you all could have an excuse to not trust in faith on the Word itself. Evolution should be burned for it's lies. People should not even associate with evolution because you are false teaching when you are.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 03:39 AM

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 03:41 AM

They will ask questions like, "where are there examples of evolution occurring today?" The short answer is EVERYWHERE!!

Most creationists I know understand that evolution takes place. They simply don't believe that evolution explains our origins.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 03:45 AM

Thirdly, a theory must be predictive. This means it can be used as a practical tool in our lives.

That isn't what predictive means. To be predictive, a theory must be able to extrapolate forward in time and predict the outcome of future experiments. Unfortunately, evolution is governed by randomness, so it likely has little predictive power except for maybe at the smallest levels.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 03:49 AM

The main arguments against evolution merely try to poke holes in evolution while supplying no actual evidence for the extistance of a "Designer".

To poke holes in evolution, one does not need to prove an alternative.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 03:53 AM

If you don't want to "believe" in evolution, that's fine, then don't believe in any of biology.

That is called dogma.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 12:11 PM

Ok, Whatever,

Your point is well taken. For it to come across better, go to some school, and find out how to use proper grammer. If you really wish to refute evolution, it will take much more than a poorly worded paragraph talking about how the Bible should be believe more than 140 years worth of scientific evidence. Ignorance of how science is conducted is a major flaw in anyone's argument against a scientific theory. To properly refute a scientific theory, one must use scientific evidence. To refute science with declarations of faith is completely off base, and frankly I'm embarrassed for your ignorance.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 12:15 PM

There has been no attempt to explain the origins of life in the theory of evolution, merely the differentiation of species. The Big Question is outside the realm of science. There is no way to observe how life began over 4 billion years ago.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 12:23 PM

The Principles of evolution are used to explain why a flu virus that undergoes a lot of mutations in the course of a year will cause more harm than one that stays the same. Biologists can look at the relative number of mutations in various strains of the flu, and then the PREDICT which ones will likely cause the most harm in the human population. This is a very practical way in which evolution is used as a PREDICTIVE tool. It is no different than Mendeleev being able to predict the qualities of undiscovered elements merely by seeing where the holes existed in the periodic table. Science is a tool. It is used to improve the quality of life for humankind. Evolution can be used as a tool just as every scientific theory is used in a similar way. The use of evolution as a tool directly affects the lives of everyone. The "theory of intelligent design" can in no way be used as a tool to improve the lives of anyone. I cringe at the thought of kids being taught that ID is an alternative to evolution. It's apples and oranges. Evolution meets every criteria for being a scientific theory, while ID meets none.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 12:29 PM

"if you don't believe in evolution, then don't believe in biology" is merely pointing out that NO ONE believes anything in science. It is not a faith based enterprise like religion. Science is based on the ACCEPTANCE or REJECTION of ideas. Religion is what people choose to believe. You can believe anything you want when it comes to religion. When it comes to science, you ACCEPT a theory, or you REJECT A theory, you don't BELIEVE in a theory. When to ACCEPT or REJECT a theory, it is on the basis of scientific evidence, not a gut feeling. Save belief for church.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 12:35 PM

[QUOTE=Unregistered;16277]Actually, creationists believe that the chances of a human eye developing are so incredibly remote as to defy what is reasonable. And that is hardly a silly notion, since everyone has a different understanding of what is reasonable.

When everyone has a different understanding of what is reasonable, your are moving away from a scientific debate, and moving into the realm of opinion. You can't debate what everyone's definition of reasonable is, but you can look at evidence. Where is the actual scientific evidence that directly refutes evolution?

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 12:46 PM

The bottom line is this:

For there to be a serious debate on evolution, there must be substantial evidence to refute this theory. Where is it? I've seen many opinions on evolution, but no substantial science that simply proves evolution is not a viable theory. If there's no actual scienctific evidence to refute this theory, than all of the opinion in the world means nothing. I would love for someone to explain to me how an opinion should hold as much water as the accumulation of over 140 years of scientific research. I would also love to see any REAL evidence against evolution. This means peer-reviewed scientific research, that actually proves evolution should be rejected. I'm not talking about 1 random study, funded by some religious group, I mean a real, peer-reiewed study backed up with repeatable observations. Evolution is held to the rigorous standards of a scientific theory, and any credible refutation of the theory should be held to those same standards. The burden of proof is on those who are against this theory, because proof for evolution is overwhelming.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 12:54 PM

To poke holes in evolution, one does not need to prove an alternative.

True, one does not need to provide an alternative. One does, however, need to provide scientific reasons as to why they percieve a hole in this theory. It's easy to say, "the eye is incredibly intricate, and too complex to have evolved". That statement is opinion. Where is the evidence that proves the eye did not evolve? Where is the evidence that only simple structures can form in nature? Is there a limit to how complex things can be? Where is the evidence that it was created? You don't have to provide an alternative, you do, however, need to back up statements with more than just hot air and opinions.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 07:14 PM

hi,
evolution is fake. i truly believe that GOD Almighty made everything thats created. '''''hello'''', people say that they came from apes. Then why don't other creatures turn into human beings. HELLO''.

therefore evolution is fake

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 08:43 PM

Biologists can look at the relative number of mutations in various strains of the flu, and then the PREDICT which ones will likely cause the most harm in the human population. This is a very practical way in which evolution is used as a PREDICTIVE tool.

Sorry, that is incorrect. You are predicting, based on what is known about the characteristics of a given species, what effect that species will have on its environment. That is a far cry from predicting which species will be produced and what its characteristics will be.

It is no different than Mendeleev being able to predict the qualities of undiscovered elements merely by seeing where the holes existed in the periodic table.

Say again? I see no relationship between the two situations, whatsoever.

Science is a tool. It is used to improve the quality of life for humankind. Evolution can be used as a tool just as every scientific theory is used in a similar way. The use of evolution as a tool directly affects the lives of everyone. The "theory of intelligent design" can in no way be used as a tool to improve the lives of anyone.

None of this proves evolution, only that if we accept what science says about evolution that useful things will be produced. I won't argue there. The same could be said for Newton's laws, which are the basis for engineering. But Newton's laws are now known to be incorrect, at least as a fundamental theory.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 08:50 PM

"if you don't believe in evolution, then don't believe in biology" is merely pointing out that NO ONE believes anything in science. It is not a faith based enterprise like religion.

But your statement indicates that if someone is not willing to acknowledge the "truth" of evolution, then they should reject everything else that is known from the field of biology since evolution is (supposedly) its foundation. That is absurd.

Your statement above is aimed at those who don't believe in evolution, that they shouldn't believe in biology. In the following paragraph, your statement is aimed at everyone and indicates that no one (not just creationists) should believe in biolology.

Science is based on the ACCEPTANCE or REJECTION of ideas. Religion is what people choose to believe. You can believe anything you want when it comes to religion. When it comes to science, you ACCEPT a theory, or you REJECT A theory, you don't BELIEVE in a theory. When to ACCEPT or REJECT a theory, it is on the basis of scientific evidence, not a gut feeling. Save belief for church.

By the way, I wouldn't characterize belief as a mere gut feeling.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 08:53 PM

One does, however, need to provide scientific reasons as to why they percieve a hole in this theory.

No, all they have to do is state that they don't believe the evidence is sufficiently strong.

Unregistered

11-29-2006, 09:00 PM

When everyone has a different understanding of what is reasonable, your are moving away from a scientific debate, and moving into the realm of opinion.

Unless you can mathematically prove it, it will be based on opinion. That is true of nearly all science except for physics and (possibly) chemistry. Are you really suggesting that an experiment that relies on human judgement to analyze the results isn't scientific? If so, throw out most of the work done in the fields of biology and psychology.

You can't debate what everyone's definition of reasonable is, but you can look at evidence.

Yes, we can all look at evidence. But looking at evidence doesn't do anything. The only gain is when we analyze (using our own ideas of what is reasonable) the results and come to a conclusion. And not everyone has to, or will, agree. If we require agreement (which seems to be the case here) we end up with dogma.

Where is the actual scientific evidence that directly refutes evolution?

Again, you are asking those who don't believe the results of an experiment to disprove it. That is a fallacy.

I'm an evolutionist. I don't believe in creationism. I just don't buy a lot of the logic used in this forum to refute creationists.

Paul R. from Boston

12-03-2006, 11:28 AM

Too often in this debate folks seem to think that creation is an actual theory that opposes evolution. People will say that students should be free to "believe" what they want. This assumes there is an actual debate going on in the scientific community. The debate is mainly between those who understand science and "accept" scientific theories, and those who "believe" in creationism. To say we are free to believe evolution is the same as saying we are free to believe atomic theory, or we are free to believe mathematics. These things are not "believed". These things are "accepted". Belief is a matter of faith, and there is no room for belief in science. In science a set of data or observations is presented and explanations are then accepted or rejected. Belief does not play a role. Many are confusing the notions of scientific discovery and theories with the notions of faith and religion. This is a complete misunderstanding and those who feel that we should all be free to "believe" whatever we want need to gain an actual understanding of what science is!!

Quoting in legnth here, because this is the best thing anyone has said in this whole "debate". There is no real scientific discussion between creation and evolution. No scientific institute or leading scientist even considers religous belief in bringing scientific reason to the question of life origins.

The entire debate takes place in the non-scientific sectors. No study has ever cast doubt on the role of human activity in global warming and yet over half of the media "studies" continue to pretend there is some question or debate. These disinformation campaigns are political in nature and are not taken seriously by any scientist.

Teachers are not experts in science. If you want to learn about the scientific explanations for life on earth, you will have to go to the books with an open mind seeking for answers. Many of those who have posted here get their arguments from others who simply want to supplant science with religion. Why? Perhaps because faith has been a tool for suppressing individual freedom and a doubting, open, questioning spirit. From the Romans to the Mayans to the Victorians, faith has been used as a political tool to enslave and enforce.

Christ rebelled against the religions of his time to challenge his people to find the spirit of God within. The hypocrites and pharissees who crucified him would be smiling to see Christ's followers worshiping an 1800 year old religious text instead of following the Master's lead.

Unregistered

12-03-2006, 02:34 PM

Why? Perhaps because faith has been a tool for suppressing individual freedom and a doubting, open, questioning spirit.

This is the kind of statement that turns these debates ugly brawls. It isn't enough to advance scientific theories. It isn't enough to point out evidence that refutes creationism. Nooooooo, we have to throw in a mindless jab at the motives of our opponents. It is just another ad hominem attack, a fallacy that so-called proponents of scientific reason resort to countless times.

Unregistered

12-04-2006, 12:15 PM

This is the kind of statement that turns these debates ugly brawls. It isn't enough to advance scientific theories. It isn't enough to point out evidence that refutes creationism. Nooooooo, we have to throw in a mindless jab at the motives of our opponents. It is just another ad hominem attack, a fallacy that so-called proponents of scientific reason resort to countless times.

Yeah, religion is a harmless toy. The folks who are trying to replace science with religion in public schools would never continue with the heretic burnings where they left off when reason supplanted faith. How dare you worry about democracy being supplanted by theocracy! That could never happen here.

Unregistered

12-04-2006, 04:44 PM

I am a creationist, and before you decide that you are already not going to read this because of that, please take a moment to think...whats the harm in reading?
According to the Theory, all matter and energy was equally distributed throughout the Universe. Based on this theory, Cosmologists predicted that there would be no clumps and no great voids in the Universe, that in any particular direction you would see and an even amount of universes. With modern technology, scientists have been able to see
that there are ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across. Cosmologists scrambled to present an excuse for this evidence, quickly coming up with the most recent, Cold Dark Matter theory. The Cold Dark Matter theory suggests that 90-99% of the matter in our Universe cannot be seen or detected. This would explain the clusters since the gravity from the undetected matter would possibly cause clusters to form. However the last attempt at reviving the Big Bang theory was halted when calculations showed that the chances of the CDM creating the innumerable clusters and vast expanses in 10-20 billion years were miniscule.

I do belive in God...and I do belive that he created the earth.

Unregistered

12-04-2006, 11:26 PM

The folks who are trying to replace science with religion in public schools would never continue with the heretic burnings where they left off when reason supplanted faith.

So we start off with a personal attack on creationists, then we ramp up to state that they are out to burn people at the stake.

Can you lay off the hyperbole for awhile? It is making you look silly.

chocolate new orleans

12-04-2006, 11:53 PM

I teach Social studies and evolutionism is in it. So is religion.

Since Social Studies isn't on our state testing, I have more liberty than any other subject as to what I choose to teach or not teach. So... I don't teach evolution.

It goes against my beleifs as a Christian, and so there is noone that can make me teach something against my faith.

My priorities go God > Family > Country > job

Doesn't mean I don't love any of the 4, but don't make me choose

Unregistered

12-06-2006, 02:00 AM

If the standars state that you should teach evolution (and I am not saying they do, but some teachers don't have that luxury), then evolution must be taught. That doesn't mean students have to be told that evolution represents truth, only that evolution is a scientific explanation for what we see around us (but then again, so are Newton's laws, even though they are now regarded as less than "truthful.").

Unregistered

12-06-2006, 10:39 AM

A good site to check out is www.drdino.com
Kent Hovind will talk about both sides and give proof of what he talked about.

student

12-07-2006, 02:15 PM

In my opinion, and it's a very strong one, teaching the 'evolution' theory is the only partially accepted theory by science...it's the same with the 'Big Bang'. Now i'm not saying that cave men couldn't have come from apes, or that earth couldn't have come from soup (ha ha...soup), but science has only supported parts of these theories. They never explain where the particles came from that formed the soup that somehow exploded into space, or what kind of a state things were in before the soup. For all we know the soup was on a big white empty nothingness.
Science doesn't have all the answers, but it does have all the evidence, and with that being said we come to the controversial subject of creationism. This involves a faith. The definition of faith is believing things which can't be seen. I am mormon, and do believe that God created everything we know and see now. I believe he created the opportunities for the Big Bang and for man's evolution...(although I seriously doubt we were apes) But because science needs evidence to back things up...they have no proof of creationism. Just because children are taught the Big Bang theory from an early age, doesn't mean they believe it. That's their responsibility to look for a religion if they have questions about it...heck, ask your parents, or a missionary.
There's always a way...and for now, this is all science can come up with...a dot went bang, and we were monkeys. Even with this information being shoved in our minds, you have a brain to decide for yourself what you believe is true. Also, with the subject of creationism being taught in schools, it's called 'release time'....go to seminary (ya it's a mormon thing, but you can ask about the bible)

Chocolate_New_Orleans

12-07-2006, 02:25 PM

World history touches on cavemen, evolution a little bit at the beginning of the book. I refuse to teach it.

Unregistered

12-07-2006, 02:26 PM

The only reason we even debate this issue at all is that Fundamentalists just can't keep their theology to themselves...they have to smear their ignorance on everything they touch. And they never shut up.

There is more evidence to support Evolution than there is to support the existence of Jesus Christ, and this evidence comes from Geology, Biology, Astronomy, and several other -ologies fundamentalists are too afraid of to investigate. For one reason or another, they choose ignorance over knowledge, and demand that we all fall into their lock-step of blind acceptance of authority, no matter how often they are proven wrong.

Nutshell: Evolution is science, "Intelligent" design is not.

Sincerely,

Robert Miller

Just because people CHOOSE to believe in their faith and not that we came from a big dot that went 'KABOOM' doesn't mean they're ignorant...it means they don't need facts to believe something. Needing facts to prove a point destroys the definition of a faith...believing things which cannot be seen, which are true. Science cannot even fully prove the theory of the Big Bang, I agree with the quote above...that for all science knows we came from a big white nothingness before the dot went BOOM. (Science once thought that the sun revolved around the earth...science CAN be wrong because after all....it all started out with an opinion)

When you die...just expect a big 'I told you so'

Mr. H

12-08-2006, 06:07 PM

Having been raised in a religious family and all that goes along with that, I believe in creationism, BUT I also believe in Evolution... Let us not forget that Darwin was at odds with himself as he was a Christian as well. Guided Evolution is a perfectly acceptable theory for me. I don't need to know the specifics, I don't pretend to understand God's mind or intentions.

As far as teaching Creation and Evolution... it's only fair that both sides should be presented. We are not teaching zommbies, we are looking to create some free-thinkers. If you believe in your religion GREAT, providing you have a reason for the beliefs top which you cling. I wouldn't want my kids to just believe everything I believe, because I think it's right. How can we expect to learn anything when only one side of an argument presented?

the doctor

12-09-2006, 01:55 PM

the doctor

12-09-2006, 02:15 PM

I find it frightening that chocolate and others would not teach evolution because it is at odds with their religion's dogma. That is precisely what is wrong with hiring such people and allowing them to "educate" our chidlren. They are uneducated, closed-minded bigots who will not teach something which challenges their own belief. Hence, they are lying to students and not giving students the abilty to weigh and measure on their own. Plus, it is a religious belief which has no place in a PUBLIC SCHOOL classroom. What if my personal belief was that Chinese people are inferior, or that cows should rule the planet? Unfounded? JUST as unfounded as any religious smut out there. Do you want your kids to learn that? I hope that chocolate and other alleged teachers like minded are fired immediately. Parents should be outraged and certifying boards should be alarmed that the pick and choose of PERSONAL belief in ruining our schools.
AS for the foolish comments re science is theory and unproven; clearly, the ignorant folk who have posted those comments do not understand what THEORY is. Theory is based on reasonable inferences based on observation and prior knowledge which leads one to infer that X may be the case. Mathematics is based on theory--do you dispute MATH? Pythagoras hasd a throem based on observation and a priori knowldege which means that C will be the result in cases when A and B are true in certain circumstances. Other knowledge is based on that theory.
The difference between the religious ignorant and the logical scientitifc mind is that the latter will take knowldge and probablity into consideration and is willing to recognize when more knowledge is needed. For example, lacking the technical instruments we have today, early mathematicinas or scientists could only go so far in assumptions. Once our devices were better, theories were shown to be facts. Ditto for what we theorize now--information lacking/devices lacking will no dount enlighten us once the their time has come-- as long as intelligent people know how theories work. On the other hand, we have the illogical and stupidly circular reasoning of the religious who, when a child dies of a dread disease, tell us, "It was god's will" and when that same child lives, says "It was god's will". Pretty easy to account for anything with this childish and ulitmately foolish law.

Unregistered

12-09-2006, 02:23 PM

Re teh pst belwo: BOTH sides? Creationsim is not an opposing THEORY to Evolution. Creationism is not based on anyting that anyone can examine, observe, dispute, test. If you tach Creationism as "another theory" of the world, than you may as well admit the fact that Boo-Boo-Wah created the planets. After all, it is what Mr X beleives. Or, Ms. Y's belief that the earth was created from a huge pile of interstellar play-doh that the infinite Faery-Angel-Child was playing with and shaped into its current form . . .You may as well stage a political debate between a molar and a swallow...
I prefer to call Creationsim by its proper spelling: CRETINISM

.Having been raised in a religious family and all that goes along with that, I believe in creationism, BUT I also believe in Evolution... Let us not forget that Darwin was at odds with himself as he was a Christian as well. Guided Evolution is a perfectly acceptable theory for me. I don't need to know the specifics, I don't pretend to understand God's mind or intentions.

As far as teaching Creation and Evolution... it's only fair that both sides should be presented. We are not teaching zommbies, we are looking to create some free-thinkers. If you believe in your religion GREAT, providing you have a reason for the beliefs top which you cling. I wouldn't want my kids to just believe everything I believe, because I think it's right. How can we expect to learn anything when only one side of an argument presented?

a simple servant

12-09-2006, 04:59 PM

So we start off with a personal attack on creationists, then we ramp up to state that they are out to burn people at the stake.

Can you lay off the hyperbole for awhile? It is making you look silly.

as a christian, it concerns me that people are afraid of religious groups. that those people have historical facts to back up their fear concerns me even more. and that there truly are those who would supplant free enquiry with religious doctrine, as do many who post here, concerns me hugely. now, the fact that some of those people voice those fears i find a welcome challenge. that there are those who ridicule those who voice those fears, i find reprehensible.

shame on you for trying to trivialize the concerns of non-believers. if you had any confidence in your beliefs, you would respectfully face their doubts and provide reassurance.

finally, i simply wish to tell those who fear religion that it is not christianity that is dangerous, or for that matter islam. small minded people are a danger to themselves, to others, and to society. small minds don't need religion to be dangerous. but narrow thinking heaps slander upon the religion it uses to justify its craven behavior.

Unregistered

12-10-2006, 04:01 PM

as a christian, it concerns me that people are afraid of religious groups. that those people have historical facts to back up their fear concerns me even more. and that there truly are those who would supplant free enquiry with religious doctrine, as do many who post here, concerns me hugely. now, the fact that some of those people voice those fears i find a welcome challenge. that there are those who ridicule those who voice those fears, i find reprehensible.

These aren't "concerns," but insults. This is just a cheap way to assign a negative image to a group of people not based on what they do, but what they "will" do.

What I find reprehensible is this totally simple-minded approach to history. The entire context surrounding what took place in the past must be included, not just the events themselves. History is more than a mere collection of facts.

For example, we would have to consider the average citizen's view towards human life today and 200 years ago. Most creationists I know are not only anti-abortion, they oppose the death penalty as well. They clearly have a different attitude towards human life than their ancestors; in fact, I would venture to say that they hold human life in a higher regard than the average person. To assume that they would turn to burning people at the stake is pure nonsense and is blatant stereotyping.

It is bad enough to stereotype based on what we perceive people do today, but to stereotype based on what "similar" people did 200 years ago is sheer stupidity.

In summary, your argument is not a concern, but bigotry.

finally, i simply wish to tell those who fear religion that it is not christianity that is dangerous, or for that matter islam. small minded people are a danger to themselves, to others, and to society. small minds don't need religion to be dangerous. but narrow thinking heaps slander upon the religion it uses to justify its craven behavior.

And so those that disagree with your views must be small minded and therefore dangerous.

Unregistered

12-10-2006, 04:05 PM

Mathematics is based on theory--do you dispute MATH?

Mathematics is based on proof, not theory. In fact, that is what separates mathematics from science and makes mathematics far more reliable than science.

Chocolate_New_Orleans

12-10-2006, 07:49 PM

Mathematics is based on proof, not theory. In fact, that is what separates mathematics from science and makes mathematics far more reliable than science.
they teach music theory so why not creationism (a theory)

Unregistered

12-11-2006, 12:02 AM

And so those that disagree with your views must be small minded and therefore dangerous.

Well, you seem determined to represent religion by attacking those who fear it. Reminds me of certain leaders who spend trillions on military "crusades" and then ask "why do they hate us" Or like those who become so angry at non believers who depict their religion as violent that they take to the streets to kill.

Dr. Chen

12-12-2006, 03:24 PM

Religion is a beautifully ennobling force of life. The need for humans to seek the great Power behind the mystery of life is undeniable; necessary. Religion is a great light in the darkness. Religion is man, struggling to recreate God's act of bringing order out of chaos.

But misused, religion can wreck terrible harm.

When the light of religion is shone upon the faults of others it becomes hypocrisy. When the desire to create order out of chaos becomes the tool of controlling the behavior of others, it becomes pure evil.

There are forces of evil at work in our world, and as in Christ's time, the most heinous of them are cloaked in the garb of religion.

Let's don't forget that it was the religious men of his time who crucified Christ. They acted with compete surety in their own righteousness. Be careful lest you become the monster you fear.

student

12-13-2006, 12:09 AM

Read Richard Dawkins THE GOD DELUSION and it will become clear how crationism has no place in education. It also answers many of the bizarre claims some of the posters have added to this board re god being the ultimate creator. Non sequitar. There is no god and, if there were, who/what created god? Religion spins you in silly ircles--which is why it is faith based--not fact based. It is illogical and makes no sense; hence, it should never be taught as part of any logical field.

Science can't back up all of the big bang theory OR evolution....Let me tell you a little bit about heaven and god from most people's points of view. God and Heavens are it...we have no comprehension of eternity because everything on this earth has a time limit...a time to die, a time to live, etc etc. If you were taught from birth that the earth was square, you'd believe it. God cannot be proven until after death and that is partially why a religion requires FAITH. Ask yourself about times you've put faith in something. Like the sun rising everyday. At one point in time nobody could give rhyme or reason as to why it happened, later in life we could prove it. The bible is a book like that of any other scientists journal expressing many witnesses and events that can testify to a God. Just because it doesn't have any fancy equations in it doesn't mean it's not possible.
God was not created, he just is. It's hard for minds to understand this because we know no such thing as eternity. I'm going to share a story with you helping assist my poing. My mother's best friend was in a terrible car crash at the age of 18. She was driving alone in the drivers' seat with seatbelt securely fastened. She was T-boned from the passanger side of her car. Unexplainably, she ended up in the BACK OF THE CAR ON THE PASSENGER'S SIDE. (no investigator could explain this) While at the hospital she was given a blessing, after the blessing the missionary told her her son (which would not be born for another 5 years) would be a great influence in her life. She was paralized. Seven years after the car crash she was looking through photos of her accident and came acrossed one showing her entire car completely smashed in. When her two year old son viewed this photo, he asked, "Is that why your legs don't work mommy?" she replied, "yes honey" he responded, "That's when I pulled you to the other side of the car"
God created the possibility for the Big Bang and Evolution. The rest is God's will. The funny thing is, scientists still can't prove what happened before them, because they're so focused on proof! God is here in our hearts if opened unto him. I'm not saying you have to believe, but it does make you wonder

Unregistered

12-13-2006, 12:09 AM

Unregistered

12-13-2006, 12:40 AM

We Irish well remember the good old days when the church ran the government and we were forced by the law to entrust our children to the priests and nuns. Maybe you Yanks think they'll stop with forcing creation and fear of sex down the throats of the little ones, but they won't be satisfied till they've got our babies in their clutches. And you don't have to look far in the news to discover what the holy joes do with the children when nobody is watching.

Check your stats einstein....not all children rapists are from a church! And i'm not saying it should be enforced in the government, but i'm simply implying it doesn't have to be proven to be true.

Unregistered

12-13-2006, 02:43 PM

I remember singing a song as a kid: You'll know we are Christians by our love.

Nowadays, it seems you can tell by the level of arrogance and animosity. Calling people "Einstein" and "know it all" because they differ in their views is a sign that certain religions no longer care about winning converts. The agenda has perhaps shifted to sifting the believers from the unbelievers. Using religion to divide is a good way to end up like Iraq. And it is the essence of hypocrisy. Shame on you.

On behalf of sincere Christians I apologize to those of you who are ridiculed by radicals hiding behind faith.

Unregistered

12-13-2006, 07:01 PM

Just because i'm a christian, doesn't mean that i'm a rapist. That's all i've been saying. Are you a rapist because you're Christian? No, so therefore what i've been saying is indeed true. I don't hide behind my faith. I don't even mention to most people what religion I am becaue quite frankly, if they want to be converted and are interested, great for them. If not, that's good too. I'm not going to preach to those who have a unjustified opinion of Christians. People attack schools such as BYU whenever any slightests thing goes wrong, why? Because they're a religious school. I'm defending what Christians are...that doesn't mean I want to force every living thing to go to church with me. You can't force religion upon anyone unless they have an open heart. I just don't appreciate being called a pedifile. I'm a woman for crying out loud...that'd be pretty hard to do considering most rapists are men. Case in point....all Christians aren't rapists, and I DO believe in separation in church from state.

Unregistered

12-13-2006, 07:06 PM

We Irish well remember the good old days when the church ran the government and we were forced by the law to entrust our children to the priests and nuns. Maybe you Yanks think they'll stop with forcing creation and fear of sex down the throats of the little ones, but they won't be satisfied till they've got our babies in their clutches. And you don't have to look far in the news to discover what the holy joes do with the children when nobody is watching.

I don't recall all people who practice a relgion being pedifiles...

Unregistered

12-14-2006, 03:56 AM

Well, you seem determined to represent religion by attacking those who fear it

Where have I attacked anyone that feared religion?

I might attack ideas, but I don't attack individuals. We need to stop the anti-Christian hysteria. Burnings at the stake? Oh, my.

Paul R. from Boston

12-15-2006, 11:29 AM

nWe need to stop the anti-Christian hysteria. Burnings at the stake? Oh, my.

Amen to that! Let's begin by acting like Christians. That might mean welcoming the questioning and doubts of non-believers instead of heaping dogma on them with contemptuous language. Or it might mean forgiving our enemies instead of conducting preemptive strikes upon them. It might mean rendering unto Ceaser instead of becoming a political entity rather than a spirtual one. In short, it might mean influencing the world through our prayers and our kindness rather than through trying to bully it into submission.

Unregistered

12-16-2006, 04:48 AM

That might mean welcoming the questioning and doubts of non-believers instead of heaping dogma on them with contemptuous language.

Most of the contemptuous language in this thread seems to be spewed by those attacking Christians.

Or it might mean forgiving our enemies instead of conducting preemptive strikes upon them.

What sort of preemptive strikes are you talking about?

It might mean rendering unto Ceaser instead of becoming a political entity rather than a spirtual one. In short, it might mean influencing the world through our prayers and our kindness rather than through trying to bully it into submission.

Voicing opinions through political action is bullying?

Read the messages in this thread. While I often find the posts by Creationists in this thread illogical (at least, from my viewpoint), they are far less insulting and contemptuous as their opponents. Read this thread and look at some of the blatant insults used to attack Creationists. One poster has even implied that they are evil.

So who are the real bullies?

student

12-17-2006, 05:11 PM

Being a christian, I believe anyone can believe whatever in the heck they wish to. If you believe a dot magically appeared from energy that happened to already exist, then explode into a bazillion gallaxies...so be it. But if you believe a higher being created that dot and let it set the course for the rest of history, and sent certain people to do his work on the earth....so be it.
But just because someone believes differently than science is no reason to scrutanize. We have witnesses to God, and you have scientific proof of everything afterwards...we don't 'not believe in science' we just believe that its helped a little through God's will. For heaven's sake, we teach greek mythology in schools, that was a form of religion back then. Why not teach a form of religion in a similar manner? It won't destroy the world; it'd be an elective class....like mythology.
If we set an analogy to the long debated creationism vs evolution...it'd be colors. We don't scrutanize people for having a different favorite color than yourself...so why debate whether a religion is better or worse than science. Religion is based on faith, something that can't be proven but you know is true. If you don't believe in god, you don't understand it to the extent that Christians do.

Paul

12-24-2006, 05:10 AM

student-you misunderstand. no one is suggesting religion is wrong. some who claim to represent Christianity want their BELIEFS taught INSTEAD oF SCIENCE in public schools. see the problem?

Unregistered

12-24-2006, 05:58 AM

No one is claiming to represent Christianity from what I have seen. And I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned Creationism replacing evoluiton, only that both be taught. I don't agree with teaching Creationism in a science class, but at least I understand their point of view.

Unregistered

12-27-2006, 01:53 PM

Man's pride leads him to fall away from God, just as the angels before him. Science is pride. Defenders of "reason" suggest that if religious people had their way, we would see a return to the so called Dark Ages. We call the Dark Ages the Age of Faith, a time when men and society in general depended soley upon God's word and his church. Would we miss some of the benefits of science, such as medicine and transportation? Yes, but life is relatively short and full of suffering anyway.

We do want to teach Creation and the Bible in public schools. I for one am unashamed to admit and defend that. Science is pridefullness. Mankind is better off without it.

Mildred

12-28-2006, 08:49 PM

I just came home from two hour eye surgery. Thanks to science, I won't spend the remainder of my life in darkness. You can bet I prayed but I'm sure glad that science was there along with God. You talk big about returning to the "Age of Faith" but I wonder if you'll choose the white cane when your turn comes around.

Unregistered

12-30-2006, 05:10 PM

Some religious people are really difficult.

This is why: Their religion tells them that there is only one truth and that is god. They are faithful. Their religion somehow gives them the message that they should reach out to other people and convert others into their religion. They are faithful, so they follow. It is good to respect their religion, and doing so means to be total understanding of what they do. However, since their religion makes them so close-minded, you cannot talk reason with them, so the only other option then is to ignore them. Unfortunately, since they are constantly trying to convert you, you have to do the constant ignoring... So then... the annoyance... is justified?

Creationism isn't science, neither is Intelligent Design. Evolution is science because it is based on scientific evidence. By reason, evolution exists in science and creationism exists in philosophy or theology, or maybe as a discussion topic in English. If you don't like evolution, then you might as well advocate for the abolishment of science altogether. Unfortunately, if you do so, you won't find many people agreeing with you.

It's that simple.

Be Just

01-01-2007, 01:41 AM

I appreciate the previous poster's explanation. You did not insult or talk down to anyone. But you spelled out pretty clearly why this long discussion seems to go around the same circles repeatedly. Some people are not only not listening, they have sealed up their ears.

Religious discussion has always interested me. But it is frustrating when only one side is open to new ideas. Thanks for pointing out that someone who thinks he has the entire truth cannot be reasoned with. I never really got that until now.

I am a relgious person with strong beliefs. But those beliefs make me humble in the presence of an all knowing God. Where do people get the hubris to believe they know everything that God knows? To me, man creating God is idolatry.

Some of those who wrote here act as if they have had a personal conversation with the Creator. The truth is that everything you think you know, you learned from other people. Attributing your personal beliefs to the Almighty gives a certainty that is purely imaginary.

We can reach out toward God, our prayers, though simply groans, may be heard, but all of this is a matter of personal belief. Science has nothing to do with personal belief. Science is an attempt to discover workable ideas to attain a body of knowledge that can lead us to practical solutions. Genetics has great promise for curing disease and easing suffering. The significance of Evolutionary Theory is that it helps scientists to attain better methods for meeting the material needs of people. The spiritual needs are still the domain of religion, and there is plenty of work to be done in those fields without making ourselves look ridiculous by interfering with science.

So to you who have found the arguments by the so called religious people here to be ridiculous, please know that those who seek to supplant reason with their personal idea of religion represent a very small minority of religious people. Not all of us have our ears closed and our brains turned off.

student

01-02-2007, 01:45 AM

student-you misunderstand. no one is suggesting religion is wrong. some who claim to represent Christianity want their BELIEFS taught INSTEAD oF SCIENCE in public schools. see the problem?

That's very true, and I understand that. But for the people who believe that religion should be taught instead of science, you're insane. And for the people who believe that science is the only way to explain anything, you're insane too.
Why not just meet a happy medium? Offer a class about religion as an elective, and if a child opts to take it...oh my heck...IT'S THERE! But they can still fill their minds with the science that all scientists want them to learn. Just because it's an alternate theory to a religious belief doesn't make it bad! Science backs up a lot of things...and if you're Christian, you know that God lets things happen....like the big bang maybe? Win win in my opinion. The class is offered, but doesn't interfere with the current curriculum! BRILLIANT!

Unregistered

01-04-2007, 03:58 PM

Reading some of the posts regarding evolution vs. creationism made me cringe.

Firstly, evolution is a theory that has no evidence to support it. Since Darwin wrote his premise they have been searching for 150 years and have not found one shred of proof for this theory. Please do not point to evidences cited in the basic high school text books. They have all been shown to be fakes (moths on the tree, embryos which look similar, missing links etc. all were frauds). It takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God as creator.

Secondly, most of the leading evolutionists don't even believe what we are forcing down kids throats today. Hawkings believes little people from outer space started it all....insane.

Thirdly, the notion that one is uneducated or uniformed if they believe in Creationism is elitism at its worst. There are numerous respected scientists who believe in creation.

I also believe in a world wide flood as the evidence seems to show the Bible is correct. "Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth." Check out the web site Answers in Genesis if you want to really have an honest look at both sides of this argument.

Unregistered

01-07-2007, 01:22 AM

I am under the impression that the scientific merits of Evolution is being debated, that there are many things some people would call as evidence of evolution while others would dismiss. Most of the scientists I have met, however, are in favor of Evolution and believe it to be scientific. Regardless, whether or not Evolution is scientific should only determine whether or not Evolution should exist in the science curriculum; it should not determine whether or not religion should replace evolution.

The science we teach to high school students will always be behind the science currently being discussed by leading research. After all, are we not still telling high schoolers to draw Bohr diagrams, only to completely dismiss it a year later? Without an understanding of the history of the theory's progress, it is difficult to understand the current theory. Regardless, whether or not evolution is currently being taught correctly should only determine whether or not evolution should be changed in the science curriculum; it should not determine whether or not religion should replace evolution.

Nobody should say if people believe there is a creator, then they are uneducated or uninformed. One can learn everything there is to know about science (within a practical limit) and still dismiss it altogether, and there is nothing wrong with this. However, there is a concrete definition on what is science and what is not. Science is everything that we have discovered through the application of the scientific method. We have not arrived at religious beliefs through the application of the scientific method. Consequently, religion is not science. Religion is religion, and should not be taught in a scientific classroom.

As for whether the flood existed: Let us just assume for a minute that there was a flood a long, long time ago, at precisely the exact time the bible described it to be, and we have verified it and made sure that it is 100% true. If such is the case, then all we can conclude is that there was a flood back then in that time period, and we can conclude nothing else.

The flood is a very small percentage of the bible's content. It is inappropriate to say that the bible is completely true just because a very small percentage of it is true, especially when the bible is such an old document that it has been rewritten and translated countless times by humans. Many people still believe that the bible is not fit even for a historical document, let alone a science one.

student

01-07-2007, 10:01 PM

The flood is a very small percentage of the bible's content. It is inappropriate to say that the bible is completely true just because a very small percentage of it is true, especially when the bible is such an old document that it has been rewritten and translated countless times by humans. Many people still believe that the bible is not fit even for a historical document, let alone a science one.

Ancient Egyption is just as old, but it's still being taught in schools...

Unregistered

01-12-2007, 04:33 PM

I am a high school teacher, and I am restricted from teaching Creationism in my classroom; therefore, I don't teach evolution either. I am a devout Christian, but I'm open-minded. I don't think that people should base all their facts on science. It has been wrong in the past and we will continue to find things wrong with it. Creationism has never changed. The theory has stayed the same since the beginning of time. I don't believe in evolution, but if people want to think they came from a monkey, it's their choice. I know that I came from God's own image. It is a shame that people make this subject such a controversy when our children can't even read. Trust me, I see it everyday. We need more of God's teaching in our schools. Unbelievers may not think so due to the fact that they don't know the healing power of Christ, but it doesn't matter. One day every eye will see the truth. God is awesome!

zonker

01-14-2007, 05:15 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070114/cx_db_uc/db20070114

Be Just

01-14-2007, 05:30 PM

Very funny, Zonker, but it is a real zinger. The people who want to teach Creation in lieu or side by side with science don't understand why there is such a strong backlash to the idea. They assume that the people who are against their beliefs being taught instead of science are simply sticking up for their own beliefs, as if science were just another form of heresy.

But what Doonsbery points out is that Creationism is just the tip of the iceberg and the churchs are being manipulated to take a stand for the continued destruction of God's creation by the muliti national corporations who use their money to subvert the democratic process, taking advantage of gullible people's heartfelt beliefs to cast doubt on the science that exposes toxic waste, global warming, and the long list of hard fought battles where truth has begun to make headway against propaganda.

Last night I heard an enlightening news report about evangelical churches who are splitting from their party to stand up for the environment. The speakers all relate how they gradually became aware that the truth about the environment was being orchestrated and that had been duped. Unfortunately, they are waking up after much ground has been lost to the folks we put into office who carefully undid all of the legal protections that took so many hard fought battles.

The world does not have time for us religious folks to wait until the sludge is coming out of our own water faucet to stop dancing to the devil's tune. A little humility would go a long way. We could begin by listening to science and trying to learn from it instead of spending so much time and energy oppossing issues we don't take the time to understand.

Thanks for that contribution, which says it all.

Unregistered

01-16-2007, 12:03 PM

The world is divided into people who think with their heads and people who know with their hearts.

We know we have the truth, so all of you eggheads can keep discussing, because the future belongs to those who KNOW the truth. We are willing to fight for what we believe. Are you? Do you even know what you believe? Our plan is in place and I guarantee that in 20 years, every school in America will be teaching Creation, The Truth.

Unregistered

01-18-2007, 08:54 PM

I am a college student at a well known university and was looking over the replies that you've received. I am currently writting an english paper on the same topic except I am reseaching it from which should be taught in the public school system. I completely think 100% that evolution is what should be taught to children. I think that creationism is a way for religious individuals to get there views into the public. Don't get me worry, I think religion is important but not in the science class room.
It's kind of Ironic when an individual posts a reply grammatically incorrect, especially when that individual is a college student. "I think that creationism is a way for religious individuals to get there (their) views"

A) Evolution is extremely flawed. It is the most scientifically accurate theory we have but children and teenagers should not be taught something innaccurate.

B) Children should be exposed all ideas. Creationism can not be proven but teachers should at least mention the possibility. They should NOT go over it in detail.

C) Government tax dollars are wasted to allow children's minds to become corrupted by innaccurate and unproven theories. There are other topics that are more worthwhile that could be taught instead of evolution.
~Side note, some aspects of evolution have been proven true but not all. For instance there is NO concrete proof that monkey evolved into man.

Iwrotearticleabove

01-18-2007, 09:02 PM

Our constitution states that church and state should be separate. First of all, the public school system is a branch of the government, and therefore it is unconstitutional. Second, it is bigoted and ludicrous to assume that SCIENCE classes should teach a fundamentalist theology. While we're at that, let's go ahead and fill our science curriculum with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Our country was founded in God. Granted America hasn't always made the best decisions but still... What time period would you rather live in? The 1800's when crime rate was low and people were kind and courteous or would you rather live today, when crime is high and people only care about themself. Granted there are exceptions, there always are but facts are facts. Christianity is a religion that promotes peace and hope. You have the right to believe whatever you please but do not disrespect someone elses beliefs. Use facts not faith or opinion. Evolution should not be taught since it is flawed. Creation should not be taught as their is not enough evidence to back it up.
~wartex

Unregistered

01-19-2007, 05:27 PM

Public schools don't teach evolution. They teach scientific method, which weighs explanations for pheonomena, excluding those explanations which have no real evidence to support them. In the absence of certainty, science makes use of theory, which means the best available explanation.

The idea that schools are teaching children that humans evolved from monkies is an inflamatory untruth propagated by those who have an agenda for their particular religion to be taught.

By the way, picking apart the ideas of others based on grammar use is a particulary low form of discourse. This is the "world wide web" and many who weigh in here hail from countries where English is not the primary language. Try to focus on the ideas presented. Whether you are aware of it or not, your Anglocentric superiority is petty and annoying.

Also, if there really are people who believe that the quality of life was better 200 years ago, they must be people whose reading is purely devoted to fiction. If you want to experience American life in the 1800's, the closest you might come is in modern sub-saharan Africa, a place where modern medicine and ideas of equality are close to those of antebellum America. I just came back from there, and if you really long for the old days, I invite you to enjoy a year in the back country of the Congo River.

Unregistered

02-16-2007, 02:36 AM

Well, I must say that I have just willingly wasted hours of my life that I cannot get back...EVER. I have spent the whole time sitting here reading each and every strand of this thread, and here's what I have noticed (keep in mind, I am completely in the middle of this arguement, and I kind of believe both, if you can imagine that):

1) Staunch Christians get really fussy when they think they are being ignored. Calm down buffy, you still have your Mercedes and your mansion, so go bible beat somewhere else. Leave the educated conversations to those of us, religious and scientific alike, who can loby an educated arguement without getting offended when someone else does the same.

2) many Evolution supporters have no clue what they are talking about. They may be right, but they haven't done the research to sound intellegent enough to be taken seriously.

3) If you have to say stuff like "I believe in my heart that christian beliefs are the truth, and we're prepared to fight for what we believe, are you" then you already know you are a joke. Please, internet tough guy! go soak your head or something. There will not be any "Holy War" in this country within the next 20 years (or the next 200 years for that matter), no matter what your militant christian shaman has told you.

4) If christians are so "lowly" in the educated thinking department, then why do some "Evolutionists" have to "Stoop to their level" and loby attacks on those who have faith? Both sides should be amused by this discussion because so many people from both sides are taking it so seriously and are making asses out of themselves.

and my verdict after all of this is: Christians are getting way to caught up in trying to sell their version of the ultimate fairy tale. I am so fortunate to be able to see things logically, which is why I believe in faith AND evolution. I don't think you can have one without the other. With that being said, I think more evlolutionists should accept that faith-based thinking helps millions of people keep going on a daily basis, whereas Christians should realize that some people don't need faith, they need answers...answers that the big book just can't answer. Unfortunately, this is like having a "he said, she said" court case, but having all of the key parties burried long ago. There is no definitive expert to call to the stand. Say what you want, but I don't think Jesus Christ is coming back to defend his honor anytime soon.

Scrap the creationist ideals of putting this stuff next to actual science, because quite frankly it will only serve to discredit legitimate religions. It would be like getting into a boxing match with a puncher; you just can't win at his game without getting your snot knocked out. If the staunch christians want to put Creationism in the school, then they better be prepared for it to get disected just like math does, just like science does, just like the English language does. Once that happens, and there isn't any legitimate explanations for things, then many kids are going to be turned of to a religious statement that says "come with us. We can't tell you why you should, other than because it feels right, but come with us anyway." Kids nowadays are going to be like "yea, ok. Maybe next week when I'm bored."

You may say "sure, the kids who haven't been raised in a religious home will be like that, but not the true christian students." You're right, but isn't the reason for putting creationism in the schools so the middle of the roaders can get a legitimate idea of what you're selling? If this stuff gets put against proof and logic, and gets the hell kicked out of it (or into it, if you will) then you will defeat the purpose and lose those middle of the roaders.

you guys who want creationism taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS better think about what you're asking for, because if you get it...you'll definitely get it!

Unregistered

02-16-2007, 02:43 AM

"Christianity is a religion that promotes peace and hope."

spoken like someone who has been thoroughly brainwashed. If you think Christianity, a religion who is known for passing judgement, and known for degrading people for not agreeing with them, then you are definitely being led to your slaughter.

"Christianity is a religion that promotes peace and hope." Yup, and I bet you believe that Christopher Columbus was a hero, Richard Nixon was not a crook, and the tooth fairy plants money for rotted old baby teeth.

Unregistered

02-17-2007, 01:24 PM

You can tell when someone is losing an agrument by the responses they loby back. In 3rd grade when a kid is up against all ods, and can't adequately prove his or her point, and feels backed into a corner, they come out with personal attacks and childish stuff like "I know you are, but what am I..."

This is what I see from the hard core christian conservatives on this thread. They feel so threatened by what is being proposed by the believers of evolution that they can't think straight without lobying pointless jibber-jabber and personal attacks. Every year that goes by, the case for evolution gets stronger, and every year that goes by, right-wing religious zealots feel more and more powerless to stop the facts that are being presented. This leads some to get more defensive and bible-beat with more furor, and it leads some to say that faith is just that, faith in something. That's cool, because if you believe in something, religious or not, then you shouldn't have to explain why you believe in it, and you shouldn't have to try to convert people. I like religion like that, but I hate the zealots who think just because they believe it's true, everyone should belive it is. When they continue to beat you with something you don't believe and then you get pi$$ed off because they won't leave you alone about it, and then you snap, you look like the bad guy.

I belive in things I can see, feel, touch and smell. Things that have concrete data to back it up, and unfortunately religion isn't that FOR ME. I say FOR ME because I know that religion is that for many people, it just isn't FOR ME.
I think what swayed me from religion (which I used to be quite fond of) was when I started researching the history of religion, and taking religious history classes in college. I found it quite disturbing that as recently as the mid-1900's religion was being used for social control, as opposed to for worshiping purposes. As far back as religion can be traced there is evidence of people "tweaking" it to suit their needs, and keep others subserviant. It can be proven that almost every religion on the books dates back to some seat of power, whether that be a king, queen, prince, pharoh, shaman, whatever. The more research I did, the less I wanted to be associated with a form of social slavery.

Keep in mind, this is just my view, and I know there are going to be millions of you who are going to get up in arms over my words, but I just know that since I have accepted to wash my hands with religion and its attached strings, and it's flaming hoops that people are forced to jump through (or you'll go to hell), I have been so much happier, so stress-free, and so much more into myself as a person, and not just as a religious product. I'm not saying I totally accept evolution, but I am saying that, for me, it makes a much stronger case for legitimacy than does religion, FOR ME.

FOR ME is for whom I am living, not the church, not some god that may be or may not be there, not some man wearing a pretty silk robe saying that if i don't give my money to him, I won't be accepted into the kingdom. I'm no longer living for people who pass judgement on other people just because they like the same sex and want to get married. I can't willingly shun people because they don't believe EXACTLY what I believe, and I refuse to believe that, with so many religions in the world today, that mine is the all-being, end-all-be-all, absolute decision maker, and ruler of all other religions. I believe that Buhdists, hindus, muslims, and other "lesser" religions have a right to believe what they believe, and that Christianity, just becaue it has bullied the world into submisison, does not have the final say-so.

giggles

02-18-2007, 06:12 PM

I would have to say that I do not think creationism should be taught in schools. There is evidence that backs up Evolution and it is something that kids and adults should be aware of. It's important to know how (scientifically) the earth or animals and lants came to be or how they may have evolved. There is not proof that backs up that God made the Earth. I think it's important that everyone is at least aware of the evidence there is behind evolution, even if it may contradict their religion, but it their choice from there as to what they wish to believe.

Unregistered

02-19-2007, 07:34 AM

Evolution by "fact" is 99% true in other words its logical BUT it's that 1% that matters, that continues the debate between evolution and creationism.

Unregistered

02-19-2007, 03:02 PM

Unregistered

02-22-2007, 10:04 PM

Will someone please tell me where exactly it says in the constitution that there is to be separation of church and state? All I can find is a letter suggesting the idea from Thomas Jefferson as a way TO PROTECT THE CHURCH from the government. The founding fathers came from an era where the church was run and corrupted by the government. NOT the other way around.

Also, if you are a Christian you can not separate your "church" life from the rest of your life. The Bible tells us that man is without excuse because God is revealing himself through his creation. Also, there is little evidence to back up evolution. In fact due to lack of evidence there has been a paper written by scientist, who are not necessarily Christians, descenting against evolution. Evolution requires more faith than Christianity.

First off, I, not being a Christian, can say with certainty that your statement about it taking more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in religion, is quite the proper, Christian thing to say. If I were like some in here trying to push others to drop their own beliefs and pick up mine, I would say that in my book it takes way more faith to believe in an imaginary being who is magically holding up the whole planet, and determining the fates of all who breathe. I, however, am not asking anyone to stop believing in whatever keeps him or her going on a daily basis. You do what you have to do to get by.

My thinking, however, is that a superior being who is totally and solely responsible for everything we know is way harder to believe than chromosomal evolution that can be proven within a .001% accuracy rate. I also find it hard to believe that the majority of Christians that I encounter refuse to accept the possibility of life outside the earth, aliens if you will. They totally discount and fight tooth-and-nail against that idea, but want others openly to accept that a supernatural alien of sorts is responsible for creating man, animals, earth, and whatever else. I feel a double-standard there.

As far as the separation of church and state is concerned, it is covered in the first amendment, under the Establishment Clause, stating, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Forgive me for thinking that that knowledge was a common one.

All logical people know that the idea of separation of church and state was not created to protect the church from the government as you say, however, it is quite the reverse. Our forefathers were smart enough to learn from history and see how religion took over countries and entire continents and ended up going to hell. Why not prevent that and keep the two separate. To say that the idea was created to protect the church would be to say that an established powerhouse in governing and establishment, the most powerful legislative force (the Christian church), could be toppled by a fledgling, upstart government such as the U.S. government a couple hundred years ago. That thought is completely ridiculous.

I don’t expect everyone to think logically when the church has been force-feeding and blindfolding its followers for thousands of years.

10th grader NY

02-24-2007, 09:19 PM

I am a 10th grader, a catholic, and i got to a prep seminary.
My opinion on the evolution vs. creation thingy:
God triggered the "big Bang" and thus everything came into being. God triggered evolution this works because the catholic belief is that God knows all and know everything that will happen, so he knew what evolution was going to do.

Just so you kno, the whole evolution vs. creationism isnt that big of an issue anymore...but it is still fun to argue about

Unregistered

02-27-2007, 02:51 PM

Re. 'God created man in his own image."
More likely scenario it was Man who created God in his own image?
Let me get this straight: The Jews got the Creation story from the Babylonians, The Christians simply copied the Jewish Bible. Therefore, we should teach the 3000 year-old Babylonian creation myth to out children as truth? How does this make any sense to a reasonable person????

Unregistered

03-19-2007, 10:36 AM

student

03-19-2007, 02:31 PM

Either way, most people believe that something had to create your so-called 'booger' right? Of course. Scientists argue energy was the pinpoint of all creation, christians argue God created the energy. Either way there are holes in either arguement.
Let me expound...scientists need facts. They have been searching for what created the space and the matter and the energy to cause such a thing to happen. There is no explainiation so far in text books. Christians need faith. Faith is knowing the wind exists simpy from seeing the leaves rustle. (an analogy if you will) Faith is not proof therefor it is not accepted by science. And science has yet to proof this 'theory' they speak of.

I am mormon (christian) so I obviously have a biased opinion. I don't think that this life is it. Otherwise there'd be no point in your actions or living for any matter because there is no 'ultimate concequence'. I don't believe things happen for a reason. And I have FACT of this.

My mom's friend, Margot, was in a terrible car accident at a young age. She was somehow thrown from the drivers seat (she was buckled) all the way to the back passenger's side of the car. From the direction of the other car it was impossible to explain. She, having no religion, accepted a blessing from a mormon missionary who told her she'd have a son who'd be a strong influence on her in the church. (she was astounded by this because she wasn't even pregnant, or planned to be) Years later she was going through photos of the car accident (now in a wheelchair) with her 3 year old son. He asked, 'is that why you're in the chair mommy?' she replied, 'yes'. He then said, 'that's when I pulled you to the other side of the car'.

Science cannot explain that a child, with no prior knowledge to any religious figure, could come up with that kind of an answer.

Unregistered

03-22-2007, 06:21 PM

It seems that there are individuals that indicated from their replies that creationism has no place in the classroom because it is faith based. It would be fair to state that perhaps they haven't fully investigated the model of Intellegent Design.
Creationism is a theory, as is Evolution. Intellegent Design is a theory, as is Evolution, and is as are other models.
Teachers, as distillers of truth we should be willing to objectively examine and hold all theories to the same criteria, being willing to conceide when we need to and change when truth demands us to.
It is true that many people hold to the model of creationism because of their faith, why, because it is reasonable to them. Not because it is faith based, but inclusive of what billions of people declare to be ultimate truth, Scripture
There are thousands of scientist and teacher, etc. who believe that evolutions conclusions has created many unanswerable questions (because of the logic used to validate evolution) and is as a resoned system found inadequate when evaluated internally and extended to it's logical conclusion.
Perhaps what is happening here is a reality check for those on both sides of the issues. Where is our society going? Is evolution paving a way to amorality. Are we finding our rejection more of Evolution vs. Christianity, Bible, or what could be perceived as the empty headed, I accept everything my preacher said mentality. Is this more of a knee-jerk reaction (or maybe intolerance) to others because of what we see to be unreserved dedication, (perhaps we would want a more thought-out, toloerant response) dogmatic hold on their mind.
Let me know what you think.

Unregistered

03-25-2007, 07:06 PM

Hello all, I would like to interject my opinion and just say that both should be taught. I think the more evolution is discussed the less sense it makes. For the responder that stated that Christianity should stay in Sunday school and not in the classroom, I could'nt disagree with you more. Have we all turned a blind eye or just gotten used to the violence and deviance that is occurring each day in our society. Have we noticed how many more children are being victimzed by pedophiles (many of them priests, yes I know) or women who are being violated. Here is the problem with the evolution world view-its all about self. Survival of the fittest, do what makes you...... feel good. It teaches nothing about harmony, peace, self sacrafice. It tells us nothing about sin. And when our children grow up believing that there is no sin and the world revolves around them, be prepared as we have already begun to reap the consequences. Don't be fooled, evolution is a religion. It explains the world for some people and creates a sense of reality for those who choose to follow it. Many say there is no proof in Christ. Well I ask where is the proof for evolution. Where are those part monkey part human organisms living today. How many fossils have been found (missing links) that connect and prove macroevolution? How many fossils have been found that support Darwin's theory since his death? None!! I am a former evolutionist and a current biology student soon to receive my master's degree. I have searched every so called truth in order to truly understand my purpose for being here. The only one that talked back was Christ. He was true to his word that said if you knock the door shall be opened. It did not happen over night and I was stubborn about changing my world view but I am happy to say that I put my trust in him and I have never felt more purpose in my life and love for people. I tested the word of God and he delivered on his promises. God Bless you all and no matter what your view keep searching and please dont close yourself to the possibility of having a real relationship with Jesus. If he is for you who can be against you?