Evolution vs Creationism [Archive] - Teachnology Teacher Forum

newbie-x

03-08-2005, 11:26 PM

i finally was able to figure how to post my reply... or at least i hope so...
several quick thoughts
1) some people are already going against their conscience by not being able to bring up creation as a theory
2) science and Christianity are not mutually exclusive sets
3) science, at least in my estimation, as well as any discipline, is to better help our understanding of the Earth and Universe and to communicate it to others, then with whatever knowledge one has he/she makes new discoveries or passes on what he/she knows
4) one only has to look around at the wonder of it all to recognize that from wherever or whenever or whatever or Whomever started this process, albeit evolution or creation it is/was clearly WITH design so hence not happenstance
5) if all things go to disorder (as the 2nd law of thermodynamics states) then how would it be possible for a one cell organism to evolve into millions upon millions of varying species of vegetables or animals... it would seem that that is not disorder at all
6) go to www.icr.org (institute of creation research)... it has many articles (close to 400 in just the impact articles section) as well as comparing science facts and Biblical truths to each other
7) and lastly... just thinking out loud!
i do think that we all are still evolving... but only each species within its own species... i do not know how it could or would be at all possible for a one- cell parimecium to evolve into a cucumber... a chimpanzee... a dog... or a human... however i do think that God is the Master Designer and Artist and He alone has the ability to change and work on His creation as does any artist however and whenever he desires....and i think that throughout the centuries we have constantly come across new scientific facts that shows we can only begin to imagine what was actually being said in the Bible .. Thus [if] Christ is the maker of it all... it is only a miracle to US that He was able to walk on water or turn water into wine as it may defy all natural laws ...but aren't those only laws as we discover and agree with them (through observation and ability to re-create them)?... thus as Creator He clearly would be able to change its composition to make it be exactly as He wanted or needed it to be... and LASTLY.... whatever one decides to believe it still takes a stand of FAITH regardless whether it is creation or evolution

science student

03-17-2005, 05:25 PM

IB Student

04-10-2005, 08:42 PM

Unregistered

04-11-2005, 10:20 AM

I think Evolution is crazy and should be talked about in school.

God created heaven and earth and he created man in his image so if we evolved from an animal how can god of created us in his image unless he looked like a monkey himself?

Unregistered

04-11-2005, 08:55 PM

The separation of Church and State is important, and that's why it's in the constitution. So is the right to worship in your own harmless fashion (remeber the stuff about race, colour, creed?). Taken together, we can see there's good reason NOT to teach creationism in science, especially when you might find the Eurocentric slant doesn't mesh well with all of our great country's citizens. I can't believe this debate even goes on. Surely, if you believe in God, you can see his work is NOT explained by science. If, on the other hand, you're fairly confident there was no help getting us where we are, then you probably don't feel the need to spread a religious story as fact. Either way, leave creationism to Sunday school, not public school.

Unregistered

04-28-2005, 01:37 PM

To the "narrow minded, uneducated, Billy Graham disciple" that dropped the old God must look like a monkey line.....Read these posts and educate yourself, there are some smart people writing some insightful things. Quit knee jerk reacting to someone threating the teaching/brainwashing of your Sunday School teacher with an educated viewpoint!

Its like dealing with students, gee whiz.

Molalla

05-22-2005, 05:13 PM

Evolutionism isn't perfect, but it's the best theory we have.

God created this world including evolutionism. If animals evolved from simpler species, it is because God wished it. All humans are doing is observing His work.

AH Exactly how i feel :-)

P.S. what really bugs me is the people trying to get Creationism to be taught in public school im doing my senior paper on the topic and it's not done yet but here's what I've got so far

Why Creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools

The founding fathers of our country believed that it was important to separate government form religion. This was largely due to the fact that many of them were fleeing religious persecution in Europe when they came to America. One of the effects of the separation of church and state that is written into the very constitution of our country is that creationism, the Christian idea of how the world came to be, is not taught in public schools. Recently there has been increasing pressure to teach creationism alongside evolution as an opposing theory in our schools. Teaching creationism would be a direct violation of the separation of church and state. Creationism should not be taught in public school.
One argument I forwarded by creationists is that evolution is “just a theory” and is therefore less credible or not as proven. All this shows is a total lack of understanding of the scientific method and how it relates to theories. When a scientist has an idea it is a hypothesis. Only after much testing and evaluation can such a hypothesis graduate to becoming a scientific theory. This is as concrete as a scientific idea can get. Gravity and many other concepts that we take for fact are actually regarded as theories by the scientific community.
Many creationists will tell you that evolution cannot be observed, that if it happens why haven’t we seen it. The answer is that we have. It has been observed mainly among insects and plants. There are several well documented instances of this that are, if you will excuse a bad joke, religiously ignored by creationists.
Creationists often point to the fossil record as lacking proof of evolution. However their reasoning can be likened to that of a person who has a camera take pictures at random intervals throughout a movie and then is surprised when upon playing the pictures back doesn’t get a movie. The conditions required to form fossils are exceedingly rare. While the fossil record isn’t perfectly complete it does show how a species changes over time. It should also be noted that much more common and less glorified plant fossils can be used to show clear step by step evolution of several species.
One of the strongest arguments against teaching creationism in schools is fact that at it’s core creationism is a purely religious belief. There is no hard evidence to support the ideals of creationism. If you look at many arguments for creationism most of what you will find is people doing their best to poke holes in the theory of evolution and then well look, it must have been god. This is no basis for teaching something in a science class. If it belongs anywhere the topic of creationism belongs in an elective class like comparative world religions.
Teaching creationism as part of a required biology or science course would totally destroy the course you put it in. In order to be able to teach a basically religious ideology like creationism you would also have to include every other religions idea of how the world came to be in order to maintain religious neutrality. This would greatly decrease the amount of other material that could be included as part of the course. You would have to either extend the course or add another class to make up for the evicted subject matter. Adding or extending courses would cause all kinds of problems, especially with school funding the way it is.
There are better places to teach creationism then public schools. It’s not like kids will be loosing their opportunity to learn about creationism if it isn’t taught in school. If this is a religious idea that parents want their children exposed to they need travel no farther then the nearest church. It is impossible not to gain some knowledge of creationism as an opposing idea to evolution in day-to-day life. If someone is curious information is easy enough to come by from a variety of sources. There is no reason for children to have religious dogma forced upon them as part of their education, an idea that many people would be violently opposed to.

Molalla

05-22-2005, 05:15 PM

wow it doesnt seperate paragraphs, that makes it kinda hard to read huh, oh well whatever.

Unregistered

05-23-2005, 04:13 PM

I personally believe and support the Big Bang Theory. God said it...BANG...it happened.

Unregistered

05-28-2005, 12:41 AM

Actually, evolution is also based on faith. When you climb back into your chair from fainting I'll explain.

Darwin (and like minded individuals) has made his theory on where he thinks life has started. All of his research is based on his own beliefs and biased opinions. Scientists (who share the same faith as good old Darwin) have faith that his initial findings are correct and quote his research as gospel (others see the flaws but go along with the overall argument).

Archaeologists who have examined his research closely know that there are many flaws in his theories and as such, have had to only call them theories, not laws (such as that Sir Isacc Newton character).

The more closely you examine his research (and the research of scientists attempting to prove his theories) you notice that in a lot of cases they disprove his theory.

As time goes on new species are created and the older version dies off. In fact it has been proven that all of the more "advanced" forms have actually been around just as long as their older version (you find them in the same hunk of rock that you pulled the new version from).

I'll bore you no more with details of either version. Just show up in class and learn both for yourself!

The bottom line is, if you are going to include the faith of Evolution (shouldn't Evolution be more rightly put into a philosophy class?), then you must also include Creationism as an option. If the teaching "scientist" mocks one or the other (which means the student no longer regards the teachers view as unbiased) then they are using their own bias and not using true non-biased scientific techniques. It takes more effort to allow people to come to their own conclusions rather than to offer only one side of an arguement.

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison

HAL

05-28-2005, 01:51 AM

For some reason Molallas post didn't show the first time I went through these posts.

A good arguement you have there. However, the evidence you describe (and dismiss quite readily) is exactly what I was referring to. Be careful when making such sweeping statements in a paper such as the one you describe. You need to sound a bit more open minded or else your biase shows through quite strongly. Not really all that scientific.

You are presenting a theory. However when the Creationist disproves it, the Evolutionist dismisses the rebuttle. Comparing it to being as concrete as gravity due to the fact that the the scientific process is followed is not quite correct. The world was also "scientifically" proven to be flat not all that long ago. Or was it? The theory was disproved and we moved on. Gravity was observed from the beginning when Adam fell for Eve. Evolution (and our flat world) are relatively newer concepts. The "religion" or belief of Evolution should also be left out of the class room I suppose, if we are to use your definition. Whose definition are we using as far as this interpretation of your constitution goes? It seems to me to be quite convenient for the Evolutionist to keep evidence that disproves their theory out of the class room under the pretext that their observations are more "scientific". No competition for their argument so the poor student is unable to draw a proper conclusion (as I mentioned before). There are, as you say many theories that both Creationists and Evolutionists agree on and this is one that is open for debate depending on your bias (anybody want to start a thread on the theory of life on mars?). The concept of theory is quite understood by the Creationist, and to dismiss them as uneducated is quite insulting.

Following the geological data backwards in time (as you mentioned) is viewed the same by both Creationists and Evolutionists. Their interpretation of the data is what is varied. To say that one view is correct or not is really based on which "faith" you are biased to (even a quite human scientist. They like to call themselves unbiased, however they become quite passionate text book thumpers when it comes to this topic). The specific data you are referring to is when a newer version of a life form is found in rock strata and the older version is found right beside it. Both life forms were locked into their fosillized state at the exact same moment in time. And yet the Evolutionist will either ignore this evidence since it contradicts their theory (and this actually happened when an archaeologist was giving a tour to a group of researchers) or they will say that the rock must have heaved through the strata putting both fosils in the same location (even though there is no evidence of this). A tree that was fossilized was found with what had originally been believed by Evolutionists to be two versions of the same insect, and yet there they both were knawing away at the same tree when they were frozen forever in time. The movie analogy is actually quite fitting. Its just that the Evolutionist got up for popcorn during the best scene.

Also, to say that including Creationism "in biology would totally destroy the course you put it in" is actually quite false. The down side I guess is that you may actually find that when comparing the two, the theory of Evolution is quite weak. You could easily take out Evolution and replace it with Creationism. For those of us entrenched in our own biased opinions it would be quite difficult to retake the course. For those taking it for the first time and being introduced to both concepts for the first time it would not be such a huge leap.

Also you mentioned that to bring up the topic of Creationism would take up to much time. Well, I appologize in advance for the inconvenience of offering a varying opinion to yours. The groundwork for the topic is actually already there. For the minority who do not know of God, you would be surprised at how quick they can be brought up to speed by even your local Sunday School teacher. The background of the entire Bible does not need to be brought up, just the overlying principals of the existance of God and what he did in the first six days (yep, days not years people. Not such a huge leap, especially if you can accept the "big bang" theory). I know of a few people in history who wanted to keep certain topics out schools under the same pretenses, simply because it offered a different point of view.

I also agree with your last sentence. "There is no reason for children to have religious dogma forced upon them as part of their education, an idea that many people would be violently opposed to". I appreciate your offer of making sure my child isn't forced to learn only the "religion" of Darwinism (which is what it becomes if it is offered as gospel without actually examining all of the facts) without the opportunity to view the opposing theory. Freedom of free speech and free thinking.

I will drop off this thread now (the internet is a big place, and I may not stumble back into this site again for quite some time), but leave you with the thought that you should research both views with an open mind.

Cheers!

"We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth in those who do not." Frank A. Clark

Unregistered

06-02-2005, 09:21 PM

I teach high school Biology and I must say that most of my students tend to lean toward creationism. I hear the arguments against how it should be left out of public school and how we should strictly teach evolution but I don't think it is possible. Of course, creationism is based on faith but how about evolution? Aren't there so many holes in this idea that we have to believe that it happened this way?? We as teachers are told that we cannot mention Christ or creationism because it may go against the beliefs of our students. I understand that but what about those students that believe in creationism? I think they should be able to discuss their ideas about life just as much as those that believe in evolution.

BobSmith

06-03-2005, 11:40 PM

It seems to me to be quite convenient for the Evolutionist to keep evidence that disproves their theory out of the class room under the pretext that their observations are more "scientific".

There is no evidence that disproves evolution, and I am quite happy that lies aren't taught in the classroom.

No competition for their argument so the poor student is unable to draw a proper conclusion (as I mentioned before).

and those poor chemistry students aren't allowed to discuss alchemy either...

The concept of theory is quite understood by the Creationist, and to dismiss them as uneducated is quite insulting.

No I don't think it is. Otherwise why the constant, scientifically inaccurate, "it is just a theory" arguments?

Following the geological data backwards in time (as you mentioned) is viewed the same by both Creationists and Evolutionists. Their interpretation of the data is what is varied. To say that one view is correct or not is really based on which "faith" you are biased to

No it is based on evidence. The Creationist interpretation of the data is inconsistant and full of ad hoc explaination.

The specific data you are referring to is when a newer version of a life form is found in rock strata and the older version is found right beside it. Both life forms were locked into their fosillized state at the exact same moment in time. And yet the Evolutionist will either ignore this evidence since it contradicts their theory

But that doesn't contradict evolution. Perhaps your opposition is more to do with your lack of understanding of evolution than an actual solid case against it. You should probably wonder why the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields (paleontology, biology, geology) accept evolution if you think it is so obviously wrong. Eventually Creationism boils down to just another conspiracy theory.

The down side I guess is that you may actually find that when comparing the two, the theory of Evolution is quite weak. You could easily take out Evolution and replace it with Creationism.

You could also easily replace the periodic table in chemistry classes with Magic Bob's Amazing Alchemy System (tm), but that wouldn't be an improvement to education would it? Inclusion of Creationism in science waters science down and it is harmful to science.

Also you mentioned that to bring up the topic of Creationism would take up to much time. Well, I appologize in advance for the inconvenience of offering a varying opinion to yours. The groundwork for the topic is actually already there. For the minority who do not know of God, you would be surprised at how quick they can be brought up to speed by even your local Sunday School teacher.

Sunday? Wednesday is the sacred day of Might Cthulhu. We are going to teech Cthulhu Creation Science as well aren't we? After islamic, hindu, vedic, ancient greek, egyptian and aztec Creation right? We have to teach all the alternatives don't we?

The background of the entire Bible does not need to be brought up, just the overlying principals of the existance of God and what he did in the first six days (yep, days not years people. Not such a huge leap, especially if you can accept the "big bang" theory). I know of a few people in history who wanted to keep certain topics out schools under the same pretenses, simply because it offered a different point of view.

Will that be before or after the following alternative Scientific idea is taught?

Cherokee Creation Story

Long ago, before there were any people, the world was young and water covered everything. The earth was a great island floating above the seas, suspended by four rawhide ropes representing the four sacred directions. It hung down from the crystal sky. There were no people, but the animals lived in a home above the rainbow. Needing space, they sent Water Beetle to search for room under the seas. Water Beetle dove deep and brought up mud that spread quickly, turning into land that was flat and too soft and wet for the animals to live on.

Grandfather Buzzard was sent to see if the land had hardened. When he flew over the earth, he found the mud had become solid; he flapped in for a closer look. The wind from his wings created valleys and mountains, and that is why the Cherokee territory has so many mountains today.

As the earth stiffened, the animals came down from the rainbow. It was still dark. They needed light, so they pulled the sun out from behind the rainbow, but it was too bright and hot. A solution was urgently needed. The shamans were told to place the sun higher in the sky. A path was made for it to travel--from east to west--so that all inhabitants could share in the light.

The plants were placed upon the earth. The Creator told the plants and animals to stay awake for seven days and seven nights. Only a few animals managed to do so, including the owls and mountain lions, and they were rewarded with the power to see in the dark. Among the plants, only the cedars, spruces, and pines remained awake. The Creator told these plants that they would keep their hair during the winter, while the other plants would lose theirs.

People were created last. The women were able to have babies every seven days. They reproduced so quickly that the Creator feared the world would soon become too crowded. So after that the women could have only one child per year, and it has been that way ever since.

I am afraid I totally disagree with you about teaching ancient myths and legends in science classes.

Unregistered

06-09-2005, 02:07 AM

First of all im a Freshman in high school so most of you adults can blow this off but you maybe sorry. Isnt not teaching Creationism offensive to Christans? Our society brings in so much to keep church and state seperate it actually becomes offensive to Christans and other religons. I also hate when , no matter the subject, science teachers will only teach one side of a story its not fair that we are forced to learn the greatest exceptance of every subject or maybe the most easiest to teach, Isnt it that it our high school teachers take easier way outs as we get farther in the future. I could say more but why waste the 6th grade vocabulary that the school systems will only teach up to because they hope students who cause fights, bring drugs to school and always have atleast one knife to use and one knife to sell wont drop out and waste their lives not making more money for the goverment to use on people who wont take me serious for another ten years.

Unregistered

06-10-2005, 05:39 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

Unregistered

06-10-2005, 05:45 PM

And there isn't "another side of the story" with regards to Evolution. Evolution is supported by more evidence than just about any other "theory" in the realm of science. To say there's another side to the story is like disagreeing on whether or not water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. You can argue about it all you want; I'll trust the thermometer.

Creationism, on the other hand, offers no science, no research, and only holds up Genesis as its sole support. Even the pseudo-sciencey arguments posed by Creationist websites is cherry-picked, and easily refuted by real science. Why? Because Science is not supporting an assumed conclusion; Creationism is.

If you want to learn junk science, feel free...but our public schools should teach REAL science, and that real science is Evolution.

Sincerely,

Robert Miller

Intrigued

06-11-2005, 11:16 AM

CiN

06-11-2005, 06:44 PM

Hmmmm...interesting...

Anyways,
Out of curiosity does anyone know that Charles Darwin did indeed recant his theories on his death bed and converted to Christianity? *Now awaits the heat wave bashing by fellow "educators" and students alike*

Im sorry but this is just a myth thats been circulated by christians (im also one of those). Darwin did not convert to christianity but if he would it wouldnt maid much difference. Since his theory was already out and many people was supporting him.

Anyway, ive been reading this thread and im astound that no evidence has been brought up. Sure youve been talking about that evolution is proved and so on, but no where can i see some hard cold facts. Where is youre so called evidence? Is the earth really 4.6 billions years old? Why would it be? Cause the evolution requires that much time?

Mvh // CiN

BobSmith

06-12-2005, 08:54 AM

Where is youre so called evidence? Is the earth really 4.6 billions years old? Why would it be? Cause the evolution requires that much time?
Mvh // CiN

Geologists had already determined an old earth in the late 1700's, quite a while before the concept of evolution even existed.

Evidence can be found on google. What we do is correct errors.

CiN

06-12-2005, 11:13 AM

Geologists had already determined an old earth in the late 1700's, quite a while before the concept of evolution even existed.

Evidence can be found on google. What we do is correct errors.

Why would it make any difference if they taught the earth was old in the late 1700´s? The fact is that TODAY many things are corrected to fit the geological timescale. Until 1984 it was estimated that 300 000 of datings with radioactice material had been done. By the redo of the geological timescale it was estimated that only 500 of these datings were "correct" meaning that they fit the evolutionary way of thinking.

Also there are many observations that indicate that the speed of light has slowed down. Radiactive decay is a constant depending on the speed of light. That means that the half-life of a radioactive substance has been reduced many times.

Mvh // CiN

Unregistered

06-12-2005, 12:22 PM

thankyou molalla, forever i have been looking for something just like this to support an english debate i have in a 10 th grade english class. no one else realy gets to the point like you did there is not much for me to say but JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unregistered

06-12-2005, 02:44 PM

Well its obvious that we have SOME evidence on evoltion but how much do we have that proves it true? We have moths from england that were prmarily white then after industry boomed they died easier and black ones of the same breed survived because they werent spotted by predators.... How does that prove the existance? Or we have many species spanning from thousands of years back with similar skeletal systems when all our (us and any species) embryoes look amazing more alike than the skeletans so i guess that mean you and me are directly related to frogs right? Evolution is based on belief too. Honestly do you think Darwin was able to believe there was no way in hell he was wrong. To tell the truth all science is found on belief before proof, and Evolution just doesnt have enough proof to it. When we discover living DNA that we can compare to an animal similar to the ones of todays time and there is atleast a thousands year between the animals and their and noticable likenesses as well as differences maybe ill begin to believe, But to assume because the most fit does survive isnt enough for me to doubt what my Bible says.

BobSmith

06-12-2005, 10:57 PM

Why would it make any difference if they taught the earth was old in the late 1700´s? The fact is that TODAY many things are corrected to fit the geological timescale. Until 1984 it was estimated that 300 000 of datings with radioactice material had been done. By the redo of the geological timescale it was estimated that only 500 of these datings were "correct" meaning that they fit the evolutionary way of thinking.

Also there are many observations that indicate that the speed of light has slowed down. Radiactive decay is a constant depending on the speed of light. That means that the half-life of a radioactive substance has been reduced many times.

Mvh // CiN

You claimed (or implied) that geologists only accept an old Earth because evolution demands it. However abandonment of young earth had already began before evolution even existed. Even before this point many geologists believe the Earth had always existed.

The current age of Earth is based on strong independant lines of radiodating.

There are no observations that indicate the speed of light has been gradually slowing down.

CiN

06-13-2005, 11:54 AM

You claimed (or implied) that geologists only accept an old Earth because evolution demands it. However abandonment of young earth had already began before evolution even existed. Even before this point many geologists believe the Earth had always existed.

But what evidence did these sicentist have of a old earth? I think it was jus guessing.

The current age of Earth is based on strong independant lines of radiodating.

Its based on SELECTED datings

Until 1984 it was estimated that 300 000 of datings with radioactice material had been done. By the redo of the geological timescale it was estimated that only 500 of these datings were "correct" meaning that they fit the evolutionary way of thinking.
Over 50% of the coal-14 datings done in North america is thrown away.

"...accepted datings are actually chosen datings" - J.B Sissions and R.E Lee

"Almost 1/3 of all coal-14 datings all over the world is filed as impossible" - D. Collins

So no datings are to a part based on the belief of the scientist.

There are no observations that indicate the speed of light has been gradually slowing down.[/QUOTE]

There are quite a large observation talking for that the speed if light is slowing down.

1695 Römer measured the speed of light to 307 600 km/s with a precision of ± 5400 km/s. Since then the speed of light has been slowed down to about 299 792.50 km/s (this is not including the laser observations, since they are dependant on the constant of the speed of light. They cant measure changes in the speed of light.) The measurements are measured with diffrent methods which all comes to the conclusion that the speed of light is slowing down.

Setterfield has measured the half-time for some known radiactive isotopes and he has found that for 23 out of 36 has the half-time increased. Measured from 1904-1978 about 280 times. Also some other "constants" depending on the speed of light has changed through out the his testings.

Mvh // CiN

BobSmith

06-13-2005, 04:43 PM

But what evidence did these sicentist have of a old earth? I think it was jus guessing.

No there is a basic summary of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

As you can see from that the calculations were simply based on a better understanding of the world, and a better attempt to date it according to evidence. Uniformitarianism was introduced almost 30 years before Darwin published origin of species.

Over 50% of the coal-14 datings done in North america is thrown away.

"...accepted datings are actually chosen datings" - J.B Sissions and R.E Lee

"Almost 1/3 of all coal-14 datings all over the world is filed as impossible" - D. Collins

Noone dates the Earth using c-14. C-14 is only accurate to within 50,000 years. It isn't even useful for dating fossils.

Dating of the Earth is mainly based on lead isochron dating: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

There are quite a large observation talking for that the speed if light is slowing down.

1695 Römer measured the speed of light to 307 600 km/s with a precision of ± 5400 km/s. Since then the speed of light has been slowed down to about 299 792.50 km/s (this is not including the laser observations, since they are dependant on the constant of the speed of light. They cant measure changes in the speed of light.) The measurements are measured with diffrent methods which all comes to the conclusion that the speed of light is slowing down.

Setterfield has measured the half-time for some known radiactive isotopes and he has found that for 23 out of 36 has the half-time increased. Measured from 1904-1978 about 280 times. Also some other "constants" depending on the speed of light has changed through out the his testings.

From here: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/speed_of_light.html

Strangely, the curve says that the speed of light stopped changing somewhere around 1960, and is now constant. I do not know of a Creationist explanation of why this happened at the exact moment when scientists built extremely accurate measurement equipment.

-----------------

in Creation Ex Nihilo vol. 12, no. 1, 1998, Creationist Malcolm Bowden argues for the idea. However, his article admits "There are more creationists who have written against [speed of light decay] than for it."

----------------

Hugh Ross, an astronomer and Old-Earth Creationist, said in Facts and Faith (Summer 1989) that the whole issue was an abuse of Christian apologetics. He pointed out that if C was as little as 3% higher, it would wipe out all life on earth, by making the Sun hotter.

----------------

Aardsma, an ICR member, wished to "caution creationists against a wholesale, uncritical acceptance of the Norman and Setterfield hypothesis." He noted, for instance, that Setterfield had completely ignored the error bars and treated every data point as having equal significance. He noted that a more standard treatment of the same data indicated no measurable change at all in the speed of light.

CiN

06-13-2005, 07:15 PM

As you can see from that the calculations were simply based on a better understanding of the world, and a better attempt to date it according to evidence. Uniformitarianism was introduced almost 30 years before Darwin published origin of species.

And uniformitarianism was keept cause it fitted good with evolution.

Noone dates the Earth using c-14. C-14 is only accurate to within 50,000 years. It isn't even useful for dating fossils.

Thank you :D I knew that but the quotes are a good example of the mentality when it comes to radioactive datings.

Dating of the Earth is mainly based on lead isochron dating: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Wich also has a bag of problems.

Strangely, the curve says that the speed of light stopped changing somewhere around 1960, and is now constant. I do not know of a Creationist explanation of why this happened at the exact moment when scientists built extremely accurate measurement equipment.

As i said, thats when they started using laser to measure the speed of light. Laser is dependant on that the speed of light is a constant cause if it varies so will the laser method. When using laser to measure C they use atom clocks. They are based on how fast the electromagnetic pending motion happens in the cecium core. The frequency on this motion is alterd if the speed of light is changed. Changes in C can only be noticed with "dynamic clocks", when you measure orbits and so on. C has been measured with dynamic clocks from 1675 to about 1967. Then it has been decreasing. Comparisment between dynamic clocks and molecylar clocks since 1955 has shown that molecylar clocks is in fact are slowing down wich also supports the theory that C is decreasing.

Also Halley (1694), Newton (1704, 1713) and Cassini (1693) determined C to be above the current value. These datings has not been corrected as Römer and Delmbre has been.

[b]Hugh Ross, an astronomer and Old-Earth Creationist, said in Facts and Faith (Summer 1989) that the whole issue was an abuse of Christian apologetics. He pointed out that if C was as little as 3% higher, it would wipe out all life on earth, by making the Sun hotter.

Why is that so?

Mvh // CiN

Unregistered

06-13-2005, 09:50 PM

Of course it would change, our accuracy and technology is getttin so much better. Its like the whole cry over global warming because more tornadoes and earth quakes and other things are happening compared to a hundred years ago... Of course their would be more i mean our satilites rarly miss anything now and everything is recorded and info can travel easier.

CiN

06-14-2005, 04:18 AM

If the speed of light has changed then there is a explaination as to why we see so many rest products of radioactive decay. When radioactive decay happens much faster if C is higher. Rest products is what you measure when you measure age in diffrent types of rock. Just the method in it self is not solid in practic, but if C (speed of light) has changed then there is an explaination in theory also (its not rock solid in theory even without decreasing of C). Its not only the technology that has changed it has been decreasing, since many of the constants that are depending on C has also changed. And even if we can measure C more accuratly nowadays the older measurments are just to high. In the 1700´s they had clocks that where accurate to one second and thats enough to measure C fairly accurate.

Mvh // CiN

BobSmith

06-14-2005, 11:32 AM

And uniformitarianism was keept cause it fitted good with evolution.

And the geological evidence. The fact is that geologists were abandoning catastrophism before evolution even existed.

As i said, thats when they started using laser to measure the speed of light....

I was pointing out that measurements of the speed of light in the past were inaccurate (something that Setterfield ignores when he fudges the data), and cannot be used to support decay of c. I was not saying that modern methods of accurately measuring the speed of light demonstrate its consistancy.

There are indications that show light has not changed significantly. One example is pulsars: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A6

snippet: However, in order to see objects 10 billion light-years away in a 6000 year-old universe, the light speed for that curve would have to be set at 1.6 million times the present speed of light! The spinning pulsars we see would have flown apart! That is, their actual rotational speeds would have to be so much greater than observed as to present a physical contradiction.

C has been measured with dynamic clocks from 1675 to about 1967. Then it has been decreasing.

Romer measured the speed of light to be about 225,000 km per second. That is actually less than the 299,790 km per second measured with accurate equipment today. So how does this support the idea that c is decreasing? If anything it is actually increasing.

Comparisment between dynamic clocks and molecylar clocks since 1955 has shown that molecylar clocks is in fact are slowing down wich also supports the theory that C is decreasing.

What are these comparisons that have been done?

Also Halley (1694), Newton (1704, 1713) and Cassini (1693) determined C to be above the current value. These datings has not been corrected as Römer and Delmbre has been.

What did they determine C as? I wasn't aware Newton measured c. Romer measured it as 140,000 miles per second, wheras modern measurements put it at about 186,000 miles per second. So again how can you say the speed of light has been slowing down?

Originally Posted by BobSmith
Hugh Ross, an astronomer and Old-Earth Creationist, said in Facts and Faith (Summer 1989) that the whole issue was an abuse of Christian apologetics. He pointed out that if C was as little as 3% higher, it would wipe out all life on earth, by making the Sun hotter.

Why is that so?

I didn't say I accepted it. I am just point out that even a lot of Creationists don't accept c decay, or at least a lot of them do not accept Setterfields work.

CiN

06-14-2005, 03:57 PM

I was pointing out that measurements of the speed of light in the past were inaccurate (something that Setterfield ignores when he fudges the data), and cannot be used to support decay of c. I was not saying that modern methods of accurately measuring the speed of light demonstrate its consistancy.

In the book "Vårt ursprung" translated "Our origin" theres an excellent table at page 136 it shows many different types of measuring methods. In the table it is "Except the values that authorithes normally considers most correct is also Römers and Delambres measurements in the table. This is because they are the oldest corrected measurements (even if Römers value is talked about and can give a value that ranges between 290 650 and 345 000km/s)" As i said also Cassini made a measurment that has not been altered and that was 352 000 km/s.

The book is in Swedish so I translated the quote.

There are indications that show light has not changed significantly. One example is pulsars: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A6

snippet: However, in order to see objects 10 billion light-years away in a 6000 year-old universe, the light speed for that curve would have to be set at 1.6 million times the present speed of light! The spinning pulsars we see would have flown apart! That is, their actual rotational speeds would have to be so much greater than observed as to present a physical contradiction.

I dont know about this problem but ill look in to it and return :)

Romer measured the speed of light to be about 225,000 km per second. That is actually less than the 299,790 km per second measured with accurate equipment today. So how does this support the idea that c is decreasing? If anything it is actually increasing.

Thats why they are correcting his value. Anyway you could ignore his measurment and still se the same thing. I havent read any thing on the correction of Römers measuring, but that dosent matter since other measurings prove decreasing of c.

What are these comparisons that have been done?

Orbiting bodies. I dont know wich ones but i think it was Tom Van Flandern that wrote about this.

What did they determine C as? I wasn't aware Newton measured c. Romer measured it as 140,000 miles per second, wheras modern measurements put it at about 186,000 miles per second. So again how can you say the speed of light has been slowing dow?

Römers measurments was not entirely correct, so its corrected. I dont know how but it is. Once again its not important, since they thaught c was infinte before Römers measurment. He proved it was not. Other measurings shortly after indicate that c has been slowing down. Even if our technology has become better (which it has) it dosent either matter since sicentist have measured c and then later (years) same scientist using same method got a lower value.

Mvh // CiN

BobSmith

06-15-2005, 08:58 AM

As far as I have read one of the main reasons Romer's measurement was inaccurate was because he didn't know the precise distance of earth from the sun, it wasn't just that people decided it was inaccurate because it didn't fit modern measurements.

rotf LOL

06-18-2005, 06:17 AM

...Surely, if you believe in God, you can see his work is NOT explained by science...
Actually, you can take every bit of the scientific data gathered and use it to defend Creation. see http://www.answersingenesis.org/ (while you're there you might like to get an update on the hoaxes historically perpetrated in the name of science, like Ernst Haeckel's admittedly falsified drawings which were still being used in (my) highschool textbooks in 1985, or the evidence that has come to light about the famous peppered moth studies)

...If, on the other hand, you're fairly confident there was no help getting us where we are, then you probably don't feel the need to spread a religious story as fact...
"... you probably don't" ...want to admit that you are simply propogating another religion? (And a government enforced religion at that!) If you were to give a fair hearing to both sides, you may begin to notice that it takes way more faith to beleive in evolution than intelligent design, or maybe not. But of course, if you've only examined the evidence from one side and are passionately defending it . . . I believe the word bias has been mentioned here already??

~~~~~~~~~~

I noticed in another thread someone sympathizing over the "entitlement and narcissistic attitudes" of the students we are trying to teach: I'd like to ask you what else you would expect (as scientists) when the establishment takes ultimate right and wrong out of the equation and teaches that all values are relative?
... I believe our society is changing; thus the young people that are in our classrooms today continue to be more and more of a challenge. . . I no longer enjoy this profession and if the years ahead continue to be the same; little administrative support, unappreciative parents, and students with entitlement and narcissistic tendencies, perhaps I am in the wrong profession!

Unregistered

06-20-2005, 06:13 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Meaning if you want to believe in the Christian version of creationism you are allowed to but the government (and it's many publically funded schools) cannot respect (or support) an establishment of that religion -- in other words support one religious view over another. The government is not allowed to endorse one religious belief because it would open up the law to pursecute those who do not choose to believe as the government does. That's why this was written into the bill of rights and it is one of my favorite parts (I believe that it protects a Christian like me from ever having to be forced to believe like people whose faith directs them down a different path).

Let's face it- everyone who says that creationism should be taught in schools believes in the Christian version and that is what they want taught. If that's what they want their children to learn there are plenty of Christian schools to choose from, but as long as this country is govered by the Constitution, the place to teach creationism belongs in church or religious schools (it is a faith in the bible and God that guides Christians not a study of science).

The goverenment is not allowed to make any law respecting one religion over others nor is it allowed to prohibit the free exercise (free exercise means it cannot endorse prayer but if you want to you are allowed). So my suggestion is pray over it. Hopefully, God will help you to see that in America we have the right to believe what we want and we should not force that on others disguised as public education!

Unregistered

06-27-2005, 01:57 AM

If you really want to help your students.... tell the REAL truth. That nobody knows the REAL and TOTAL truth.
Offer up all the information that we DO have.
1) Tell them what creationism IS.. not just the christian version... but all of them. You can even get a disk with lots of nifty little flash versions at www.bigmyth.com .
2) Tell them what evolution IS and show them how it works.
3) Tell them there is an alternative... Intelligent Design... that the universe/earth/BigBang was CREATED not by accident as evolution proposes... but for a purpose.

Our jobs as teachers is to teach and offer ALL the possiblities... not necessarily to force one train of thought.
If you have done your job correctly... children will search for more answers on their own and develop their own beliefs and opionions.

Just my 2 cents
~Christine

Unregistered

07-07-2005, 05:20 PM

Evolutionism isn't perfect, but it's the best theory we have. It's a shame that religion is still trying to keep science down after all these years. The Church did the same thing to Galileo when they told him We know you are right, but you cannot say these things. Aristotle said the moon is a perfectly smooth crystal sphere, so it must remain that.

God created this world including evolutionism. If animals evolved from simpler species, it is because God wished it. All humans are doing is observing His work. If scientists and science teachers would just say that then maybe we could call the whole thing off.

For religion it shows in the bible it that there is micro-evolution not the ridiculous macro-evolution many schools teach. I would like to state that in the bible it can be seen that there were very large creatures, in the begining, that must have obviously evolved to a larger size from then. So you see creationism as you may call it is not objective to evolution just such things like an ant coming from a mosquito.

Unregistered

07-07-2005, 05:40 PM

Evolutionism isn't perfect, but it's the best theory we have. It's a shame that religion is still trying to keep science down after all these years. The Church did the same thing to Galileo when they told him We know you are right, but you cannot say these things. Aristotle said the moon is a perfectly smooth crystal sphere, so it must remain that.

God created this world including evolutionism. If animals evolved from simpler species, it is because God wished it. All humans are doing is observing His work. If scientists and science teachers would just say that then maybe we could call the whole thing off.

I am a Christian and not ashamed of it. I would like to say I agree with you on God included evolution, but only micro-evolution instead of ridiculously taught macro-evolution. In the bible it actully says that in the beginning there was giants walking the earth, clueing that there must have been a change in there size. As I may agree that there is some evolution I do not agree with evolutionary theories of giagantic changes and ones saying there is no way God exists.
I do not wish to impose my beliefs but rather state my opinion. As the church may oppose all evolution, faith and religion are indeed two different things. Faith is the knowledge and belief that something is there even if you can not see it. To follow the faith in God would be to follow what it says in the bible instead of a religious belief system.

Unregistered

07-07-2005, 05:41 PM

I am a Christian and not ashamed of it. I would like to say I agree with you on God included evolution, but only micro-evolution instead of ridiculously taught macro-evolution. In the bible it actully says that in the beginning there was giants walking the earth, clueing that there must have been a change in there size. As I may agree that there is some evolution I do not agree with evolutionary theories of giagantic changes and ones saying there is no way God exists.
I do not wish to impose my beliefs but rather state my opinion. As the church may oppose all evolution, faith and religion are indeed two different things. Faith is the knowledge and belief that something is there even if you can not see it. To follow the faith in God would be to follow what it says in the bible instead of a religious belief system.

Unregistered

07-12-2005, 01:35 AM

One of the guys posted that evolution isn't possible because humans were created in god's image and that god must have looked like a monkey in order for this to happen. But look at the details here. If man was created in god's image then why are we all different colours? Why do people from different areas of the world have different physical attributes? If we were created in god's image then what colour/race is he?
As for the Noah's Ark idea he carried every animal species on his boat..so what about termites? How do u carry 20,000 species of wood-consuming insects on a boat which itself consists of wood? How do you carry carnivores and herbivores side by side? HOW DO U CARRY MICROSCOPIC ORGANISMS??? If anyone can give me reasonable FACT-BASED responses to these questions then I will definitely agree that creation was possible. I'm not saying creation is impossible it's just that I don't see how the above things make sense.

Unregistered

07-15-2005, 06:00 AM

I too, even as a creationist, have wondered the same things. Here's my opinion:
As to the differences in humans. During the building of the tower of Babel, God caused all of the people to speak many different languages so they were unable to understand one another and not be able to build further. My belief is that as people were unable to understand one another they began to travel to new places. According to biological studies temperature/weather/ habitat, etc. all affects peoples skin color. As people travelled, their skin pigments darkened according to their new habitat. This is the way I've figured it out, may not be perfect but it makes sense to me :)
As for Noah's ark, the boat was so large that i believe it had to be a sort of 'pseudo-zoo.' When you go to the zoo, the lion cage is next to the penguins who are next to the polar bears - the only thing separating them is a wall, so why not the same thing in the ark? As to the question of microscopic organisms - you also need to remember that God flooded the earth, thus allowing water creatures to remain - who's to say that those microscopic organisms didn't live in water? Also, please remember that through technology, urbanization/sprall, we have significantly changed our planet including introducing thousands of new microorganisms that were not on the earth 100 years ago.
Hope this helps!

Unregistered

07-15-2005, 06:17 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.
As to the lack of facts for the argument of creationism - you haven't done your homework. One simple way to get a rough idea of the facts it Lee Strobel's book - "A Case for Creation." Lee Strobel was an atheist/ evolutionist lawyer and reporter who sought to disprove creationsim. After interviewing NUMEROUS evolutionists AND creationists he presents the facts in this book. Its very well written and is somewhat unbiased (the interviews in the book - not his personal story). Its a great start.
Also, if you are going to write a paper on evolution v. creation you need to present BOTH sides of the story, each supported with facts, then finish the paper with your opinion as to why the evidence (in your opinion) supports evolution more than creation. That way the paper won't be 'emotional' which happens often when dealing with this subject. It will be facts first, supported opinion second (much like the scientific theory).
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!

Unregistered

07-16-2005, 11:10 AM

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.

Sadly this is the point of view almost all evolutionists have. Everyone else should keep quite and not present any reluctance to their theory. Isn't there a Constitutional right to freedom of speech? Or should we just forgo that and assume your point of view is correct with no debate.

When teaching a THEORY, as an unbiased scientist and teacher, you must present all of the theories. And that means not in a sarcastic tone and do your research on each THEORY equally.

Just think of all those teachers who fell out of their chairs when a couple of boats didn't actually fall off the end of our flat earth just a few short years ago. . . . .

Unregistered

07-16-2005, 11:20 AM

And there isn't "another side of the story" with regards to Evolution. Evolution is supported by more evidence than just about any other "theory" in the realm of science.

Creationism, on the other hand, offers no science, no research, and only holds up Genesis as its sole support.

Robert Miller

It might be because most Evolutionists need to cling to this theory like a drowning man to a piece of floating wood. They fear they may be wrong.

The fact that you say there is no science and no research means you have not done your home work. An off the cuff remark to attempt to refute other points of view is a bit scarry. You are certainly not an individual with scientific mind and subscribe to Evolution because you were taught by a biased teacher who told you this was the only belief.

A scientist keeps an open mind and looks at all research equally and before stating a result has thoroughly looked into all possibilities. Here in this forum you certainly do not appear to exhibit these traits.

Sadly too many evolutionists are this way.

Unregistered

07-16-2005, 11:45 AM

As for Noah's ark, the boat was so large that i believe it had to be a sort of 'pseudo-zoo.' When you go to the zoo, the lion cage is next to the penguins who are next to the polar bears - the only thing separating them is a wall, so why not the same thing in the ark? As to the question of microscopic organisms - you also need to remember that God flooded the earth, thus allowing water creatures to remain - who's to say that those microscopic organisms didn't live in water?

Don't forget Noah would have had only the infant or egg version of each organism and not likely the full grown size. And the earth was not flooded indefinitely. There could have been lots of things floating around that organisms could have been clinging to. It was the people he was punishing not the other organisms.

BobSmith

07-17-2005, 12:38 PM

Sadly this is the point of view almost all evolutionists have. Everyone else should keep quite and not present any reluctance to their theory. Isn't there a Constitutional right to freedom of speech? Or should we just forgo that and assume your point of view is correct with no debate.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Do I have the right to demand astrology be taught in science classes under the guise of freedom of speach? What about the theory of tarot card reading and crystal ball gazing?

There are rules for science classes in that what is taught must be science, specifically the consensus view of the scientific community of the day.

When teaching a THEORY, as an unbiased scientist and teacher, you must present all of the theories. And that means not in a sarcastic tone and do your research on each THEORY equally.

Science classes teach the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Ie that the Sun is the centre of the solar system and all the planets orbit it. So are you saying that the theory that the Sun orbits the Earth should also be presented?

Just think of all those teachers who fell out of their chairs when a couple of boats didn't actually fall off the end of our flat earth just a few short years ago. . . . .

Well according to your logic we should still be presenting the theory that Earth is flat under the idea that "all theories" must be presented.

People are getting away from the idea that evolution is only a theory - NOT FACT - which is being taught at every educational level.

In science the words theory and fact are not contradictory. Something can be a theory and a fact. For example natural selection is a theory and it is also a fact.

Mr.Tibbs

07-18-2005, 01:06 AM

Sorry, - everybody, but getting all uptight with your personal perceptions will not solve this issue. What you guys think about THE TRUTH of the Creation vs. The Evolution issue is a non - starter from the begining (pls. forgive pun). From a scientific viewpoint you will find analysis of this issue completely impossible because it fails the necessary criteria to be a scientific "fact". Creationism is a dependant "point" at which life began. Well, if "nothing" existed before "something" it is beyond all scientific measure of proof, which requires in this case, a repeatable "event" that is both observable and measurable. To recreate the event would require "nothing" and then have someone there at the time of creation to observe, record, and measure the event. So....unless you think you can duplicate the moment of creation, which has already occured, I suggest you call the whole issue a non - starter a go have a cool one, - science can't prove a thing!. As for you religious guys, belief is just that, - belief. Truth in this case depends what you believe is true. If you truely believe then those are the facts to you. When you speak to others of dissenting religious views, or the scientific community, your ultimate defense is to fall back on tatology, referring to any one "example" of belief to support another "example" of belief which in turn is suppose to prove the first example. Neither science or religion can "prove" anything about Evoloution or Creationism, so I suggest you try to get along in your mutual belief fest. Signed, from Canada with love!

Unregistered

07-21-2005, 01:28 PM

I’ve gone through and read every one of the posts on this topic of God Vs Gorilla and I can’t help but remember the advice my anatomy professor gave me when I asked him for help in preparing for a debate on this very topic. He told me to meet with Dr. Maly, my philosophy professor. It took me a few years and many debates before I finally understood the wisdom of this advice.

There are two reasons why a proponent of evolution will not win a debate with a believer of creationism.

1.) Creationists and Evolutionists haven’t agreed on what they are actually debating. What the debate is really about is methodology. Evolutionists support the scientific method that starts with what can we observe about the world, and what is the best explanation for how it came to be this way. They are free then to evaluate all the evidence available and then build the theory. Creationists start with what to I believe and then look for evidence that supports their belief.

2.) The second reason a supporter of evolution will never win a debate with a creationist is simply one of economics. When you compare what an evolutionist looses if they are wrong versus what a creationist looses the creationist will always fight longer and harder because they can not afford to be wrong. If someone tomorrow brought forth a new theory explaining why evolution was a misinterpretation of the available evidence any scientist worth their salt would give it fair consideration. For a creationist (most of whom believe in a fairly literal interpretation of the bible) to accept that creationism is wrong would require giving up the foundation upon which their understanding of the world and their place in it is built upon. A creationist looses and they loose everything,. A supporter of evolution looses and they get a better theory (which in the words of my father-in-law would make them happier than a two-petered puppy.)

Scientists should keep the debate on the important fact that creationism isn’t a science for that is the best explanation for why it shouldn’t be in our science classrooms. (If you doubt this read up on the school board in Kansas that wanted to change the definition of science so creationism could be considered scientific.)

Cheers,
Mark

Lisa's Hotscakes

07-25-2005, 05:01 PM

1.) Creationists and Evolutionists haven’t agreed on what they are actually debating. What the debate is really about is methodology. Evolutionists support the scientific method that starts with what can we observe about the world, and what is the best explanation for how it came to be this way. They are free then to evaluate all the evidence available and then build the theory. Creationists start with what to I believe and then look for evidence that supports their belief.

That should read... "what is the best AVAILABLE explanation..." This is a key point. At one time, proponents of classical physics were every bit as dogmatic and diligent about the truthfulness of Newton's laws as scientists today are of evolution.

Keep in mind that Newton's laws were verified far more often (and to far, far more accuracy) in 1900 than evolution is today. Furthermore, Newton's laws were used to predict future events to incredible success, unlike evolution which does no predicting (to my knowledge).

2.) The second reason a supporter of evolution will never win a debate with a creationist is simply one of economics. When you compare what an evolutionist looses if they are wrong versus what a creationist looses the creationist will always fight longer and harder because they can not afford to be wrong. If someone tomorrow brought forth a new theory explaining why evolution was a misinterpretation of the available evidence any scientist worth their salt would give it fair consideration.

Then I haven't met many scientists worth their salt. Most of the biologists I know are every bit as vitriolic in their defense of evolution as the average Creationist.

Both sides have staked their reputations on the truthfulness of their ideas. It shouldn't have turned out this way, but it has. Go into any evolution/creationism debate and see for yourself the insults that get bandied around.

My friend taught biology, and I couldn't help but wonder if he enjoyed pissing off Fundamentalist Christian parents. Why go out of our way to stir animosity? Just tell the students that evolution is a theory that scientists devised to explain what occurs around us. Are scientists perfect? No, they have been wrong before. Could evolution be wrong? Sure, we may never know. Will you be accountable for understanding scientistific explanations? Yes, but that doesn't mean you must hold to them.

As the police officer says, "Signing the ticket is not an acknowledgment of guilt."

A supporter of evolution looses and they get a better theory (which in the words of my father-in-law would make them happier than a two-petered puppy.)

Having egg on one's face is never pleasant. If a fact surfaced that appeared to disprove evolution, the sound of hari-kiri would be audible from the North Pole to the South Pole.

For the record, I am an evolutionist. I think evolution is the best explanation available for explaining phenomena. But I'm tired of the fighting, insulting, and crying. Just teach the subject in a fair, rational manner that respects the religious beliefs of the students.

Unregistered

08-01-2005, 10:46 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.

With regard to your query on creation and evolution. Both of them are equally important because they go hand in hand. Creationism is science per se because it has something to do with evolution. If we are going to scrutinize it both of them should be taught to children especially in public schools because it is in creationism that they will learn to give importance to all things created by God. In the same way that evolution be taught to them integrating values as in creationism. hope this can help you. DLSC-teacher

Lisa's Hotscakes

08-02-2005, 02:06 AM

Something can be a theory and a fact.

The problem arises when scientists throw the term "fact" around knowing full well that laymen use the term completely differently. The Average Joe thinks of fact as a synomym for "indisputably true." Newton's laws at one time were a fact, but were they indisputably true?

Evolution is a fact (according to the much looser definition of the term used in science), but is it TRUTH? I am not sure many scientists will go that far.

IMO, Creationism doesn't belong in SCIENCE classrooms, because it isn't scientific. But not being scientific is hardly a death sentence for an idea. Creationism may very well be the truth but not be a scientific fact.

heinze

08-03-2005, 10:58 PM

Science classes teach the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Ie that the Sun is the centre of the solar system and all the planets orbit it. So are you saying that the theory that the Sun orbits the Earth should also be presented?

Well according to your logic we should still be presenting the theory that Earth is flat under the idea that "all theories" must be presented.

[/QUOTE]

LOL

Actually we already do. You probably learned about the flat earth theory and the theory of earth being the center of the universe in school. Perhaps not the first time you heard it but I'm willing to bet it was mentioned.

I'm off to feed the dragons on the brink of Alaska right now. Have you ever been there? It's quite a view!

Unregistered

08-14-2005, 11:31 AM

And it will not be because it is nothing. Many scientist have wasted their lifes to seek some thing that is not there.
In creationism, there is hamony to creation and the real world we live and it is not build on faith. For the evolutionist, have faith in a waiting for the next evolution progress.

Lisa's Hotscakes

08-15-2005, 02:45 AM

I think that creationism is a way for religious individuals to get there views into the public.

Do you have evidence to support your statement? If not, then your statement is simply an ad hominem attack.

Amazing how unscientific some of the pro-evolution arguments can become once a little emotion is thrown into the mix.

Unregistered

08-16-2005, 10:15 PM

i know this debate is old, but i think it is a timeless issue that will be brought up time and time again. i am actually an australian, and i just wanted to share about my experiences and thoughts on the evolution creation debate. i actually think both should be taught,using the CORRECT FACTS and WITHOUT BIAS. by senior level school,students should have acquired the ability to reason out a problem and solve it for themselves without being spoonfed ideas and what to believe. isnt that the point of critical literature etc...? to create individuals with the capacity to reason, and think over an issue? i also think that if you have to only present one issue, or feel the need to hide certain facts, there is a fear that if students look too deeply into the issue they will discover the flaws and decide it is incorrect. i know the creation issue is difficult to raise considering legislation in america, but in my school i was presented with the facts for both and allowed to decide. there was no pressure either way and i think that was an awesome learning opportunity.
however, there are some things about evolution that i seriously disagree with and think students should be informed of.

1. it is a THEORY NOT A LAW. as such, it should not be taught as fact. it is a theory, and as such, it is a matter of faith, just as much, if not more than creation is.

2. the facts that are often hidden. i cannot remember the exact facts sorry, but i remember being taught in biology and science that something cannot come from nothing. i remember that as one of the laws, yet to allow evolution to pass, this LAW must be refuted for a THEORY.

3. i also remember being taught that mutations are generally not beneficial. for evolution to occur, there would have to have been an infinate passage of time, as it takes something ridiculous like 1 million years for 1 beneficial mutation to occur.

4. carbon dating and other methods have been proven wrong and inaccurate, generally leaning towards an item being only 10 years old when it has been dated 100s of years old by scientists

5. fossils of missing links etc are often two fossils imposed on each other

i also have to say that creation and evolution are two distinct entities- they do not support one another,and you have to accept one or the other. either God is God and created the world,or He is not

for creation- there have been several occurances in the Bible that have exact correlating occurance in discoveries and historical accounts.

i have to agree- the evidence of creation is enough for me. the beauty, form and order, reason and creativity of the universe suggests far more than just some random sequence of events. i believe with all my heart, soul, AND MIND, that it was created by God. i refuse to believe that i evolved from some sludge pile. i am worth more than that. instead, i have chosen to believe that

"You formed my inward parts,
You wove me in my mothers womb
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfullymade;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well
My frame was not hidden fromYou
When I was made in secret
and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me."
Psalm 139:13- 16.

im sorry, i did not mean for this to turn into an epistle, but this is a subject i am passionate about. as you can see, being allowed to make the personal decision between the two by being presented with all the reasonable and unbiased facts has been extremely helpful to me. i hope this helps you bring some clarity to the subject in some form or manner God bless....:)

Unregistered

08-18-2005, 02:02 AM

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

the theory of evolution has always been shaky.
there just isn't much evidence for it. If you are serious about finding the truth, please read some of the books from the other side that show the real evidence that is not published or shared with the public.
There are no working theories on how the vast information found in DNA came to be. No viable protiens have ever been created by natural processes.
(the Miller experiment in 1915 only produced random amino acids together with poisons.
For a quick eyeopener on probability of life,try this.
What are the odds of even one 200 segment protien forming by chance? Using X multiplied by itself to the x, that would be 200 multiplied by itself 200 times. The answer is one in
1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+460.
for reference, the universe has about 10 to the 50th
atoms. mathematicians state that anything with a probability of less that 1 in 10 the the 50th is impossible.

BobSmith

08-18-2005, 09:19 AM

Notice how the last two posters don't even understand the fundamentals of what evolution is and instead have attacked a number of things which have nothing to do with evolution at all. They both focused on life from non-life which is not part of the theory of evolution. The second poster uses flawed assumptions in their calculation for the origin of life anyway.

Also the first poster just pulled a load of garbage out of thin air and passed it off as fact. eg:

1. it is a THEORY NOT A LAW. as such, it should not be taught as fact. it is a theory, and as such, it is a matter of faith, just as much, if not more than creation is.

Scientific theories are the end points of science, they cannot become laws. They are overreaching explainations for a phenomenon. Laws are something different altogether. They are seperate things. A theory cannot become a law and a law cannot become a theory. Never in the history of science has this happened - it cannot.

as it takes something ridiculous like 1 million years for 1 beneficial mutation to occur

No it doesn't. Beneficial mutations happen all the time, which can be demonstrated using statistics and even observed examples.

carbon dating and other methods have been proven wrong and inaccurate, generally leaning towards an item being only 10 years old when it has been dated 100s of years old by scientists

Carbon dating is hardly ever used to date fossils. Also carbon dating has not been proven wrong and inaccurate. In some *known* environments it might be inaccurate, but in general it works fine.

2. the facts that are often hidden. i cannot remember the exact facts sorry, but i remember being taught in biology and science that something cannot come from nothing. i remember that as one of the laws, yet to allow evolution to pass, this LAW must be refuted for a THEORY.

No this is just wrong. Evolution does not demand something come from nothing, but something coming from something else. And again a law cannot become a theory.

fossils of missing links etc are often two fossils imposed on each other

This is just flat incorrect. I can list a number of transitional fossils and none of them are two fossils imposed on each other.

Such ignorance of the theory and science in general is abundant amongst those who attack it. This is what makes people like me realise that these people are a threat to science education and they must be stopped.

Unregistered

08-19-2005, 12:28 AM

You suggest that I lack an understanding of
the term Evolution.
For the sake continuing this tread effectively,
I agree with you that a better definition of the word
is needed.
There are three accepted kinds of "evolution".
1) Genetic variation-- within a kind, no new information added-- {proven}

2) Microevolution-- Mutations, errors in coded information-- {proven}

3) Macroevolution-- upward movement, added information on a huge scale from simple life to more complex-- {unproven} {there are no working or experimental theories on how new information can be produced in living cells.}

I ask which of these you refer to in this thread?
all three? or just the last?

lorrdy

08-19-2005, 12:42 AM

Lisa's Hotscakes

08-19-2005, 03:45 AM

The war over semantics is pointless. Who cares whether we call evolution a theory, law, or fact?

Here is the truth about evolution:

1. We have proven that evolution does occur, at least locally.
2. Evolution does appear to explain a tremendous deal of what we observe.
3. Evolution cannot be proven because it is a purely statistical phenomenon.
4. As such, it would be arrogant to call evolution "the truth."

Evolution should be taught in a science class because it is a scientific theory (or law, or fact, or whatever you freakin' choose to call it). Creationism is not. However, that does not imply that evolution is any more truthful than Creationism.

We don't know how we got here. That is, in essence, the problem.

BobSmith

08-19-2005, 11:17 AM

You suggest that I lack an understanding of the term Evolution. For the sake continuing this tread effectively, I agree with you that a better definition of the word is needed.

I agree with Lisa's Hotscakes. I am not going to get drawn into an argument over semantics. My last post was not quibbling over trivial semantical issues, it was a response to your claims which were factually incorrect. For example the claim that the theory of evolution demands something come from nothing is incorrect, and it shows an misunderstanding of what evolution is.

BobSmith

08-19-2005, 11:21 AM

I admit that I gave a simplified version of the equation. I am not proficient at probability equations.
the correct equation would come out with a much bigger number.
random chemistry produces some 2000 different aminoacids, Most of which are poisonous.
only 20 of which are found and used in living cells.
could someone give me the correct equation?
the odds of producing by chance
1) 200 segment protien
2) 20 aminoacids used in the right order
3) from 2000 available in a mixture

What are the odds of even one 200 segment protien forming by chance? Using X multiplied by itself to the x, that would be 200 multiplied by itself 200 times. The answer is one in
1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+460.

Nothing in the theory of evolution concerns proteins, of any size, spontaneously forming from amino acids. The above calculation has nothing to do with evolution. It is a calculation of spontaneous generation, not a calculation of evolution. No scientists in existance accepts spontaneous generation anyway - not even evolutionary biologists.

lorrdy

08-20-2005, 03:02 AM

I think that both Evolution and Creation theories
should be tought.
But students must be given correct information.
The Theory of Evolution as taught in the united states
is both science and belief mixed together, which it should not be. Schools teach all forms of evolution as the same, and that evolution is a fact.
The overall purpose is to present an explanation
of ORIGINS, where we come from and where everything comes from. I have no problem with that.
Please reread the three different kinds of evolution listed in my last post.
1)Genetic variation within kind,
2)mutations and errors,
3)upward advance from simple to complex
animals/plants using unknown means.

You must Realize that other countries are teaching correct biology and leaving our students behind.

More and more countries and scientists are recognizing the failings of evolution as a theory.

Here is another example.
If there are any species in existance that have unique and specialized organs or structures that cannot be explained by gradual transitional life forms then Evolution as an explanation is invalid.

Which of the following creatures found in both nature and the fossil record; Are proved to have evolved from some other creature, proved by thousands of examples of transitional forms.
bat
insect
lobster/crab
seashells/clam
seahorse
cat
dog
spider
fish
frog
etc. etc. on and on.
There are not thousands as required.
No transitional forms are present to back the theory.
not in life, not in the fossil record. ZERO

here is a link article of fossil pictures, or do a google search
http://www.ummah.net/harunyahya/evol/ebk1-1.html

rima

08-20-2005, 07:09 AM

I found a site about all disciples of evolution. Check this site:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/

lorrdy

08-20-2005, 03:20 PM

thanks for the link.
I"ll have to check it out more and put it on my favorites listI.

BobSmith

08-20-2005, 09:32 PM

Many foreign students go to US colleges to learn biology. If the US was teaching biology wrong they wouldn't bother.

Biologists overwhelmingly accept evolution as the foundation of modern biology.

There are loads of transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

lorrdy

08-21-2005, 02:03 AM

Yes I have seen that website before.
I already have it saved in my favorites.
It is actually the best website I have seen as far as trying to give proof of evolution.

Still, My previous statement stands.
There are no transitional forms for the animals that I stated. If there were they would be on display in all the Natural History Museums. Remember, we are looking for obvious transitional forms with partially functioning organs and parts. thousands of transitional steps are needed. Even Fish ; there are billions of fish fossils. Museums and collectors have Millions of them. but they are fully formed fish. I have some fish fossils etc. at home myself .

Lisa's Hotscakes

08-21-2005, 01:18 PM

I am not certain you understand how evolution works. No biologist I know would claim that an intermediate step between two species would involve animals with partially functioning organs.

Still, I find some natural phenomena pretty hard to explain as mere chance. The bombadier beetle comes to mind. Usually the scientific explanations tend to look too ad hoc for my comfort. But evolution is still the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for what we see around us.

lorrdy

08-21-2005, 11:51 PM

If you wish, I can give you a more thorough definition of the 3 kinds of Evolution.
I am not opposed to teaching them next to Creation.
Both can be tought as scietific theories.
one uses random chance.
the other, a supreme intelligent designer; one able to design and create the vastly complex genetic code, and the massively complex machinery found in all living things.
Please give your view on how evolution works. Let''s use the Spider as an example. there are no transitional forms showing change into a spider from simpler creatures, or from a spider into new creatures. They, (intermediates) are not found in nature or in the fossil record. they are 100 percent spider.
please give your view on how spiders came to exist.

Unregistered

08-22-2005, 09:56 AM

BobSmith

08-22-2005, 01:54 PM

The validity of Evolution is not dependant on knowing every historical detail of evolution. All that is needed is a good enough general overview. As time more fossils are found and more details are realised.

Let''s use the Spider as an example. there are no transitional forms showing change into a spider from simpler creatures, or from a spider into new creatures. They, (intermediates) are not found in nature or in the fossil record. they are 100 percent spider.
please give your view on how spiders came to exist.

Spiders, like most insects, are not well preserved in the fossil record. But what is known does fit evolution. Spiders cover a very broad range of species. There is no such thing as an ideal spider. All spiders are different, and spiders have changed throughout the fossil record. Here is some information on the fossil record of spiders: http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/what/origins.htm

The origin of spiders is likely from 8 legged aquatic creatures - of which examples exist in the fossil record and in nature (check out horseshoe crabs for example)

Notice that many spider features were not present in ancient spiders and features have appeared as time progresses. So those ancient spiders weren't really "100 percent spider". Ancient spiders were segmented, modern spiders are not (apart from a few primitive species in indonesia). It is a remarkable patern that ancient spider fossils found are always segmented. Evolution has an explaination for this - I am not aware of any other explaination. I guess Intelligent Design would have to suggest that segmented spiders were created about 400 million years ago, and then unsegmented spiders were created about 250 million years ago. Personally I find it more believable that unsegmented spiders evolved from segmented ones.

Lisa's Hotscakes

08-22-2005, 03:37 PM

Educational Truth: We are public servants. What we value is irrelevant. We teach that which the public has deemed necessary for its children to learn and succeed. If the public has decided that evolution is important for children to understand (which is reasonable since it is the foundation of biology), then you must teach evolution. Or quit and go to work for a private school.

This also applies to evolutionists, such as myself. As public servants, we don't have the right to antagonize the religious community. It's all about respect for people's beliefs.

lorrdy

08-23-2005, 03:27 AM

Three things,
The link you gave looks very impressive but gives no true evidence.
I was confused by your statements.
You didn't give your views on how spiders came to be.

1) I checked out your link on the supposed evolution of spiders. let's look again. starting with the chart timeline,

http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/popups/index.htm

we see 180 million years ago a drawing of a (spider).
we see 230 million years ago a drawing of a (spider).
we see 325 million years ago a drawing of a (spider).
we see 420 million years ago a drawing of a (tick/mite).
we see 530 million years ago a drawing of a(trilobite).

if you look closer you will see that for the (tick), the legs are drawn wrong to look more like a spider.
also, for the (trilobite) the legs are too long and a tail was added to look like a horseshoecrab.

http://www.ideofact.com/archives/trilobite.jpg

Next, if you read the text you will see mention of supposed Arachnid Ancestors. are they mites?, scorpions?, horseshoecrabs?. Where is the proof?
remember, thousands of (intermediates) showing step by step upward development into a spider?

the word Arachnid simply means 8 legged.
including scorpions, mites, harvestmen etc.

Here is the text first mention of real spiders.
"The first definite spiders, thin-waisted arachnids with abdominal segmentation and silk producing spinnerets, are known from fossils like Attercopus fimbriungus. This spider lived 380 million years ago during the Devonian Period, more than 150 million years before the dinosaurs."
Spiders have always been spiders.

2) Secondly, your comments on segmented spiders was confusing. You say that early spiders were segmented and modern spiders are not.
Can you explain more fully please.
Are you talking about spiders , arachnids or arthropods in general?

3) Thirdly, please conclude with an answer to my
question, your personal views on how evolution worked to create spiders.

BobSmith

08-23-2005, 03:30 PM

if you look closer you will see that for the (tick), the legs are drawn wrong to look more like a spider.

It is a spider. Ticks do not produce silk, and these fossil spiders had spinnerets for producing silk.

also, for the (trilobite) the legs are too long and a tail was added to look like a horseshoecrab.

I don't think that is meant to be a trilobite. Not sure what though. Perhaps it is a hypothesed animal.

Next, if you read the text you will see mention of supposed Arachnid Ancestors. are they mites?, scorpions?, horseshoecrabs?. Where is the proof?
remember, thousands of (intermediates) showing step by step upward development into a spider?

The fossil record for spiders is very incomplete (spiders tend to not fossilise well). Very few spider fossils have been found. Now I am sure you realise that many spiders have existed in the past, and that the absense of them in the fossil record doesn't imply that spiders didn't used to exist. Much development has occured within spiders. For example early fossil spiders have silk spinnerets at the middle of their body, and not at the end indicating a time when spiders did not spin webs, but used silk for other means.

Noone claimed there was "proof" for spider evolution and even thousands of intermediates would not "prove" spider evolution. All it would show is there were thousands of intermediates.

Spiders have always been spiders.

By definintion the first spider will be a spider even if that first spider had originated from something that wasn't a spider. For example humans descended from apes, but humans have still always been humans. There was never a human which was not a human (that would be contradictory)

Secondly, your comments on segmented spiders was confusing. You say that early spiders were segmented and modern spiders are not. Can you explain more fully please. Are you talking about spiders , arachnids or arthropods in general?

I was talking about spiders. Ancient fossil spiders are all segmented, indicating that early spiders were segmented. About 250 million years ago the first non-segmented spiders appear in the fossil record.

3) Thirdly, please conclude with an answer to my
question, your personal views on how evolution worked to create spiders.

I am not an expert, but from what i have read I believe a likely general picture would be that early segmented spiders originated from some form of segmented arthropods that existed in the ocean at that time. A move to land would have pressured for adaptation. That adaptation led to early segmented spiders. Maybe early spiders inherited the ability to produce silk from their ocean arthropod ancestors, or perhaps they developed it afterwards. Nevertheless the earliest spiders were very different from the modern kind, so plenty of change has gone on since then.

There are lots of unknowns in spider evolution due to the lack of fossils. A more specific picture cannot be made. Only a general picture is possible, much of it hypothesis. The picture will become clearer as more fossils are found.

lorrdy

08-23-2005, 08:33 PM

Thank you for this wonderful discussion. I have enjoyed it.
From now on I may not have regular daily time with internet access.

I still am not sure what you mean by segmented.

please explain what the difference is.

You claim that the tick image was a spider and that it spun silk.
look again at the time line. the tick is shown in the Silurian layer,
425 million years old. then the earliest spider fossil is found 40 million years later in the Devonian layer. There is no proof of one evolving into anything.
we still have ticks, and we still have spiders. I agree that the drawing of the trilobite was an artistic conception of what a possible (intermediate) creature would look like. The drawing of the tick with long legs is also an artistic conception. The website does give a true drawing of one though.

http://www.amonline.net.au/spiders/diversity/what/relatively.htm

Unregistered

09-29-2005, 12:39 PM

Hello, I was doing a essay on the Evolution vs Creationism argument and just wanted to ask what you people think of ithi i think that creationism is right not evolution becouse i believe God made every thing and in 7 days.

Unregistered

09-29-2005, 12:45 PM

Dr.Chen

10-01-2005, 01:45 AM

Religion comes from the heart. It begins with faith. Attempts to describe the natural world break down. You use the language of the heart in describing your love, you do not define the circulatory system.

Science is the language of the mind. Attempts to confront the eternal break down. You would not go to a heart surgeon for advice on wooing your sweetheart.

Your faith is a personal experience and should not be shared in a public school classroom out of respect for the personal faith experience of those who are put in your charge.

Science should be taught in the classroom. Science arises from the questioning scientific method and there is no room for faith. You don't want an emotional heart surgeon or a calculating lover.

Teachers should be mature enough to handle more than one discipline or perspective. Anyone who finds it necessary to engage in a faith versus science dialogue is by definition a person of limited scope and should find a profession not affiliated with education.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-01-2005, 01:54 AM

Your faith is a personal experience and should not be shared in a public school classroom out of respect for the personal faith experience of those who are put in your charge.

Out of curiousity, would you extend that philosophy to include personal politics?

Dr.Chen

10-01-2005, 12:04 PM

I see your point. For the unquestioning mind, politics is just another form of doctrine.
Now that you mention it, I notice that many who talk about their "faith" are really referring to the belefs espoused by their religious affiliation, a kind of modern tribalism which eats at the core of the democratic ideal. "It can't happen here," I know.
I am a person of faith. As such, I fear, as our founding fathers did, a nation controlled by religious despots who seek to impose their narrow view on all. Whether they affiliate with Christian, Muslim, or any other group mentality, they are well organized, openly hostile to liberal education and democratic respect for minority rights.
Seizing upon well researched "hot buttons" of American mob sensibilities, these power hungry despots are using their uncontemplative minions to undermine our democratic institutions on every front. Creationism is not about religious faith. It is an attack upon freedom of thought and, if followed to its ulitmate conclusion, will take us back to the Middle Ages mentality that rules much of the Middle East. Follow the Creationists back to their halcyon days that the rest of us call the Dark Ages.

Unregistered

10-01-2005, 02:47 PM

quote "Seizing upon well researched "hot buttons" of American mob sensibilities, these power hungry despots are using their uncontemplative minions to undermine our democratic institutions on every front"

When political groups within the 2 parties started hiring focus group engineers from the advertising business, they discovered that a huge amount of Americans could be manipulated to vote for corporate representatives if they professed beliefs in key "religious" issues. Thus,the greatest democracy in the world became what it is today, not at all a theocracy, but a thinly disguised, media supported rule of the many by the few. A sort of neo facism where the wealthy grow in power by manipulating the gullible workers.

Of course the only hope for a return to democracy is, as Orwell pointed out, an educated proletariat. Thus the attempts to subvert education through creationism and the sudden rash of "reforms" against teacher protections.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-01-2005, 04:13 PM

Now that you mention it, I notice that many who talk about their "faith" are really referring to the belefs espoused by their religious affiliation...

Okay, you are shifting the argument back on religion. But what about personal politics? I'll ask again, do you extend the same reasoning you apply to religious views to political views?

After all, if we are really concerned about imposing a certain religious view on a captive audience (students), then shouldn't we be similarly concerned about political views?

For the record, I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in public schools.

Thus the attempts to subvert education through creationism and the sudden rash of "reforms" against teacher protections.

Conspiracy theories aside, this discussion is about evolution, not tenure. We have already hammered tenure in another forum.

Dr.Chen

10-01-2005, 06:05 PM

[QUOTE=Dr.Chen] For the unquestioning mind, politics is just another form of doctrine.

That is the answer to your question as to whether religion and politics are the same.
I've seen too many of these discussions lapse into semantics. Teachers are not expected to avoid political discussions any more than they are religous ones. Teachers must, by law, avoid teaching doctrine.
Personally, I teach the Creation Myth from the Bible along with other explanations for origin, which appear in all cultures.
To avoid misunderstanding, I hold "Myth" to be a more workable form of truth than science for discussing the mysteries of the human spirit.
Still, one who cannot tell the difference between science and myth is either a person of limited imagination or misshapen education. Also, sadly, a person who has turned off the thinking process in favor of doctrines (tribal identities) can certainly cause havoc in a state approved position as a teacher if he or she tries to pass on these institutionalized superstitions to the impressionable young.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-01-2005, 06:11 PM

Also, sadly, a person who has turned off the thinking process in favor of doctrines (tribal identities) can certainly cause havoc in a state approved position as a teacher if he or she tries to pass on these institutionalized superstitions to the impressionable young.

Agreed, 100%. Many teachers take advantage of their captive audience to preach, not teach. We need to be aware that the political/social/moral/religious principles we hold may run counter to the principles held by our students and their parents.

Billy

10-03-2005, 07:00 PM

First I'll let you guys know that if you knew me, you would classify me as a "fundamentalist" religious zealot. I would say that I'm a Christian who truly believes what I say I believe.

Now that you have heard that, I'll let my two cents be heard: While I myself "believe" in Biblical Creationism (i.e. the fact that God created the world not all to long ago essentially the way we see it today, with some exceptions, and not nearly long enough for the Theory of Evolution to take place) I DO NOT believe it should be taught in public schools. After all, that would be picking a religion and holding it above all others, which would basically break the establishment clause, plus there would be non-believers who would not feel comfortable teaching it, and probably would not do it justice.

However, we still have to look at what's at stake here. What most school systems are looking at is not Biblical Creationism, but Intelligent Design. Not only that, but they still do not even teach ID as a theory, but merely as a prevalent alternative to Darwinism.

Most people simply want the ability to discuss the problems with evolution and how ID fits in. Not only that, but ID is in no way unconstitutional, because it does NOT either 1)establish a religion or 2) hinder the practice of a religion. The word "God" is a much better word then most kids hear in school and should not be used as a taboo.

The issue at hand is much to great to simply say "lets throw anything we do not like out of the picture".

Thank you for your time.

Unregistered

10-03-2005, 07:45 PM

Thanks, Billy, for a sincere explanation of your point of view, devoid of rhetoric and clearly stated.
I am a Christian who does not believe in using public schools as a forum for teaching doctinal issues.
Permit me to confess that I never miss an opportunity to examine values with my students. In literature, for example, there are many themes that deal with kindness and tolerance, ideals which I feel are truly "Christian" in the best sense of the word.
I also like to explore a variety of creation stories from around the world, including the one from the Middle East, yes, the Adam and Eve story. This unit works well as a bridge between world history and literature and also as a way to examine the difference between faith and science.
Intelligent Design is a valiant attempt to realign faith and science so that we can, some hope, return to those wonderful days when religion and science were one.
It ain't gonna happen. Science must arrive at conclusions through deductive reasoning and religion begins and ends with inductive reasoning.
The details of evolution or intelligent design are not going to be hashed out in a high school setting. The biologist or geneticist or other scientist is not, despite what some would portray them as, simply espousing another "view" of the origin of life. You may find a stray scientist who has allowed his faith to blur his scientific reasoning, but the perponderance of scientific thought begins and ends with observation and the scientific method.
Christianity is going to have to accept a universe created by a loving God in amazingly complex ways that the men who wrote Genesis, however inspired, never dreamt of. Either that, or we are going to slip back into the Dark Ages where science and reason were chained by the dark side of faith, the repression of truth for the defense of status quo.

Unregistered

10-03-2005, 07:53 PM

It seems to me that a Christian educator would have her hands full teaching the youth of America how to turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, and judge not lest ye be judged. Who has time to bother with the obsolete notions of a Tonka Toy Creator? Christians need to examine our motives. Do we seek temporal power or a field for sowing the seeds of a compassionate society? I hope the latter, since America is rapidly becoming the modern equivelant to Sodom. Is it "You will know we are Christians by the amount of justices we have on the Supreme Court or the number of wars we support for the expansion of neo-colonialism" or "You will know we are Christians by our love."?

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-03-2005, 08:01 PM

Is it "You will know we are Christians by the amount of justices we have on the Supreme Court or the number of wars we support for the expansion of neo-colonialism"...

And these are the kinds of statements we also need to keep out of our schools.

Essentially, we are not the kids' parents. We have no right to impose our religious views on them -- that's the parents' responsibility. But we also need to extend this same ideal to the political arena.

Unregistered

10-04-2005, 07:25 PM

Maybe you're confused, but this forum is not part of your curriculum.

You need not quote the opinions listed here for your students. Especially if you have trouble understanding them.

Unregistered

10-04-2005, 07:35 PM

Where'd Billy go? Just when this forum was getting interested Lisa HC chimes in with a really off the wall response to some pretty challenging questions about the difference between science and religion.

Come back Billy. Give us an intelligent response. We hardly ever hear anything but gibberish and propaganda from your side.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-04-2005, 08:12 PM

You need not quote the opinions listed here for your students.

What about for YOUR students?

If we are all for muting religious doctrine in schools (which I think is appropriate), shouldn't we extend the same argument to political doctrine? Do you think it is fair for a teacher to take advantage of a captive audience to try and sway her students towards a certain political viewpoint?

The reason I ask is because I think political excesses are far more common today than religious excesses. Few teachers I know try to push a religious viewpoint on their students; however, the same cannot be said of political viewpoints.

The details of evolution or intelligent design are not going to be hashed out in a high school setting. The biologist or geneticist or other scientist is not, despite what some would portray them as, simply espousing another "view" of the origin of life. You may find a stray scientist who has allowed his faith to blur his scientific reasoning, but the perponderance of scientific thought begins and ends with observation and the scientific method.

Christianity is going to have to accept a universe created by a loving God in amazingly complex ways that the men who wrote Genesis, however inspired, never dreamt of. Either that, or we are going to slip back into the Dark Ages where science and reason were chained by the dark side of faith, the repression of truth for the defense of status quo.

I don't see why the two have to maintain an antagonistic relationship. One believes one thing; the other believes another. The scientific view belongs in a science class, since a science class is relegated strictly to scientific theories. (Which does not inherently make them correct.) The creationist/intelligent design theory is best left to religious studies. But that does not relegate intelligent design to a lesser role.

So which of the two theories is TRUE? I don't think any of us can prove our view one way or the other. So we go on believing what we believe. In no way does that slip us back into the Dark Ages.

Unregistered

10-05-2005, 12:00 AM

Some of you are either ignorant of the history of the effort to sidetrack the teaching of evolution in schools or are purposefully being coy about it.

There is a concentrated effort being waged in courts and school boards throughout the nation right now. The term "Intelligent Design" denotes the latest strategy.

The supreme court ruled against the efforts of religionists to halt the teaching of evolution, causing those who insist on equal time for religion to come up with a carefully worded alternative theory that focuses on weaknesses in the theory of evolution and attempts to work backwards to a plausible "scientific theory" that forces schools to teach evolution as just one theory, as if creationism were on equal footing scientifically.

It's pretty insidious and just part of a highly politcal movement. I believe in God. But I don't want Pat Robertson telling me what to teach as science in the classroom.

Someone here keeps trying to equate an individual's political views with this sort of orchestrated religious juggernaut. That person needs to read the history of church and state and the long, bitter, bloody journey out of darkness that led to our present separation of the two forces.

This sort of muddying the waters with trying to pretend that organized religion, powerful and wealthy and very organized, should be considered as the same as one person's views an opinions.

Naturally, when we go back to the dark ages of one truth determined by religious despots, personal opinions will cease to matter except as justification for burning intellectuals at the stake.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-05-2005, 12:33 AM

Someone here keeps trying to equate an individual's political views with this sort of orchestrated religious juggernaut. That person needs to read the history of church and state and the long, bitter, bloody journey out of darkness that led to our present separation of the two forces.

Let's talk about the present. As someone who has a captive audience of minors, do you think you should be able to attempt to sway their political opinion towards your own? What if their parents oppose your views?

This sort of muddying the waters with trying to pretend that organized religion, powerful and wealthy and very organized, should be considered as the same as one person's views an opinions.

Political parties are powerful, wealthy, and very organized as well. But what difference does it make? If preaching politics or religion is unjustified, then why should it matter how much money the supporters have in their bank accounts? Shouldn't we debate the issue on its own merits?

For the record, I am not in favor of teaching religious doctrine (which includes intelligent design) in the classroom. I just want to see some consistency for a change.

Naturally, when we go back to the dark ages of one truth determined by religious despots, personal opinions will cease to matter except as justification for burning intellectuals at the stake.

Sorry, but the whole notion of burning intellectuals at the stake is ridiculous. Why do we have to constantly rely on hyperbole in this forum to make a point?

Billy

10-05-2005, 10:26 AM

Essentially my response is still the same as I said before. The Theory of Evolution, as many people see it, is an attempt to explain some of the big questions in life without any reference to God. Taking God out of the picture puts everyone on a slippery slope. That said, I think we should be allowed to talk about alternatives to strictly evolution in school.

As a Christian, I do not adhere much to the doctrine of evolution, but our main goal is salvation through Jesus Christ. Whether someone believes in a literal 6 days creation or billions of years of evolution is ultimately a secondary issue.

Feel free to ask me anything.

Unregistered

10-05-2005, 11:17 AM

Thank you Billy.

I agree with you entirely that my faith in a personal savior has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the world was created in 6 days or billion years. I keep an open mind to the wonders of the Lord's creation, and evolution is one very strong explanation, full of wonder and miraculous diversity.

One issue though. I don't believe evolution was developed as an attempt to take God out of the picture. Science is based upon observation. The fact that narrow minded religionists reacted so strongly to evolution does not make it godless. Christian intellects should seek ways to glorfify God from an evolutionary perspective rather than attempt to disable scientific enquiry.

The organized church has a dismal history of closed mindedness and dangerous reactionary responses to science.

Once again, I appreciate your level headed response, especially with all the claptrap that others are introducing into this discussion.

Unregistered

10-05-2005, 11:18 AM

Unregistered

10-05-2005, 02:40 PM

quote" If preaching politics or religion is unjustified, then why should it matter how much money the supporters have in their bank accounts? Shouldn't we debate the issue on its own merits?"

If you cannot see the difference between an individual expressing his or her opinions and an orchestrated movement designed to subvert the process of free speech then I really don't know what I can say to help you.

I have noticed a tendency towards distrust for the individual teacher in favor of institutionalized authority in many of your postings. Evidently, you believe we must develop an education system where individual teachers are under constant scrutiny and control by state agencies or some sort of, What, kangaroo court made up of teachers of your choosing?

Unregistered

10-05-2005, 02:44 PM

Don't just pick on Lisa. There are a number of people who think something along the line of Mao's cultural revolution is just what the teaching profession, and the nation in general, need to get these darned individuals in line.

"You cannot trust the individual. Only the state is worthy of our trust." Scripted teaching. Standards based instruction. Teach to the test. Destroy all disenters.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-06-2005, 12:27 AM

If you cannot see the difference between an individual expressing his or her opinions and an orchestrated movement designed to subvert the process of free speech then I really don't know what I can say to help you.

I see a difference. But the question is, "Should teachers take advantage of their captive audience to sway students towards their own political view."

You continuously refuse to answer the question.

I have noticed a tendency towards distrust for the individual teacher in favor of institutionalized authority in many of your postings. Evidently, you believe we must develop an education system where individual teachers are under constant scrutiny and control by state agencies or some sort of, What, kangaroo court made up of teachers of your choosing?

If you are going to post my opinions, quote me.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-06-2005, 12:36 AM

Don't just pick on Lisa. There are a number of people who think something along the line of Mao's cultural revolution is just what the teaching profession, and the nation in general, need to get these darned individuals in line.

Ha ha! I am the one being called the Marxist! O-h m-y G-o-d!

"You cannot trust the individual. Only the state is worthy of our trust." Scripted teaching. Standards based instruction. Teach to the test. Destroy all disenters.

As opposed to, "You should trust the individual... unless the individual is fixing my car, or performing surgery on my heart, or mowing my lawn..."

Why should I trust you? What have you done to earn my trust with my kids' future?

Face it, you want no oversight for yourself, but you sure don't mind oversight on everyone else when they work for YOU.

The Standards are awesome, and I can post numerous reasons why. I can start with one:

1. State content standards provide a consistent curriculum from school to school, which is a must for those students who transfer from one school to another.

Unregistered

10-06-2005, 09:57 AM

No Lisa, you're not being called a Marxist. You are being compared with hypocrites who wants to expunge "undesireables". I refer you to "A Tale of Two Cities" for a literary analogy to explain what happens when judgemental egomaniacs are given the free rein they long for.

Unregistered

10-06-2005, 10:07 AM

quote -
Why should I trust you? What have you done to earn my trust with my kids' future?

Sooner or later most arguements comes down to disparate psychological profiles.

Some people put their trust in institutions, other's in individuals. Some people trust no one.

Some of us are arguing from a very obvious resentment toward other teachers. Others are coming from a place of very obvious resentment toward the state. Instead of every strand breaking down into this same personality based impasse, let's try to look at the situation from the other perspective.

For example,imagine for a moment, Lisa, that teachers are essentially trustworthy professionals and polticians are power hungry facists cloaking themselves and their programs in policies to protect citizens from each other.

Do you really want to live in a world where the state trumps individual conscience? If so, perhaps you could state that at the beginning of each thread so that well meaning people will not be drawn into a dialogue with someone they probably wouldn't bother to exchange the time of day with if they knew her raison d'etre.

yank

10-07-2005, 12:09 PM

what ever .. creaton is true .. .. word mother f*kers

lizzard

10-07-2005, 07:45 PM

"The separation of Church and State is important, and that's why it's in the constitution." -unregistered

First of all, that phrase is NOT in the Constitution, it was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. However, I think 'Unregistered' is thinking of the Establishment clause of the First Ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This is saying government can not tell everyone to practice a certain religion.

But isn't that what schools are doing? They are teaching Scientism.

Scientism - a belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all wisdom and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of wisdom.

Scientism takes faith to believe, so therefore, it contributes itself to a religion with THEORIES.
Intelligent design would be good to put into the school system as another theory besides Evolution to counterbalance Evolution and give equal rights to both sides.

Second, please note neither Evolution nor Creationism can be proved under scientific terms. That is why Evolution is only a THEORY, not a fact. No one, was there when the "big bang" happened over millions of years. So how do scientists know it happened? They do not. They do, however, theorize, and Evolution was one of the THEORIES.

How do Creationists know how the world was created? Some have books, such as the Bible, but the Bible does not "meet" the scientific criterea and is regarded as a pseudoscience. Why a pseudoscience? Because, supposedly, the Bible is out of the realm of science and it deals with things unable to be expiramented on. This point, however, could be argued. Much evidence has been found for the accounts of the Bible. I will not go into further detail as my time is still important to me. Try googling for it and see what you find.
I think Creation and Evolution should be tought side by side as comparisons since both are substantial THEORIES, both unable to be proven by science.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-07-2005, 10:10 PM

For example,imagine for a moment, Lisa, that teachers are essentially trustworthy professionals and polticians are power hungry facists cloaking themselves and their programs in policies to protect citizens from each other.

Do you really want to live in a world where the state trumps individual conscience? If so, perhaps you could state that at the beginning of each thread so that well meaning people will not be drawn into a dialogue with someone they probably wouldn't bother to exchange the time of day with if they knew her raison d'etre.

Amazing. You start off with a hypothetical situation, then assume it is true to prove a point. My God, have you never heard of a false premise?

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-07-2005, 10:13 PM

I refer you to "A Tale of Two Cities" for a literary analogy to explain what happens when judgemental egomaniacs are given the free rein they long for.

Hmmm... if someone is fixing your roof and it is clearly not going to be effective, don't become judgmental. Let him finish and pay him his money.

Who wouldn't want to be a roofer under those conditions?

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-07-2005, 10:19 PM

I think Creation and Evolution should be tought side by side as comparisons since both are substantial THEORIES, both unable to be proven by science.

Maybe, but not in a science class, which is inherently for teaching scientific theories.

BTW, science can become a religion once theories become taught as truth. I am unaware of any scientist that would adopt such a viewpoint, but unfortunately that is the message we often send with the language we use. When a scientist says that evolution is a fact, he isn't saying that it is true. Laymen often use the two terms interchangeably, and some teachers will take advantage of that misconception to try and teach science as truth. To me, that is inappropriate in a public school.

tom again

10-08-2005, 01:27 AM

"You start off with a hypothetical situation.."

Actually, the writer asked you to consider another point of view for a moment. Obviously an exercise you are incapable of.

Unregistered

10-08-2005, 01:36 AM

"Scientism takes faith to believe,"

No it does not. I know they taught you that science is just another belief system, but in fact, the scientific method begins by suspending belief.

There are Christians in the world who are capable of having a faith and also using reason that is detached from belief.

Pleae, go back to college for one basic science class so you can learn how to tell the difference between reason and faith.

Pretending that science is just another religion may sound good in the pews, but it contributes to the popular belief that Christians are idiots, which makes the work of those who want to share their faith with thinking people rather difficult. So, please read a book or take a class, but stop going to church for political and scientific arguments. You are an embarassment.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-08-2005, 03:12 AM

Actually, the writer asked you to consider another point of view for a moment.

Why not then consider the opposing point of view for a moment -- that teachers are essentially power-hungry Fascists and politicians are trustworthy individuals? Of what value is there in such activity?

Going back to the one of the earlier posts:

Do you really want to live in a world where the state trumps individual conscience?

We already do when we take psychopaths off the streets. In fact, the State trumps individual conscience every time it licenses a professional.

Should the State oversee the operations of dam construction? Be careful, we don't want the State to trump individual conscience.

Billy

10-08-2005, 11:37 AM

I'd like to comment on the few people talking about whether science can be considered a religion or not.

First, believing evolution requires a lot of faith in nature and random processes. The likelyhood of fish evolving into other animals and eventually man is HIGHLY UNLIKELY and the answer to this ~0 likelyhood is the "millions of years" in which it took place.

Second, science is a wonderful thing. When new medical treatments are discovered or we discover how to make huge objects (airplanes) fly, we are doing amazing things, and this is what science is for. The problem with science is that people begin using it to answer the big questions in life, often with a bias, and often in ways it shouldn't be used (ie. the creation of the world is not a testable event). So when people begin teaching(preaching) that evolution is the only apparent theory for the creation of the world, they ARE taking God out of it (because science leaves no room for the supernatural), and replacing their religion with secularism, or the idea that they have no need for a God.

If you are wondering why I adhere to Biblical Creationism rather than evolution, there are 3 main reasons:

1) I have a faith in things unseen.
2) The world is blinded by Satan.
3) It is better to trust in the Lord then in the minds of men.

Feel free to comment.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-08-2005, 03:27 PM

Second, science is a wonderful thing. When new medical treatments are discovered or we discover how to make huge objects (airplanes) fly, we are doing amazing things, and this is what science is for. The problem with science is that people begin using it to answer the big questions in life, often with a bias, and often in ways it shouldn't be used (ie. the creation of the world is not a testable event).

Science is more than that. Science is man's attempt to logically deduce what he sees around him. So science goes far beyond mere inventions.

But at the same time, we shouldn't think that science is the end-all, be-all. At one time Newton's laws were cast in stone, but that all came apart thanks to Planck. So science evolves with new discoveries.

dr. Chen

10-08-2005, 05:22 PM

Billie, I really appreciate the way you state your beliefs.
I heartily agree that using science to try to answer the big questions is like trying to measure a man's love for his wife, it is futile and degrading to the human spirit.

On the other hand, I believe our Creator endowed us with rational minds. The quest to understand our origins rationally does lead us to answers that eclipse the faith of our ancestors. The challenge for people of faith is to realign our spiritual understanding with the new information coming in from the rational mind.

We live in a time when the rational has moved ahead so rapidly, it leaves our spiritual selves challenged to catch up. The answer lies in educating ourselves fully in science and striving prayerfully to make the leap so that religion continues to be sensible to ordinary persons.

Someone living in the 2nd Century had to make no effort to align the Biblical explanation of creation with what was known to science. They did not have to suspend belief in one or the other. Our challenge is far more difficult. If you are gifted with both faith and a rational mind, as I believe I have been, you must accept the challenge of testifying to people who are unwilling to turn off their minds to accept a spiritual path.

Surely the God we believe in could have created the world using evolution? Science is not the realm of Satan. Fear is the realm of Satan. We must not cling to the explanations of the past if we are to carry out our mission to bring all to faith.

I sense you have a fine mind. Please seek to understand evolution with an open mind while staying strong in your central belief in a loving God. Perhaps you can use your talents to help bring faith and reason into alignment once again.

Unregistered

10-08-2005, 05:24 PM

I'm confused, Lisa. Are you saying teachers are roofers or psychopaths? Or do you see us as psychopathic roofers?

tom tuttle

10-08-2005, 05:27 PM

Lisa Hostcakes is a little bald man hired by proponents of prop 74 to turn every discussion into an argument against teacher protections.

Disable teacher protections and you can stack the classrooms with right wing indealogues.

Break the back of the teacher union and turn every American into a WalMart employee (slave).

Keep trying, fat little Capitalist stooge, we know who you are.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-08-2005, 08:28 PM

Disable teacher protections and you can stack the classrooms with right wing indealogues.

Break the back of the teacher union and turn every American into a WalMart employee (slave).

Total nonsense.

Keep trying, fat little Capitalist stooge...

Capitalist? Capitalist?!?! As opposed to Marxist? I'll take the Capitalist label any day.

tuttle

10-08-2005, 11:17 PM

"Capitalist as oppossed to Marxist?"

No. Capitalist as opposed to honorable human.

Unregistered

10-09-2005, 01:40 AM

Tuttle,you're slipping. You didn't even notice she (he, it,them, whatever) didn't deny being a little man in a prop 74 sponsored office. Just wanted to make sure you knew about the capitalist pride business.

Unregistered

10-09-2005, 11:21 AM

I am a high school biology teacher and spend a great deal of time at the beginning of the school year teaching my kids about the scientific method. To present an alternative theory on evolution based only on faith would undermine everything I taught them about "science." When I teach evolution, I will probably explain to them this controversy, but in no way will I include intelligent design as required learning.

Unregistered

10-09-2005, 11:31 AM

Kudos to you, bio teacher! I teacher Language Arts and world civ. and as often as possible I bring in creation myths, including the Biblical account. I always make a point of discussing the difference between science and myth. I let them know that of the two, I prefer the spiritual power behind the great myths. Myth does not mean lie, I tell them, it means truths to personal to discuss in factual ways.
There is room for science and religion in our lives and in our classrooms, but we do our students the gravest disservice by trying to equate the two great forces, or worse, seek to place one above or below the other, or worse of all, demonize one.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-09-2005, 01:31 PM

Tuttle,you're slipping. You didn't even notice she (he, it,them, whatever) didn't deny being a little man in a prop 74 sponsored office.

Ha! If you go through my posts, I think you will see that I have far more teaching experience than the average politico.

But if you want a denial to your blatantly ad hominem attack, here goes:

I am not working for Prop. 74 in any fashion whatsoever. No one has ever contacted me to work on Prop. 74 and I have no intention of doing so.

It is inappropriate to resort to personal attacks simpy because someone disagrees with you.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-09-2005, 01:33 PM

I always make a point of discussing the difference between science and myth. I let them know that of the two, I prefer the spiritual power behind the great myths. Myth does not mean lie, I tell them, it means truths to personal to discuss in factual ways.

I would avoid using the term "myth." Students will go home and tell their parents that the teacher called Christianity a myth.

unregistered

10-09-2005, 03:01 PM

Yes, and with a captial M. It ain't science, that's for sure.

Too bad so many Americans have colloquialized the word "myth" which is not a perjorative regardless of what you learned on television.

Always happy to instruct parents on these sorts of misunderstandings.

Much of the useless dialogue about issues like evolution and creation have to do with misunderstanding really basic terms.

Of course, an individual who actually believe their personal interpretation of their little cult is objective reality is dangerously close to madness and incapable of logical discussion.

You can generally tell when you're dealing with egomaniacs because their side of the discussion becomes increasingly rabid, often ending in obscene references to equestrian activities.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-09-2005, 05:23 PM

Yes, and with a captial M. It ain't science, that's for sure.

Too bad so many Americans have colloquialized the word "myth" which is not a perjorative regardless of what you learned on television.

Doesn't matter. By using terms that upset parents, the teacher has created a problem that she now has to fix. There is a better way; don't use the term in the first place. Good parental relations are necessary for a school to function, especially when it comes time to pass bond measures. And who needs the headache of angry parents?

Remember, language is meant to COMMUNICATE. Using terms that are likely to be misinterpreted is not a proper way to communicate, no matter who's right.

Remember the Washington DC city councilman who used the term "niggardly" in a statement? He landed in a lot of hot water because he used a term that failed to communicate. Yes, he used the term correctly. And yes, he got in trouble.

It was probably an honest mistake. But if someone had told him beforehand, "Don't use it; they will misunderstand" then what excuse would he have?

Always happy to instruct parents on these sorts of misunderstandings.

You assume that angry parents will always ask for your clarification. The vast majority will probably not because they will assume (and probably rightfully so) that you are someone who simply does not respect their views.

I sure as Hell wouldn't say "Hinduism is a myth" to my students. The outcry would be loud and deserved. I extend the same respect to Christianity.

Much of the useless dialogue about issues like evolution and creation have to do with misunderstanding really basic terms.

By the same token, much of the useless dialogue about such issue is caused by using terms that are known to miscommunicate ideas.

Of course, an individual who actually believe their personal interpretation of their little cult is objective reality is dangerously close to madness and incapable of logical discussion.

In your opinion, of course.

Billy

10-10-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:
"Science is more than that. Science is man's attempt to logically deduce what he sees around him. So science goes far beyond mere inventions."

I'll accept that, but science ultimately is used to enhance life, either through knowledge or technology, which is why I mentioned the inventions. Also, science deals with logic but can only say something is true if it is repeatable and factual. I know in mathematics that 2+2 will always equal 4. The origins of the universe is not repeatable. So scientist took their logical deductions of what they observed, which is that there are many animals with similar characteristics, and extended it beyond the realm of mere deduction, and said everything that is came from a single source, which, to strict evolutionists, is the "soup" in which the original single cell organisms developed.

Dr. Chen I appreciate your comment but one line in particular stuck out.

Quote:
"The challenge for people of faith is to realign our spiritual understanding with the new information coming in from the rational mind. "

This is the "slippery slope" I referred to before. If God is indeed God, then he knows more then anyone one of us will ever know. It would be foolish to listen to the limited knowledge of mortals over the infinite knowledge of the Living God. Do I understand everything? Not at all. I don't know how a man can be raised from the dead and how a virgin can give birth. (As a matter of fact, SCIENCE and REASON tell me that a dead man can't walk and a virgin can't have a baby) But I believe it. And I also believe he created the world roughly as we see it now. Realigning the original explanation with the theory of men brings all faith into doubt.

I think the important idea here is that I'm not trying to demonize science in anyway, but by teaching essentially a godless scientific theory we are jeopardizing everyone. I have talked several times to my church youth group on the creation/evolution topic and most have been taught the same thing "evolution is a fact and requires/needs no god".

About the idea of the Christian Myth, this is just about respect and political correctness. As much as I hate political correctness (after all, I'm a Bible-thumping gay hating fundamentalist, remember?) we are talking about the public school systems. In the vernacular language myth refers to religions that no one believes in anymore (i.e. stories) and should not be used to refer to practiced religions.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-10-2005, 08:01 PM

I have talked several times to my church youth group on the creation/evolution topic and most have been taught the same thing "evolution is a fact and requires/needs no god".

Actually, they are right -- except the word "fact" is used disingenously. Scientists who use the word "fact" when they know that the term will be misunderstood are not doing their job as communicators. There is simply no need for such dialogue.

Dr. Chen

10-12-2005, 05:47 PM

To Billy

Thanks again for a most rational explanation of a position that is hardly ever presented without huge leaps in logic.

I see what you mean about the slippery slope of adjusting belief to scientific findings, but do you get my point that the early Christians had no conflict between rationality and faith? The cosmos they were presented with was an Earth centered one. The heavens were a bowl above which heaven shone through. When Christ ascended he did not have to dodge meteors of pass the planets. Virgin births were regular events in most parts of the world as the specific modes of reproduction were not clearly delineated.

It is only the Christians of the past 100 years or so who have had to deal with this huge split between Biblical accounts and scientific ones.

Assuming we agree that the Bible is the word of God, must we assume that every detail of this 2000 year old writing is scientific fact regardless of what our senses tell us? Do you see where I'm coming from?

Unregistered

10-13-2005, 03:38 PM

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-13-2005, 06:00 PM

Science is not truth; it is the SEARCH for truth. At no time do we ever say that we find truth.

Billy

10-14-2005, 05:13 PM

Assuming we agree that the Bible is the word of God, must we assume that every detail of this 2000 year old writing is scientific fact regardless of what our senses tell us? Do you see where I'm coming from?

Thanks for the comments, and yes I understand your points. But one of the biggest themes in the Bible is a faith in things unseen. Faith goes beyond the realm of senses and for that reason I put trust in my God over anything on this earth.

Tell me your take on this: Think about what Christ claimed to do. He died on the cross to save us from our sins. Why do we need salvation? Because the penalty for sin is death. Biblically, death is seperation from God. So we go back to the creation story, and Adam and Eve are in the Garden and have peace with God. They are not thrown out of the Garden (seperated from God) until they sin. Once this happens, they are forced to live on cursed earth where all living creatures are forced to die once. Now thats the big point. BEFORE sin man and animals did not die.

Now, if man is x thousands of years old but the world was created billions of years ago, and life has been evolving for millions of years, how do we explain the survival of the fittest and the evolving creatures and all the death and extinction in relation to the creation story?

We don't. We can't. Christ came to give us new life because our sins forced us to die. So why would we die before we sinned? We cannot reconcile the biblical creation account with evolution and if we throw out the Garden of Eden then why did Christ come to save us anyways?

Obviously a non-believer would have no problem but a follower of Christ should ponder this.

I look forward to your comments.

dr. Chen

10-14-2005, 10:09 PM

Thanks Bille. That was great. I'll be pondering.

Will get back after some prayerful thought.

God bless you and all who struggle for the truth.

Just looking

10-15-2005, 12:49 PM

Wow! People who listen to one another, reflect and alter their thinking, or at least consider the other persons point of view. How refreshing. I just came from the PDA thread and the Teacher Salary thread, two long dialogues between several sincere respondents which keeps getting stalled by the same argumentative, egotistical person. Same thing over and over. She comes into every thread to put herself and her silly neo-con positions up on a pedestal and won't listen but just insults people. Disgusting lack of modesty!

Just when I was about to give up on this forum, it looks like there are people here who don't just come to insult and argue.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-15-2005, 01:03 PM

Unregistered

10-15-2005, 06:38 PM

Touched a nerve? Can't stand the thought of people who appreciate open-mindedness? Doesn't help to be right all the time if nobody can stand talking to you.

Lisa's Hotscakes

10-15-2005, 09:26 PM

Can't stand the thought of people who appreciate open-mindedness?

Since you are so open-minded, then you shouldn't have any problem changing your mind and agreeing with me. (But all of a sudden the logic will change.)

You ARE open-minded, aren't you?

I have my opinions, and I am not going to change them just to get along. Sorry if that bothers you.

hiflyer

10-16-2005, 07:39 AM

Please realise that the question of creation and evolution (or creationISM and evolutionISM - let's be fair here) is not inextricably tied to the U.S. Constitutional Amendment about the separation of church and state.

As an Australian educator, I also deal with the question of origins in the classroom. But it does not relate to some special "public knowledge" that is of the state vs "religious knowledge" of the church; it is more foundational than that. It is about values, and core beliefs about life, about where we came from, about where we are going, about right and wrong.

If you believe in a "god" of any description, really believe that this universe arose from the creative energy and power of a creator, then no discussion from intellectual or quasi-legal roots about the separation of church and state will convince you that all this (waves hand around) arose out of matter, energy plus millions of years of undirected chance.

Tell your students that evolution is "science's best answer" to origins if you like, but public opinion surveys show that many ordinary Americans don't swallow it, despite the best efforts of the opposite side, with millions of dollars at their disposal, to badmouth every statement of anyone who believes in creation.

Suggestion to those on the other side: Find some really convincing evidence for how spiders arose, or the sense of sight, of intelligence, of information in DNA, how bombadier beetles cause chemical explosions, why pea****************s are so beautiful and ungainly, etc. etc. etc. Then do a really good - no, an inspiring, excellent, outstanding - job of teaching students, to inspire them with the worth of your view, of how your worldview gives meaning to their lives, how they can stake their futures on its truth, how it's just right. And quit worrying about whether the church and the state is being spoken of in the same sentence. Bet you can't do it. :)

hiflyer

10-16-2005, 08:03 AM

... do you get my point that the early Christians had no conflict between rationality and faith? The cosmos they were presented with was an Earth centered one. The heavens were a bowl above which heaven shone through. When Christ ascended he did not have to dodge meteors of pass the planets. Virgin births were regular events in most parts of the world as the specific modes of reproduction were not clearly delineated.

It is only the Christians of the past 100 years or so who have had to deal with this huge split between Biblical accounts and scientific ones.

Assuming we agree that the Bible is the word of God, must we assume that every detail of this 2000 year old writing is scientific fact regardless of what our senses tell us? Do you see where I'm coming from?

Dr Chen, thank you for your thoughtful post. However, I have to respectfully disagree. Why would Jesus have to "dodge meteors" after his resurrection? Do we really believe that New Testament-time adults did not know that conception results from a man and a woman? The whole point of the resurrection and the virgin birth is that everyone knows that they are ordinarily impossible, at any time in history. That's why they are miracles, and why they are the ground of Christianity. If you don't have faith, you won't believe them. If you do have faith, you believe them implicitly.

Dr. Chen

10-17-2005, 01:09 PM

Thanks Hiflyer for your thoughtful contribution. I'm still struggling with the issue internally, but here are my thoughts.

Virgin birth and resurrrection are matters of faith, yes. For me that means that I beieve God can do anything he wants in whatever manner he chooses. If reason tells me that the above events are unlikely, I might question the perspective of the human beings who recorded these divine events. I might choose to keep an open mind about what might have taken place and exactly how it happened. Did the Creator accomplish his work in 6 days or is creation an unfolding event that reaches back into interminable time? My faith in the power of God and my humility in the face of that awesome power make either scenario possible. In keeping an open mind, I wlll certainly not want to attempt to stack the Supreme Court or pass laws regarding science in classrooms.

Does that mean my faith in the Almighty is lessened?

If Billie is reading this, I guess that brings me to a place where we separate in our views. Death is a punishment for original sin and eternal life is a gift from a forgiving God. I accept that on faith but do not pretend to be able to explain that logically in the same way I would attempt to explain how flightless commorants lost their wings through adaptation.

Thanks again to all those who have patiently schooled me. I keep my mind open to all possiblities accept that there is no God. Is that not faith?

Whit

10-27-2005, 11:36 AM

Evolution is just a theory....There is just as much scientific evidence supporting creationism as there is to support evolution. They should both be presented in public schools.
For example, Yes, there are many fossils lying around. That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Someone who believes in evolution would have you believe this happened over time. Think logically—if a rat died in an open field today, or a deer died in the woods, would either become fossilized? Would they stay put and untouched on the ground long enough to be covered by dirt eventually and become fossilized? No. They would be eaten by other animals and blown around by the winds and rains until a complete skeleton was no longer available. The reality is that there is no evidence that fossils were formed continually (or are being formed continually) as the theory of evolution predicts.

On the other hand, what would happen if there were a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, including the rat and the deer? They might float for awhile, but would eventually sink to the bottom of the water. Next, the sediment on the bottom of the water would cover the remains (since it is very mobile compared to dirt on land—especially if there is a flood going on at the time) starting the process of fossilization.

There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model.

Unregistered

10-27-2005, 01:16 PM

There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model.

Be careful when saying "There is no question." There is a question. Few scientists believe in Creationism, so there must be a question.

Unregistered

10-27-2005, 03:15 PM

Have you ever read a science book about the process of fossilization?

Do you know that science is based on a process of testing and not on belief? Is there any point in trying to explain things logically to someone who wants to conform reality to a belief system?

Unregistered

10-27-2005, 03:44 PM

What will all the testing and proofs in the world help to prove anything at all, if G-d decided to create a world that would already seem millions of years old. Then all the testing will prove that the world is a million (or millions) of years old, and if G-d decided to create His world in a way that would seem to give proof to the theory of evolution, then the possibility of evolution would be able to be proven. But that wouldn't take anything away from the fact that G-d DID create the world!!

And yes, I believe in the big bang theory. That was G-d making his presense felt in the world. And then he created it (the world) in just the way He wanted to. Evolution and all.

Unregistered

10-27-2005, 04:01 PM

What will all the testing and proofs in the world help to
prove anything at all, if G-d decided to create a world that would already seem millions of years old. Then all the testing will prove that the world is a million (or millions) of years old, and if G-d decided to create His world in a way that would seem to give proof to the theory of evolution, then the possibility of evolution would be able to be proven. But that wouldn't take anything away from the fact that G-d DID create the world!!

And yes, I believe in the big bang theory. That was G-d making his presense felt in the world. And then he created it (the world) in just the way He wanted to. Evolution and all.
Have you even read the first couple chapters of Genisis? You will find if you do that God created everything according to its kind.

Job would also be a good book to read.

Unregistered

10-27-2005, 08:18 PM

"if G-d decided to create a world that would already seem millions of years old."

Pretty sure the Bible makes it clear that God isn't into elaborate hoaxes. You might be praying to the other guy, the father of lies.

Unregistered

10-27-2005, 09:21 PM

Pretty sure the Bible makes it clear that God isn't into elaborate hoaxes.

No, but He does have a master plan that defies all logic - have you ever heard the phrase "man plans,G-d laughs"? Just because we don't get it, doesn't mean it's not part of His greater plans!!

And why do you think I implied that G-d's intention of creating the world already millions of years old was an elaborate hoax? Simply put, creating the world millions of years old was as much His plan (without it being a hoax) as was His creating the first man not as a newborn is brought into the world today, but rather as a grown man. So to did He create a world with trees, rocks (and fossils too!!) not being just 1 day old but many millions of years old too!

You might be praying to the other guy, the father of lies.
No, actually I pray to the ONLY ONE ALMIGHTY. Creator of all beings and entities - both the seen and unseen.

Unregistered

10-28-2005, 09:01 PM

You should read a book.

Try reading the Bible for a year, prayerfully, without any direction from the pulpit or any other human.

Meanwhile, check out any high school science textbook.

Unregistered

10-29-2005, 10:35 AM

As far as I know, a theory is something that evidence points to being correct, but does not have the empirical evidence to become a scientific law. Just as the creationist of the medieval age stuck to something dogmatically, I think we as scientists are in danger of doing the same thing. When we view "theories" as "law" we close our minds to other options. All theories go through evaluation by opponents and proponents. If we disallow opposing views on the things we believe we can never truly validate them. Only through intense scrutiny and repeated challenge do scientific laws solidify. Thus, regardless of our position, many options should be presented.

Unregistered

10-29-2005, 12:17 PM

If we disallow opposing views on the things we believe we can never truly validate them. Only through intense scrutiny and repeated challenge do scientific laws solidify. Thus, regardless of our position, many options should be presented.

Correct. But no need to consider faith based notions in a scientific arguement. Those who do just do not understand the scientific method upon which all theories and laws are predicated.
The attempts to equate creationism with evolution on an equal basis are either purposeful obfuscation or thinking (?) without a basic understanding of how science works.

Unregistered

10-29-2005, 12:25 PM

Creationists, those who believe the entire factual account of origins can be found in a 2 to 3 thousand year old collection of stories about God, do not need science to seek understanding. They already have all of the answers. This approach to seeking knowledge brought us to the Dark Ages. Scientific thinking, questioning instead of believing, insisting upon observable data rather than belief, brought us out of the Dark Ages into a time when we can cure disease instead of praying for the dying.

If you want your children to learn religion, send them to private schools. And while you are at it, emulate the Amish and eschew the fruits of scientific enquery, such as automobiles and modern medicine. Evolution is not simply one way of explaining the unexplainable, as creationist portray it. Evolution is the best explanation science has for the origin of species, and therefore belongs in science classes and texts. Creation belongs in religion books. End of arguement for those with a basic understanding of scientific method. All attempts to argue otherwise can be chalked up to the wishful thinking of fundamentalists - America's version of the Taliban.

Unregistered

10-29-2005, 12:46 PM

Count me as on evolutionist totally disgusted by the attempt to equate fundamentalists with the Taliban. C'mon, let's be reasonable in our criticism and avoid personal attacks. There will always be religious arguments that run counter to scientific theories -- let people believe what they want to believe. Who knows, maybe when we pass on we will find out they were right all along.

Unregistered

10-29-2005, 04:53 PM

Unregistered

10-29-2005, 09:01 PM

I so wish I could share you magnaminity. I too believe everyone should be allowed to believe as they wish, including the Taliban.
I'm not talking about personal belief here, I'm talking about organizations that spend millions subverting democratic process. If you don't realize the dangerous yet, you will...

Typical scare tactics; label people as dangerous, subversive, "not like us." Straight out of the secret police handbook, if you like that sort of hysterical analogy.

The Taliban seemed like nice, religious folk till they got the reins of power.
How would you feel if you were the science teacher in Kansas who lost her job for teaching evolution because the fundamentists had carefully staged a coup in the deciding board?

They seized power through armed force? Or through the democratic process?

I think you need to provide a link to the news story (from a credible source), because my gut feeling is that the facts have become a little embellished.

There is a world wide movement against freedom of belief and science, the guiding light of that freedom. The word "liberal" is a dirty word now. Look it up in the dictionary and ask yourself who hates liberal thinking and why.
If you had told me 20 years ago of the complete takeover of all 3 branches of government by neo-conservatives backed by teleevangelists I'd have thought you a loony conspiracy theorist.

Well, we had all three branches controlled by Liberals back in the 1970s. Did you complain then? (Of course not, since they agreed with your principles.)

I think it is pretty arrogant to think that the other side should not have a chance of attaining power through legitimate means.

Unregistered

10-29-2005, 09:56 PM

Have you even read the first couple chapters of Genisis? You will find if you do that God created everything according to its kind.

Agreed, but that doesn't disqualify the fact that things were created not as day old creations but years old (maybe even millions!)

Unregistered

10-29-2005, 10:12 PM

You should read a book.

Try reading the Bible for a year, prayerfully, without any direction from the pulpit or any other human.

I have been reading the Bible for over 28 years now, and praying every day.
To read the Bible without any direction from the pulpit etc. is misleading though because the Bible is not meant to be understood at face value. There are alot of deeper meanings and esoterics behind every word (and even every letter!) and all the deeper meanings reveal the true intentions of G-d. The trick is to know which pulpit to follow, and I'm sure that I have the right direction.

Meanwhile, check out any high school science textbook.

Science textbooks aren't always in sinc with the Bible. Isn't that why we are having this whole long discussion in the first place?

Unregistered

10-30-2005, 12:54 AM

I have been reading the Bible for over 28 years now, and praying every day.
To read the Bible without any direction from the pulpit etc. is misleading though because the Bible is not meant to be understood at face value. There are alot of deeper meanings and esoterics behind every word (and even every letter!) and all the deeper meanings reveal the true intentions of G-d. The trick is to know which pulpit to follow, and I'm sure that I have the right direction.

Science textbooks aren't always in sinc with the Bible. Isn't that why we are having this whole long discussion in the first place?
Please be careful and do not confuse fallible man/clergy with the infallible Holy Spirit. If you have the Holy Spirit you can learn a lot from reading the Bible on your own. I suggest studying the passages and not just skimming them.

Unregistered

10-30-2005, 10:21 AM

I suggest studying the passages and not just skimming them.
I have studied the passeges at great depths. In it's original form too. (The Torah.) And I'm not done yet, because no matter how deeply in depth you study the Torah, there's always a greater depth in which you can learn. That's actually what led me to make the original statement regarding the fusion of creasionism with the theory of evolutionism

Unregistered

10-30-2005, 02:02 PM

I have studied the passeges at great depths. In it's original form too. (The Torah.) And I'm not done yet, because no matter how deeply in depth you study the Torah, there's always a greater depth in which you can learn. That's actually what led me to make the original statement regarding the fusion of creasionism with the theory of evolutionism
May I ask what passages lead you to those conclusions?

Unregistered

10-30-2005, 02:35 PM

Here is the problem in a nutshell (as I see it).

Scientists convince themselves that certain processes are correct through a process of observation, reason, and deduction.

Religious people simply KNOW the truth. There is no deduction necessary, because when they read the Holy Scriptures the meaning to them is as clear to them as the hand in front of their face. It is a revelation that only similar religious people can experience.

Unless you have the revelation, you will always be relegated to using deduction, reason, and logic in order to explain away the truth they feel. But what is the use? No amount of logical mumbo jumbo is going to convince someone who knows the truth.

Now, do religious people really know the truth? Well, until you undergo the revelation there is no way of knowing. It seems odd to me, and certainly runs counter to my scientific training. But I personally have not undergone the revelation, so I cannot say for sure.

My approach is simple: I cannot force someone to believe in something, so I don't try. Instead, I present science in a way that allows those who have contrary principles an escape. A religious student in my class would not feel uncomfortable at all, even during lessons on evolution. These are scientific theories proposed by scientists, and they have their uses. But I avoid value judgements.

Unregistered

11-01-2005, 01:13 AM

May I ask what passages lead you to those conclusions?
You may ask, and I do have an answer for it. But I don't want to post it here, because I think it goes beyond the spectrum of this forum here. esp. since we should really stick to teaching topics here. Just being once I saw this forum going on for so long, I decided to add an innovitve twist that combines both schools of thought.
If you really care for an answer though, go to www.connect2us.us, click on the "contact us" button, and leave a message, and I'll respond. (p.s. that sight was originally created for the purpose of a grievence forum, so don't get scared off. you definitely will be at the right page.)

Unregistered

11-01-2005, 11:07 AM

You may ask, and I do have an answer for it. But I don't want to post it here, because I think it goes beyond the spectrum of this forum here. esp. since we should really stick to teaching topics here. Just being once I saw this forum going on for so long, I decided to add an innovitve twist that combines both schools of thought.
If you really care for an answer though, go to www.connect2us.us, click on the "contact us" button, and leave a message, and I'll respond. (p.s. that sight was originally created for the purpose of a grievence forum, so don't get scared off. you definitely will be at the right page.)
Is this the site for those who have lost a parent?

Unregistered

11-01-2005, 08:23 PM

Is this the site for those who have lost a parent?
yes, I created the sight with the intent of having a private message board for those who have lost a parent, and want to share thoughts and feelings connected to that loss etc. But the website that allowed me to create this message board gives the option of creating as many subwebsites - as I desire.As I am not comfortable giving out my email addy on a public forum, I decided to use my contact page of my website instead.

Unregistered

11-01-2005, 10:06 PM

yes, I created the sight with the intent of having a private message board for those who have lost a parent, and want to share thoughts and feelings connected to that loss etc. But the website that allowed me to create this message board gives the option of creating as many subwebsites - as I desire.As I am not comfortable giving out my email addy on a public forum, I decided to use my contact page of my website instead.
I tried, but failed. I found no place to address the issue.

Unregistered

11-02-2005, 02:07 AM

I tried, but failed. I found no place to address the issue.

step 1. log into the websight
step 2. scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the "contact us" button (it's a computer icon)
step 3. fill out your email addy in the email addy request form
step 4. (name and other info above email addy is optional)
step 5. fill out any additional comments in the comments box below the addy box (this is THE place to adress the issue)
step 6. click the send button below the comments box
step 7. if you have a cookie blocker, click on allow cookies
step 8. you will be sent to a confirmation page.click on the continue button.(after confirming that you filled out your info to your liking.
step 9. your info will now be sent to an email addy of mine. wait for my response via email

Good Luck

James

11-12-2005, 04:02 PM

Greate site. Thank you :)

Unregistered

11-12-2005, 05:26 PM

Unless you have the revelation, you will always be relegated to using deduction, reason, and logic in order to explain away the truth they feel. But what is the use? No amount of logical mumbo jumbo is going to convince someone who knows the truth.

Now, do religious people really know the truth? Well, until you undergo the revelation there is no way of knowing. It seems odd to me, and certainly runs counter to my scientific training. But I personally have not undergone the revelation, so I cannot say for sure.

I have had the revelation. But that doesn't stop me from thinking logically. I accept the Word of God. The Bible attempts to convey the Word, just as those of us who have been blessed with a personal relationship with Our Maker are attempting to convey. The real issue is Divine Revelation. Some believers hold that the written word of the Bible is literally factual, word for word. To me, the Bible is truth, not fact. Science is fact, not truth. I cannot see how anyone can hold with Divine Revelation and accept the logic of the Scientific Method. As the above poster wrote: those people already possess the truth and are not interested in new discoveries. That's okay as long as those people stay inside their revival tents. The problem is when they control political parties and school boards. Then, we are in danger of going back to the days of the Inquisition. You think not? Ask one of these Creationists sometime whether they would agree with burning Galileo at the stake. If they're honest with you, those of you who don't see other people's belief systems as dangerous might have a surprise in store.

Unregistered

11-12-2005, 10:39 PM

I have had the revelation. But that doesn't stop me from thinking logically.

And I never said it did. But instead of trying to use logic to deduce the existence of God, religious believers simply "know" he exists. If you know something is true, why would you need logical proof to support it?

The problem is when they control political parties and school boards.

They have a right to exert influence in the public sector, just like anyone else. The last time I looked everyone had a vote and a right to an opinion.

Then, we are in danger of going back to the days of the Inquisition. You think not? Ask one of these Creationists sometime whether they would agree with burning Galileo at the stake. If they're honest with you, those of you who don't see other people's belief systems as dangerous might have a surprise in store.

C'mon! To call them monsters who would kill unbelievers is crossing the line of reasonable argumentation. These people are deeply religious, not pyschopathic.

Unregistered

11-13-2005, 12:31 PM

Unregistered

11-13-2005, 04:19 PM

"well funded groups with seditious intent"

It can't happen here.

Can it?

Unregistered

11-13-2005, 04:45 PM

Both of the last 2 posters commit the same error by casting all of the religious fundamentalists as either demons or innocents. Some of them are harmless and some are dangerous. The same can be said of any large group of people.

What we need to ask ourselves is whether there are well funded groups with seditious intent hiding beneath religious coverings.

Okay, apply your reasoning to teachers.

1. Definitely a large group.
2. Therefore, some must be dangerous (as you stated yourself).

So what kind of actions do you advocate to root out those with seditious intent?

A lot of people think that many teachers are actually Communists that are trying to destroy the American way of life. I have heard that many times, and it sounds identical to the logic you apply to religious fundamentalists.

Unregistered

11-13-2005, 10:34 PM

To the last poster: this is the U.S.A. We don't root people out. We inform ourselves and others. The dangerous whackos are only dangerous if ordinary people give them that power. Unfortunately, the combination of mass media and incredibly huge amounts of money in the hands of a concentrated few give certain dangerous minorities a disporportionately loud voice.

I teach because I believe in the power of one person speaking reasonably about what she believes to be the truth. That's why I find the idea of dangerous teachers laughable. If we wanted to be dangerous, we'd join Pat Robertson or The Ayatollah.

To the poster before that: It not only can happen here, it did.

Unregistered

11-13-2005, 11:01 PM

I teach because I believe in the power of one person speaking reasonably about what she believes to be the truth. That's why I find the idea of dangerous teachers laughable.

Oh, so all teachers can be trusted because YOU decided to teach for specific reasons?

Are you aware that overgeneralization is a fallacy?

Unregistered

11-14-2005, 11:12 AM

Yes I am aware of the overgeneralization fallacy, but don't recall making it. I'm also aware that you are either deliberately missing the point or, more likely, too hopelessly mired in doctrine to understand another point of view.

Unregistered

11-14-2005, 09:19 PM

Just ignore her. she visits every posting to rail against "bad teachers" if you need this kind of aggravation, go visit a chat room for Doctors and take a stand against their legal protections. she's probably not even a teacher, just some wacko spoiling for a safe place to argue.

Unregistered

11-14-2005, 11:18 PM

This is hilarious. The same teachers that insult me for disagreeing with tenure are suggesting they should be trusted to engage their classes in political discussions.

I suggest all readers go back and read the thread on tenure. Notice the insults and name calling that took place simply because I dared to disagree. Now project those same teachers leading a classroom discussion on the Iraq War.

So when a student states that he supports President Bush, are you going to call him a wacko? If he states that he thinks tenure should be abolished, are you going to call him a scab?

Free exchange of ideas, humph!

Unregistered

11-14-2005, 11:26 PM

Once again, since you didn't notice it:

I teach because I believe in the power of one person speaking reasonably about what she believes to be the truth. That's why I find the idea of dangerous teachers laughable.

The overgeneralization here is obvious. You are making the claim that teachers cannot be dangerous. You back up the claim by discussing what YOU believe, as if your beliefs are identical to all other teachers'.

Unregistered

11-14-2005, 11:29 PM

To the last poster: this is the U.S.A.

That's right. And in the USA, people have the right to voice their opinions (even religious fundamentalists) and the right to sway others to share those opinions. They also have the right to take part in school board elections.

Unregistered

11-14-2005, 11:31 PM

By the way, you never did apply your logic to teachers:

1. Definitely a large group.
2. Therefore, some must be dangerous (as you stated yourself).

Again, AS YOU STATED YOURSELF. Here are your exact words:

Some of them are harmless and some are dangerous. The same can be said of any large group of people.

Of any large group of people? Such as teachers?

BLBO

11-15-2005, 11:20 AM

My, this has gotten off track!

Unregistered

11-15-2005, 07:57 PM

A lot of personal issues being worked out? Cheaper here than a shrink.

Unregistered

11-16-2005, 10:41 AM

You Americans are seriously "off your heads". A discussion like this would never occur as a serious issue in a UK teachers message board.

Unregistered

03-13-2006, 12:00 AM

Ya so i am doing research on stuff and i figured i would leave a comment because i probably know more about evolution and creationism and intelligent design than 90 percent of people in the world. I dont have time to go into it because i am writting a paper but do some research kids not on creationism because that kinda gets into religion and stuff like that and myself and very religious but there is so much evidence out there to back up the idea that there is an intelligent designer whether u think that is god or whatever. the idea of evolution pretty much disproves itself. The law of conservation of mass states that matter can not be created or destroyed. Well apparently they are wrong if there is matter everywhere you look and the probabilty of life happening on accident is insane the probability of on protein molecule happening on acciden is 1 in 10 to the 287 and there is a minimum of 239 protein molecules needed for the simplist form of life. Not to mention all of the other systems of the cell and all this stuff has to happen all at the same time and in the right formation. It is like taking a hand full of gears and chucking them into a clock box and getting it to work. You might say well where did god come from and blah blah blah well read a bible because we came from somewhere and it wasnt from evolution or a big bang i can tell you that so ask god when u get there where he came from. Dont spend your life trying to understand it all because we are morons and trying to understand it all just makes you feel stupider because it is impossible. Read some lee strobel and do some research. A good thing to research would be how old the earth is. there are alot of evidence that points to a young earth that u never hear about. do some research before your think intelligent design is stupid

Unregistered

03-13-2006, 12:17 AM

Calling your faith based theory "intelilgent design" is a total oxymoron.

Unregistered

03-13-2006, 04:43 AM

I would like to point out that I specialize in technology that means quite frankly I use the scientific method to do almost every thing... It’s how I make my money. Now with this said let us review the facts and the beliefs and see how they match up.
1. If evolution is a fact than all forms of evolution must be facts as well
• Cosmic evolution the evolvement of time, space, and matter at the same time.
• Elemental evolution, after the big bag hydrogen must evolve in to all 116 elements plus the synthetic once.
• Stellar evolution, the evolution of stars and hence galaxies.
• Planetary evolution, the evolution of planets
• And finally our favorite, Biologic evolution e.g. life.

Now if we go into a review of the basic laws of physics we can see how these stack up.
OK boys and girls hold on to your hats and hang on for this ride and you may learn something. The first law of thermodynamics: energy or matter can nether be created of destroyed only changed in state. The second law of thermodynamics; entropy or all things tends to fall apart and revert to there base elements. Are our little brains beginning to get the picture? Now for the big prize, if we except Boyles Gas Law as fact… How did Stars form? And why aren’t the elements always increasing in mass while exposed to the environment instead of degrading to their base elements? HUM….. Come on boys and girls… surely something as simple as this can be explained, now remember the answer must be naturalistic and it must be repeatable, reliable, demonstraitable.

Unregistered

03-13-2006, 01:35 PM

Your description of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is inaccurate. (Entropy increases with time in a closed system. The Earth and stars are not closed systems.)

Boyle's Gas Law is not a fact, not even close. (It is an experimental observation and doesn't even apply to most gases.)

The first law of thermodynamics applies to thermodynamic systems; the fact that energy can be transformed into mass, and vice-versa, is not a consequence of this law.

Few in this forum, including yourself, have the necessary expertise to examine these age-old arguments surrounding evolution.

Unregistered

03-13-2006, 01:37 PM

Calling your faith based theory "intelilgent design" is a total oxymoron.

There is no need for such attitudes in this discussion.

Unregistered

03-15-2006, 06:24 PM

Well we all know that people who belive in creation believe that a God created the earth. And people who belive in evolution usually do not.
I BELIVE THAT THE LORD GOD CREATED EARTH!!!
Let me tell you something
A big bang, everything just happend, we all evolved from monkeys!!! COME ON PEOPLE!! IT"S LIKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF LAME GUESSES THAT SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY EXCEPT!!!!!
DID U HEAR THAT BIG BANG! DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT HAPPENED
HAVE U READ THE BIBLE AND CONSIDERED SOME OF THE ANWERS IT GIVES TO THIS SUBJECT!!!!?????
And i'd like to ask if we all evolved from monkeys, how come people now a days don't come from monkeys?? ooo g u never thought of that, o but u can just take the answer from some evolutionist who says, well it's because maybe they just don't want to evolve anymore, i mean that could be the reason rite? Since this earth apperantly came from some big BANG!!!
PEOPLE, WUT IS TH POINT TO LIFE IF WE ARE ALL JUST A MONKEYS ANSCESTOR???

WUT IS THE POINT OF HAVING RIGHT AND WRONG IF WE ARE ALL JUST ANIMALS??
I MEAN REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT.

now, we all know everyone since the beginning of time has believed in some kind of GOD. I ask you, how can any human mind, make up such a concept such as God, IF HE DID NOT EXIST!!????!? i mean we as humans can't even comprehend heaven, how could anyone make something such as God up, and then all of a sudden people believe it. IF you read the Bible it says in the beginning that God was with Adam and eve. So then God keeps meeting with people and it got spread, and i could go more into that but i'm talking about creation.

ONE MORE THING............

To belive in EVOLUTION, it takes faith, it takes faith to belive some bang happened, we came from monkeys, and etc.
To belive in CREATION, it takes faith, faith in a loving God who created us with purpose and meaning, who has purpose for our lives.
PERSONALLY I WANT TO BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD WHO CREATED ME TO BE HERE AND DO AMAZING THINGS, because if not, .... then what.
So if u have faith in evolutionism we have faith in common, no matter what.

Peter P.

03-16-2006, 11:36 AM

Keep searching. There's a brain in there somewhere, struggling to get through all the preheld beliefs in cute stories.

Faith, to me, means having the courage to believe that there is meaning to all of this and that the meaning is discoverable to those who dare to keep eyes open. Others define faith as holding the eyes tightly shut and denying any reality in favor of a preheld belief. Once you figure out which definition fits you, you can proceed to discover the truth, a very personal struggle. Or you can spend the rest of your life trying to defend your stories in the face of all the evidence presented to you. One of those paths leads to light. The other to darkness. Good searching.

Unregistered

03-16-2006, 01:04 PM

There's a brain in there somewhere,...

Why is there an incessant need to patronize others in this forum?

Faith, to me, means having the courage to believe that there is meaning to all of this and that the meaning is discoverable to those who dare to keep eyes open. Others define faith as holding the eyes tightly shut and denying any reality in favor of a preheld belief.

A perfect example of the Fallacy of Limited Options -- only provide two definitions of faith; one that you hold and another that is, naturally, derogatively worded. Of course, those who don't believe like you do get relegated to the latter.

Unregistered

03-16-2006, 09:46 PM

A perfect example of the Fallacy of Limited Options -- only provide two definitions.
it's also known as an either-or situation. one either is open to new discoveries or is not. can you think of a third possibility?

Metod

05-29-2006, 12:57 PM

Help to choose a videocamera. What standard to choose?

Unregistered

05-29-2006, 01:30 PM

it's also known as an either-or situation. one either is open to new discoveries or is not. can you think of a third possibility?

I suppose the third possiblity would be choosing to be open to new discoveries within certain boundaries. Nobody is really open to every possible new experience. I don't have to eat poisonous mushrooms to know I wouldn't benefit from the experience.

My faith does lock out the notion that life evolved randomly. That may appear like a closed mind to someone who wants me to consider that possiblity. It does not follow that I am closed minded in all things because I choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. I can still believe in nuclear fission or genetics. How's that for a third possibility?

Unregistered

05-29-2006, 09:08 PM

How's that for a third possibility?

Pretty good! I'll bet the real truth about life on earth will turn out to be something none of us ever imagined. then i hope all these hot headed i'm sure i'm right and you're wrong dialogues will turn up as proof of how silly we all look when we think we know everything.

Unregistered

05-29-2006, 09:57 PM

Unregistered

05-30-2006, 12:20 AM

As for Creation being based on faith, so is Evolution. Evolution is only a series of theories, none of which have been proven. .

I guess that all depends on the way you define "faith". Did you stumble upon your belief in Creation while conducting experiments for the purpose of a coherent explanation for observable phenomena? Or is it based upon a belief system? I guess if you don't see any difference between the two then you probably aren't interested in learning how they differ.

Unregistered

05-30-2006, 01:21 AM

Did you stumble upon your belief in Creation while conducting experiments for the purpose of a coherent explanation for observable phenomena?

Your response suggests that those of us who believe in evolution (of which I include myself) formed our belief by conducting experiments, and that before we conducted these experiments we had no opinion on the matter.

The belief in evolution mirrors the belief in classical physics before 1900. For the record, I think evolution provides the best model for explaining our observations, but I am open to the possibility that biologists have it all wrong. You can never tell.

The theory of evolution does not pretend to represent the truth, but rather serves a practical scientific model. The idea of truth belongs purely in the realm of philosophy.

Unregistered

05-30-2006, 01:09 PM

The phrase, "Seperation of Church and State" is not in the US Constitution. I dare anyone to find it. It simply is not there. It came from a letter that President Jefferson wrote the the Baptist association stating that the walls of seperation of church and state would not allow a state sponsored religion, which is why the pilgrims and seperatists left England and came to the New World to begin with. Also, there is the argument that Creationism requires Faith, so therefore should not be taught. Does Evolution not require "Faith." The US Supreme Court stated in a ruling, (I apologize that I do not recall the ruling) that religion is anything that requires "Faith." Therefore, does Evolution not require Faith to believe? Which requires more "Faith?" Evolution, which is constantly changing, hence the term Evolution. Or Creation, which never changes? Why not teach both beside one another? I will tell you why? Fear! The evolutionist does not want it because it blows their argument. Which requires more Faith to believe? Evolution which did not come to be until the mid 1800's with Darwin, or Creation which has always been?

Unregistered

05-30-2006, 05:55 PM

Is NOT in the constitution. It was in reference to a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a minister stating that the constitution would not allow for a state mandated religion. Therefore it is NOT unconstitutional to teach creationism. Someone mentioned creationism is faith. It takes more faith to believe that we just evolved from something than it takes to say that we were created in the image of God and that HE created the world by speaking it into existence.

Wishbone

05-30-2006, 07:04 PM

As for Creation being based on faith, so is Evolution. Evolution is only a series of theories, none of which have been proven. As for the Constitution - nowhere does it discuss "Separation of Church and State" it says that the STATE shall not establish a religion. And to the respondent who is writing a paper - check your spelling and your grammar. It is most unprofessional for a teacher to misuse the word "there" for "their".

You're not a science teacher I take it? Before entering a debate about evolution and creationism (never mind chiding others for grammar and spelling) it is advisable to have a clear sense of what the term 'theory' means in a scientific sense.

Theory in the lay sense is conjecture or opinion or speculation. Closer to hypothesis but not scientific theory.

Theory in the scientific sense is is an explanation based on observation, experimentation and evidence that explains a phenomena, can predict instances of the phenomena and can be tested. Evolution is not speculation. Evolution is a theory like Gravity is a theory.

As for evolution not being proven, keep your eyes closed the next time there's a news item about the bird flu or pests resistent to pesticide. Two cases of evolution in action.

Unregistered

05-30-2006, 07:45 PM

I know you heard that it takes faith to believe in evolution and it made you feel good, but it is not only not true, it is the kind of statement that makes educated people think people of faith are all idiots.

If you have faith in the Divine, let your faith shine forth so everyone can see what a marvelous gift it is. But don't try to pretend that your belief qualifies you to make blanket statements about scientific theory. Faith and reason are not always mutually exclusive,and there are people who "believe" in evolution who are as ignorant of the real ramifications as anyone else. But the scientific method begins with disbelief and works forward, eliminating all possibilities except those which best match the evidence at hand. This is very different from faith, which begins with a premise and then defends that premise in the face of all other evidence.

Please, people of faith, give up on trying to win converts by making reason the enemy. You will wind up with only fools in your camp.

Unregistered

05-31-2006, 02:01 AM

But the scientific method begins with disbelief and works forward, eliminating all possibilities except those which best match the evidence at hand.

Creationists would argue that creationism is a possibility that has not been effectively eliminated, because it cannot be eliminated.

Again, scientific theories are models. Those who equate scientific theories with truth don't understand the scientific method.

Unregistered

05-31-2006, 12:41 PM

Creationists would argue that creationism is a possibility that has not been effectively eliminated, because it cannot be eliminated.

Again, scientific theories are models. Those who equate scientific theories with truth don't understand the scientific method.

What you say is factual, but craftily worded. Science chooses the best explanation available based on evidence and then deems that explanation a theory. However, there is no longer any credible question that life adapts to environmental stresses, as the earlier example of viral adaptation made clear.
I am able to separate the search for truth found in my faith from the search for knowledge found in science. I really do not understand why other believers feel compelled to make a case that faith is fact-based or that science is truth-based. Again, you only wind up forcing educated people to conclude that faith belongs purely to pre-scientific ages or minds.

Unregistered

05-31-2006, 01:35 PM

What you say is factual, but craftily worded. Science chooses the best explanation available based on evidence and then deems that explanation a theory. However, there is no longer any credible question that life adapts to environmental stresses, as the earlier example of viral adaptation made clear.

But that isn't the issue. We know that evolution takes place. The question is, "Does evolution explain the history of the earth?" This is what the argument is all about.

I am able to separate the search for truth found in my faith from the search for knowledge found in science.

But how do you separate truth from knowledge? If you find truth, isn't that knowledge gained? If what you find scientifically violates what you know to be "true," have you gained knowledge?

Unregistered

05-31-2006, 09:07 PM

But how do you separate truth from knowledge? If you find truth, isn't that knowledge gained? If what you find scientifically violates what you know to be "true," have you gained knowledge?

Intuitive knowledge, such as that from which faith springs, is very different from the objective facts that science deals with. I know that I love my wife, but I cannot prove that, nor would I attempt to do so. I can objectively prove that we are legally married however.

I know in my heart that the universe is ruled by a Supreme Being who loves all of His creation. If I want to share that knowledge with another, I will not attempt to do so with facts and figures. Far less will I do so by seeking to attack his attempts to comprehend through scientific enquiry.

I don't know how life was created or how it is sustained. It is a miracle to me that the human race has failed to exterminate itself. Science scratches away at the mysteries of life. Perhaps if our race survives itself, we may someday approach understanding.

What I object to is religious attempts to stifle scientific progress. This,to me, borders on idolatry. Would you pretend you know God so well as to make a graven image of Him? Then how can you speak knowingly of his ways as if you have cornered every detail of the mystery?

Let man continue to grope in the dark using the dim light of science. In the meantime, let men who have been graced by an inner knowing of God simply state we know Him in our hearts. Perhaps then men will embrace the light rather than reject the arrogant rancor so demeaning to faith.

Unregistered

06-02-2006, 01:00 AM

I couldn't get past the first part of your paper due to a large error. Please read the constitution and tell me where it states about separation of church and state. If you actually dig out a US Constitution, and read it, you will not find your blanket statement about separation of church and state anywhere in the constitution. I didn't even finish reading your article due to a credibility issue.

Unregistered

06-02-2006, 01:45 AM

the probabilty of life happening on accident is insane the probability of on protein molecule happening on acciden is 1 in 10 to the 287

Yeah, but there is still a chance right?

Unregistered

06-02-2006, 04:17 AM

I know in my heart that the universe is ruled by a Supreme Being who loves all of His creation. If I want to share that knowledge with another, I will not attempt to do so with facts and figures. Far less will I do so by seeking to attack his attempts to comprehend through scientific enquiry.

I certainly don't advocate attacking scientific inquiry. And I fully agree that the seeking of knowledge in a scientific manner is different than through revelation. My point is that science may seek truth, but can never find it. Evolution is a model. This model is able to account for an incredible number of historical facts unlike any other, so it is highly useful. But that does not mean evolution is true.

Unregistered

06-02-2006, 10:28 PM

I certainly don't advocate attacking scientific inquiry. And I fully agree that the seeking of knowledge in a scientific manner is different than through revelation. My point is that science may seek truth, but can never find it. Evolution is a model. This model is able to account for an incredible number of historical facts unlike any other, so it is highly useful. But that does not mean evolution is true.

Since, we're all nameless in this discussion, it gets a little confusing when we start agreeing with one another. If you do not advocate attacking scientific inquiry and realize that science is not meant to seek "truth", then we have nothing to argue about (shucks!). As to your final statement, I don't know any scientist of scientific person who would state that "evolution is true."

The problem is that some religious sects and individuals do not share your tolerance or understanding. They confuse theory with truth and feel threatened by evolution, mistakenly thinking that it refutes their belief in creation. Acting upon their fears, they attack science, seeking to legislate the way it is taught in public schools, for example.

In my opinion, the inability to accept both evolution (as a workable model for enquiry into origins) and creation (as an explanation of God's relationship to life) is the intellectual equivelant of not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Unregistered

06-03-2006, 11:57 PM

The problem is that some religious sects and individuals do not share your tolerance or understanding. They confuse theory with truth and feel threatened by evolution, mistakenly thinking that it refutes their belief in creation.

The same applies to many science teachers, unfortunately. They don't share our tolerance or understanding of certain religious beliefs (especially if the believers are allied politically on the other side of the fence). They also confuse theory with truth and feel threatened by creationists, mistakenly thinking that it refutes their belief in the scientific method.

Rather than presenting evolution in the context of scientific inquiry, along with science's limitations, they present evolution as fact. (The fact that most laymen -- which includes the parents of students -- equate "fact" with "truth" is the problem.) They then ridicule those that believe in creationism and call them dangerous to the educational environment.

I wish both sides would just knock it off.

Unregistered

06-04-2006, 02:32 AM

And to that, I can only say "Amen."

Unregistered

06-05-2006, 10:45 PM

Evolution is a belief, a philosophy, no less religious than creationism. To call it a debate between science and religion is misleading; it’s a debate between two religions. The scientific method requires that something must be repeatable or observable (neither of which evolution is) in order to have validity. The question is "Given the available data, which model, evolution or creation best explains what we observe?"

Christians that think God created evolution stand at odds with the clear teaching of scripture. In the Bible, Romans 5:12 reads: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". See also Genesis 1.

Nowhere is the phrase "separation of church and state" found in the constitution nor is the idea that anything government related must be religious-free. The Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Government buildings and documents are full of references to God. Obviously, the founding fathers had something else in mind.

It's regrettable that evolution is taught as fact. It's unlikely that creationism will ever get equal treatment. I think the solution is to let those that want evolution taught start their own schools and stop making the rest of us pay for it.

Unregistered

06-05-2006, 11:46 PM

Did you even bother to read the last dozen posts? Do you care about any possibilities outside the narrow little range you have staked out for yourself? Just because you found a church where everyone gets together and agrees with ridiculous statements that mix up reason with faith, does not make it true. It only makes your brand of religion something that is limited to those who are afraid to think. Do you really think that the Creator wants us to go back to the Dark Ages? That isn't faith. Faith takes courage to face the unknown believing in the power of the spirit. Going backwards into a time before men had science is just fear,the opposite of faith. Isn't there a site for illiterates where you can peddle your superstition?

Unregistered

06-06-2006, 04:10 AM

Isn't there a site for illiterates where you can peddle your superstition?

Unfortunately, this is the type of arrogance that tends to show up in these debates. What does insulting the opposition do for one's stance?

Wishbone

06-06-2006, 08:06 AM

The same applies to many science teachers, unfortunately. They don't share our tolerance or understanding of certain religious beliefs (especially if the believers are allied politically on the other side of the fence). They also confuse theory with truth and feel threatened by creationists, mistakenly thinking that it refutes their belief in the scientific method.

Rather than presenting evolution in the context of scientific inquiry, along with science's limitations, they present evolution as fact. (The fact that most laymen -- which includes the parents of students -- equate "fact" with "truth" is the problem.) They then ridicule those that believe in creationism and call them dangerous to the educational environment.

I wish both sides would just knock it off.

You've constructed a false middle ground. Your comments are very much on the ID or creationist end of the spectrum and certainly represent one side.

The fact is Creationism isn't a scientific issue, it isn't even a religious issue. It's purely a Christian issue and putting it in science class isn't about teaching creationism, it's about imposing christianity on students. Or am I wrong and creationists would welcome Mohawk or Sherpa creation stories into science class as well?

Unregistered

06-07-2006, 12:47 AM

Unfortunately, this is the type of arrogance that tends to show up in these debates. What does insulting the opposition do for one's stance?

You probably don't even know how insulting it is for people who are not fundamentalists to read comments by people who want to turn science classes into religious propaganda. The fact of the matter is, these people are not interested in dialogue, unless it serves their ends. If nothing else, this long discussion, which at some points almost showed promise of a meeting of minds, serves as an example of why it is fruitless to try to carry on a meaningful discussion with fanatics who actually believe all the answers to science are found in a book written before the scientific method was developed.

pedelman

06-07-2006, 11:23 AM

A way to learn more about why people see the world so differently is to read about Spiral Dynamics, an elegant theory, recently developed, that maps out the development, yes, evolution, of human consciousness. The stages of development are color coded so as to reduce value judgments associated with naming.

There are 6 stages on the first tier and two so far on the second (many more will develop in the future, that is, if we don't destroy the planet first). Everyone in the first tier believes that their worldview is the only correct way to see the world and hence they think they know the best way to operate. Once people enter the second tier, they begin to acknowledge and respect worldviews all the way up and down the spiral. Not that higher order thinkers wil be wishy washy when it comes to the truth, more, they will completely understand and be okay with where people are at on the spiral. They know that individuals and groups must work their way up the spiral in their own good time. There is no other way.

Here are the stages:

1st Tier
1. Beige - instinctual, survivalistic, food, shelter, procreation
2. Purple - the world is controlled by spirits who need to be appeased
3. Red - more ego, Big Powerful Gods, and power struggles on earth
4. Blue - order, purpose, life has meaning, truth is definitive, be good, go to heaven
5. Orange - strive for material success, driven, analyse and strategize to prosper
6. Green - bond into multicultural groups, environmentalism, political correctness

2nd Tier
7. Yellow - recognition of the spiral, flexible, flowing, integration of systems
8. Turqoise - Whole View, return to universiality, all is a symphonic dance of energy

and beyond... stages which have yet to develop.

Creationists are stuck in Blue. Evolutionists are Orange and above. But one who is able to understand that evolution itself is a creative endeavor is a 2nd Tier thinker. Google Spiral Dynamics. It's good stuff.

p.e.
http://www.teacherspayteachers.com

Unregistered

06-07-2006, 08:30 PM

[QUOTE=Unregistered]Do you care about any possibilities outside the narrow little range you have staked out for yourself? QUOTE]

I've consider many possibilities, that's how I arrived at the beliefs I have. I’ve taken a radical departure from where I started. But it’s not the breadth of your position that makes it true. In fact by definition, truth is exclusive: “This is true and all these other options are false.” Truth is absolute; it’s not not true just because you don’t believe it. I’m not forcing anyone else to believe my position; I just don’t think we should coerce children into believing evolution. And that’s done by the exclusion of other interpretations, the exclusion of other facts, the authority of the teacher, and by the perceived accuracy and authority of the textbooks. Even if we were to assume that all the data presented was factual, the evolutionary interpretation of it is purely religious; it fails some of the most basic principles laid out in the scientific method.

Contrary to what many others have said, this is a discussion worth having. Evolutionists are saying that everyone should concede to tax-funded support of their beliefs in the public school system. Why not let the taxpayers decide where their money goes?

Unregistered

06-08-2006, 08:49 PM

Contrary to what many others have said, this is a discussion worth having. Evolutionists are saying that everyone should concede to tax-funded support of their beliefs in the public school system. Why not let the taxpayers decide where their money goes?

I'm with you, but let's don't stop with evolution. Better yet, let's put it up to a vote whether we should teach science at all. Why stop with evolution? Doesn't it annoy you how these people who have religious faith in the belief that the sun is the center of the solar system are getting subsidized by tax payers? And what about those religious nuts who get tax money to teach that "earth not flat heresy"? Or do you think we might go too far and give people the impression that fundamentalists are missing brain cells? Maybe the reason we hate evolutionary theory is because people like us are proof that humans are descended from tiny brained mammals.

unassuming

06-12-2006, 03:14 PM

The first problem is that this is a false comparison: there is no us versus them. Darwin did not set out to disprove creationism. He merely took a voyage, collected data and came to some conclusions based on observation.

There was no such thing as creationism before evolution. People just believed that God created the universe. And that is the problem. A belief is an assumed fact that lacks evidence. So, creationism if you call it that, is a belief. It is as legitimate as claiming the U.S. is "Satan" as do many people in the Middle East. Why not? All you have to do is believe it. It is not different than claiming there was no holocaust. Why not? Say, I just believe it. It is not different than saying 9/11 was a day the U.S. got what it deserved. Why not? You can just believe it. Or that Hitler was a great man. Just believe it.

All the 'controversy' is about are a bunch of people who feel threatened that other people are calling them on their belief.

Unregistered

06-13-2006, 05:41 AM

Although I am a science teacher I am first a Christian, if science teachers who are Christians dont step up with some backbone and teach what is true they will continue to keep planting seeds that will one day be used by Satan to an attempt to destroy a childs faith. Creation science has many, many, I said many concreate evidence. Evolution does not have substantial evidence. People have been brained washed and need the truth. So I say evolution in the school system is absurb. Its becoming very clear that people who claim to know God must not really know him or want to keep in private, but dont want to go public with him. As a teacher the only thing that can help some of the students I have come into contact with is the Love of Jesus Christ. So why am I trying to feed them so some false theory of evolution, that is not helping them at all. So please all Christian science teachers please stand up and be counted.

Unregistered

06-13-2006, 07:22 AM

Well done Newbie X, you have some very valid points. Creation is and always will be criticised and undermined by people not fully understanding the concept of creation. Science was created by God, and there is plenty of scientific evidence to support creationism, and lots of continual research being carried out. Many science theories have come and gone, but the fact remains that during all that time the account of creation has weathered the storms, surpassing widespread and wholly believed theories about the world, such as the 'so-called' evidence that the world was flat!! Young people should have an alternative viewpoint and should be aware of past theories that have been fully believed and then disproved, we should encourage children to think and come to their own conclusions and theoires. Isn't that what science is about after all? Not spoon feeding them, so they all think alike and do alike!

Unregistered

06-14-2006, 01:34 PM

As a teacher the only thing that can help some of the students I have come into contact with is the Love of Jesus Christ. So why am I trying to feed them so some false theory of evolution, that is not helping them at all. So please all Christian science teachers please stand up and be counted.

I'm a Christian and I'm also a teacher of science. I try to demonstrate the love of Christ by my behavior. Part of that means showing students that it is possible to be intelligent, open to learning, and still practice Christianity.

Your title includes the phrase "True Christians". By that, I take it you mean the ones who go to your church only. You go on to demonstrate that your meaning of the word "true" is that which you understand to be true and,suppossedly, the people in your little narrow-minded church agree with you. To the rest of the world, well, we have other nomenclature for that type of behavior.

Unregistered

06-15-2006, 12:04 AM

In response to "smiling": I'd have to agree. I am a scientist and a Christian and have long pondered and struggled with the seeming dilemma of evolution and creationism in the classroom. I have also come to the conclusion, albeit slowly, that God is the creator of all things, including evolution!

you are a scientist and a christian? Where do you study?

Unregistered

06-15-2006, 12:09 AM

Science was created by God, and there is plenty of scientific evidence to support creationism, and lots of continual research being carried out.

I can never quite understand.. maybe I'm just dull here but I was wondering why it is that when people try to explain christianity they often start by talking about God and what he did. Well.. lets go back a little bit and talk about the idea of a christian "god" possibly existing. Did god send you a letter? Why didn't I get one? Sounds like a huge load of brainwashing cult **************** to me. Scientific evidence to support creationism? Like what?

Real Live WI Teacher

06-15-2006, 03:34 AM

Real Live WI Teacher

06-15-2006, 05:07 AM

...
Why Creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools

The founding fathers of our country believed that it was important to separate government form religion. This was largely due to the fact that many of them were fleeing religious persecution in Europe when they came to America. One of the effects of the separation of church and state that is written into the very constitution of our country is that creationism, the Christian idea of how the world came to be, is not taught in public schools. Recently there has been increasing pressure to teach creationism alongside evolution as an opposing theory in our schools. Teaching creationism would be a direct violation of the separation of church and state. Creationism should not be taught in public school.
One argument I forwarded by creationists is that evolution is “just a theory” and is therefore less credible or not as proven. All this shows is a total lack of understanding of the scientific method and how it relates to theories. When a scientist has an idea it is a hypothesis. Only after much testing and evaluation can such a hypothesis graduate to becoming a scientific theory. This is as concrete as a scientific idea can get. Gravity and many other concepts that we take for fact are actually regarded as theories by the scientific community.
Many creationists will tell you that evolution cannot be observed, that if it happens why haven’t we seen it. The answer is that we have. It has been observed mainly among insects and plants. There are several well documented instances of this that are, if you will excuse a bad joke, religiously ignored by creationists.
Creationists often point to the fossil record as lacking proof of evolution. However their reasoning can be likened to that of a person who has a camera take pictures at random intervals throughout a movie and then is surprised when upon playing the pictures back doesn’t get a movie. The conditions required to form fossils are exceedingly rare. While the fossil record isn’t perfectly complete it does show how a species changes over time. It should also be noted that much more common and less glorified plant fossils can be used to show clear step by step evolution of several species...

After reading (OK, skimming half) the few hundred posts in this thread, I have returned back to this one, as it is the likely cruciable. First, I appreciate and admire your exploration of this topic. I also enjoyed the ideas and perspectives shared by all, and felt it led to the kind of tussle that provokes brain muscle and not injury, which is becoming rare exercise.

Ultimately, I'm left without much to contribute relative to the heart of the discussion. But rather, I'm compelled to share a more general uneasiness I'm left with regarding common assumption and pervasive arrogance.

Opinion and belief are often dealt out flippantly as fact too often, as I read in some posts and parts of your paper. At best this leaves us lazy and superficial; at worst, we may become dangerously ignorant intellectual infants, dependent on "facts" that are fed to us.

Take the basic "fact" that the consitution states there must be "a separation of church and state" or broad statements declaring what our founding fathers believed. Rather than lecturing or becoming bogged down with specific detail, I hope to arrouse in you a broader compulsion: to base your conclusions on facts you investigate and learn first-hand, from your own interpretations of original sources that establish a factual foundation to support your assertions.

Try it with the basis of the most common positions on this subject and your thesis: read the constitution yourself, ponder what it says (not other interpretations of it). If you make a statement such as 'it is written into our very consitution that Creationism is not to be taught in public schools,' back it up with the citation from the source. THAT'S powerful, and that would be credible. Unfortunately, I suspect you'll find it not so simple.

Is Creation being lobbied as a way to offer an opposing view to evolution? Are you sure? What's your source? Where did this assumption develop, from newspaper accounts? Go to the 'authority,' establish for yourself what you consider that to be (the Bible? the biggest Creationist group? Advocacy groups bringing the lawsuits?) but ground your assertions somewhere other than commonly repeated positions of others, or worse, biased ideology.

When you referred to clear step by step plant evidence of evolution, I was eagerly anticipating that evidence. Share! A specific example or citation is required for such a statement, and would hit the jackpot -- but annectodal references alone left me feeling short-changed.

1 in 5 Americans aren't sure "whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or the other way ‘round" (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, noting the work of Jon Miller of the International Center for the Study of Scientific Literacy at the Chicago Academy of Sciences).

2001 Gallup poll- 45% of Americans concurred with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" which translates into roughly 127 million people in our country with that belief.

I'm not attempting to make any case with this information other than what I hope it makes on it own: following the masses or polling for majority opinion does not contribute to your acuity nor does it serve your purpose.

Parroting information gained peripherally in your writing becomes a task of word-crafting. Certainly, the ability to dress up regurgitated concepts is a skill you'll need and be required to use too often. But when you care enough to consult a forum like this, and share your thoughts as you have, as well as having generated sparks and dialogue... that's typically indication of a student seeking more than just enough to meet the proficient requirements on a rubic. That's a student who needs to take the next step, to direct one's zeal from away from sophomoric methods (meaning wide and broad) to more specific, focused, and sophisticated approaches to an issue such as this.

Maybe you were looking for phrasing or a framework to fit your beliefs into an editorial, and I've overshot your goal. In that case, dismiss my advocacy and direct my aim to those in the forum who may decipher something true or useful from it instead. =) But if you are embarking on the struggle of independent thinking, this forum could help to forge new metal, as could continuing to write down and share ideas with considered analysis of authentic sources and that includes your original perspective and questions. I'd be very interested to read that paper, and learn from you.

Real Live WI Teacher

06-15-2006, 05:43 AM

...Spiral Dynamics...maps out the development...
Everyone in the first tier believes...
begin to acknowledge and respect worldviews all the way up and down the spiral...
...higher order thinkers ...will completely understand... They know that individuals and groups must work their way up the spiral in their own good time.

...There is no other way...

6. Green - bond into multicultural groups, environmentalism, political correctness

8. Turqoise - Whole View, return to universiality, all is a symphonic dance of energy

...to reduce value judgments associated with naming.
Creationists are stuck in Blue.
Evolutionists are Orange and above.
But one who is able to understand that evolution itself is a creative endeavor is a 2nd Tier thinker...
p.e.

Just had to highlight the punchlines. Wow, this is very hierarchical and judgemental, but definitely a keeper!

Whenever I need a reference to rigidly imposed requisites that order my thinking correctly to appease the universal, politically correct, multicultural symphonic dancing energy non-gods so I can get unstuck and move above to understand and know in my own good time THE ONLY WAY...

I'll be able to refer to this rainbow of non-labeling colors conveniently re-labeled "creationist," "evolutionist" and "Holy Evolutioner" to dictate my beliefs and define higher-orders of thinking for me! Think of the time I can save.

Ok, apology in advance for my sarcasm. I enjoy universal energy as much as the next guy, but the contradiction between terms and concepts I perceived struck my funny bone. I'm sure it's an enlightening theory and useful for many, but as applied was an entertaining post to me.

Tom Tuttle

06-15-2006, 02:36 PM

Real Live WI Teacher

06-15-2006, 03:57 PM

Real Live, you bring much to the table, both here and in other threads, but you reach back to quote posters from so far back in the discussion, that I'm never sure who you are addressing. Don't know how you could overcome that, but your words are so cogent I find myself wishing I understood your starting point better.

Why Tom, you made my day =)

I wasn't able to engage for a few months, and you're right... I read this entire thread instead of sleeping last night! I always benefit from the sharing of minds and perspectives, it's like chocolate to me or something, especially challenging and articulate posts that force me to examine my understandings, as your (was going to say almost, but why equivocate?) always do.

Thanks, will try to connect the dots on future posts that reach far back,
RLWT

Unregistered

06-17-2006, 02:51 PM

Both evolution and creation are based in faith. No one was there when the creation of the world ocurred, nor can we recreate or test either hypothosis. To me, it takes a lot more faith to believe people and the world randomly ocurred than a God of order and perfection created this complex world. I think everyone needs to do more research and understand science a lot better before making these conclusions. First of all, you can't even call either one a theory because there is no way to test. Yes, both need to be discussed on the classroom. To not do it is causing students to be ignorant and biased. Even in religious schools evolution is taught so students can see how absurd it is.

Unregistered

06-18-2006, 01:56 AM

Both evolution and creation are based in faith. Yada yada yada, ignorant statement after ignorant statement... Even in religious schools evolution is taught so students can see how absurd it is.

Try readng a Freshman Science book. Look up "Scientfic Method." Then come back and talk to the grown up people about evolution.

Unregistered

06-20-2006, 11:27 PM

I do not teach evolution, nor do I teach creationism. I personally believe that they can co-exist to a point. I believe a superior being placed a variety of organisms on this planet, but over time these organisms have changed due to the changing environment (the classical black/white moth example). This selection does not indicate that one species can turn into another species, in my opinion.

I have taught in a private Christian school and was exposed to that viewpoint. I have NEVER been taught, in all of my classes in high school, community college, undergraduate, nor graduate (all public institutions) the evidences, beliefs, or theories behind evolution. I am NOT qualified to teach about rock formation, and in my opinion—who cares?

I teach nearly all of the sciences at my small school, and by the time I get all of the standards covered that do NOT relate to origin, I am out of time in the school year. My opinion is that “who cares where we came from---we’re here. Let’s not be concerned about the past, but let’s arm the students with an understanding of the current issues being debated in the courts---genetic engineering, tissue engineering, cloning, genetically modified foods, etc”. THESE are the issues that the students will need to understand in order to make rational, informed decisions in the future----not whether they came from a monkey, a bacterial cell, or were placed here from a superior being.

I guess I have a problem with spending time on something that cannot be proven scientifically. One of the bases for scientific procedure is repeatability---we CANNOT go back in time to repeat the origin of humans. I say we move on and get informed about future issues.

Unregistered

06-21-2006, 12:13 AM

As for the Noah's Ark idea he carried every animal species on his boat..so what about termites? How do u carry 20,000 species of wood-consuming insects on a boat which itself consists of wood? How do you carry carnivores and herbivores side by side? HOW DO U CARRY MICROSCOPIC ORGANISMS??? If anyone can give me reasonable FACT-BASED responses to these questions then I will definitely agree that creation was possible. I'm not saying creation is impossible it's just that I don't see how the above things make sense.

The bible speaks very figuratively in many situations. I believe at times the bible can be interpreted too literally. Several stories in the bible are just that, stories to illustrate who God is, his power, mercy and grace. You can not use a story like Noah's ark to refute the entirety of Christianity. It seems to me that we have been missing the point. Evolution and Creation are not enemies, after all it was Einstein who said "Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame." Therefore I believe we must look to the Bible as a tool for understanding what it is to have life to the full. It seems so strange to me that "Christians" get so caught up in politics, and the constant argument of who is right that they abandon what Christ was all about, which is simply love. The people Christ seemed to criticize the most were the Pharisees who are acting as many fundamentalist do today, in constant bickering. We miss the point when being right is the goal because the truth is we don't know. Who are we to believe that we have it all figured out? The truth is we don't know the truth. Evolution is a scientific theory that has not been proven false (the definition of a theory is an idea that has not been proven true, but can not be proven false). The best evidence for evolution is the fact that it is still happening today. For example paramecia (a single-celled ciliated microorganism) have an endosymbiotic relationship with a bacteria that allow it to become a "killer" paramecium which is a present day example of the Endosymbiotic Theory. This is a theory that states mitochondria and chloroplast were once free living bacteria until they were phagocitized by a Eukaryotic cell that used the bacterium for energy. So evolution is a valid theory. Proof that evolution is true it does not make God false. It is time we stop arguing, calling each other fools, because who are we to assume we know the answer?

Unregistered

06-21-2006, 01:33 AM

let me clarify a little. I do not believe that healthy discussion is bad, in fact it is essential. While we must put down our gaurd, we must continue to discuss our questions, never assuming we are completly right. In fact part of developing a scientific theory, as ironic as it seems, is trying to prove it wrong. We can not be afraid of being wrong, and can not assume we know it all because there is the death of knowledge and growth. It is a difficult conflict to solve in how to go about teaching evolution, but I suggest, at least at an undergraduate level, that mature, educated conversation occur bringing all sides to the table.

Unregistered

06-21-2006, 09:19 PM

Well, since the last three posts have been reasonable people who actually have the intellectual equilvalancy of walking and chewing gum, that is who can think logically and still hold religious beliefs, then it is time for someone to come on here and claim, once again, that evolution is just another belief and that we should teach creation in science class.

So, if you are getting ready to post that, too late, I just beat you to it.

Unregistered

06-22-2006, 12:10 AM

My apologies if this has already been presented - Ionly stumbled on this thread (and site) 15 mins ago.

Consider this - if creationism is the case, when does it start? The hard core types would tell us God created the dinosaur bones in the rocks for us to find them. But where do we draw the line between what was created and what has happened since then? If this were true, how do we know he didn't create yesterday so we could remember it, and our existence is merely an instantaneous burst with our entire life as history in our minds created by God? I don't know about you but i have a strong feeling (un-provable) that I was here 5 minutes ago and it wasn't just memories in my head.

And by extrapolation this can go back as far as you like. What was before the big bang? who knows, maybe the big collapse?

Here's another thought. Evolution is a process of how things as a whole change. Biological entities of almost every sort adapt to new environments through their lifetimes, and the collection of organisms changes its characteristics over time also. Think of the citizens of New York city. They were scattered Native Americans 500 years ago, now they are a mix of many cultures and ethnicities.

Darwin was presenting how a species changes over time in characteristics. If enough mutations (or more likely, selection) is present, some individuals will not survive and others will prosper, so the population as a whole will change in its nature (e.g. average short becoming average tall, etc).

If the processes that drive evolution didn't exist everything would look the same - you would look like your dad and he like his dad and so on. But because we're biological like most biological organisms we reproduce, taking features from one parent and features from another and blending to make a new organism. Inidividually we don't change; our family's average characteristics change. When we die our family's characteristics will be represented by our children, who may all have green eyes, black hair or some other genetic trait different from us. If this is continued over many generations on average our family may evolve to something quite different.

So in short (and in somewhat of an extrapolation), evolution exists today in everybody's life, unless you believe you were created an instant ago.

I would add some more things about people who don't understand evolution also don't comprehend large numbers. Someone once said as an argument against it, "if i put these watch pieces in this bag and shake them long enough how could I possibly end up with a working watch?". This person had no understanding of how bacteria reproduce every 20 mins (there are probably a range of times), which means after 5 days you have 360 reproductions of each bacteria, spliting in two (that's 2x2x2x2.... 360 times, i.e. 2 to the power of 360, or 2.3 with 108 zeros after it. Try writing that out to get an idea of how many bacteria that is. And that's 5 days for 360 generations (which is probably a good way back to when humans started using language if you mapped it to a human 20 year generation), so imagine 1 year, 10 years, 1000 years, 1000 million years, and try to tell me the bacteria population won't look different now than they looked at the beginning!

Something to ponder anyway...

I like to think God created evolution, or the mechanism by which it could happen, i.e. physics, chemistry, biology, time. No Adam, no Eve hoopla. And he/she/it didn't do it for any particular reason that me as a mere human could or should try to understand. Not because he is merciful (he is god, what need has he for mercy?) nor kind nor any of that other hogwash. you and i are mere mayflies! don't think so highly of yourself! There is too much of our own motives and fears in what we believe - it's tainting what we believe in!

Anyway I've waffled enough. Kudos to you if you read this far!

Unregistered

06-22-2006, 01:45 AM

[QUOTE=Unregistered]that evolution is just another belief and that we should teach creation in science class.QUOTE]
If evolution is just another belief a science class is not where it belongs at all. No part of science includes beliefs, it is about theories, and following the scientific method to come up with the best possible solution to a problem. Evolution is not a religious faith, not a belief at all, it is simply a scientific theory. Faith is, to quote the bible, believing in what you do not see, it is not to be proven by scientific methology, but rather to be embraced, to be lived out. Faith is not science, and science is not faith. Most of the struggle between evolution and creation is the inability to seperate these matters. By trying to prove faith with science, it no longer is faith. Evolution is a valid scientific theory, but as I have said it is a seperate matter from faith, and just because evolution can not be proven false does not mean that God can be proven false. Our existance is is tough matter to wrap our minds around, it is literally larger than life, complex and confusing. We cannot silence science at the fear of losing our faith because both are essential to who we are.

Unregistered

06-22-2006, 10:51 AM

No Adam, no Eve hoopla. And he/she/it didn't do it for any particular reason that me as a mere human could or should try to understand. Not because he is merciful (he is god, what need has he for mercy?) nor kind nor any of that other hogwash. you and i are mere mayflies! don't think so highly of yourself! There is too much of our own motives and fears in what we believe - it's tainting what we believe in!

I'm with you all the way up to this point, and may I add my thanks for a well thought out response to the anti-evolution craziness that has gone on here by suppossedly rational creatures (teachers?). But your assertation that we "could or should understand" the Creator and that the concept of a merciful God is "hogwash" seems to me an assumption that contradicts your open mindedness. I beg you to reconsider.

Certainly, we cannot know God or his motives in the same way that we know how bacteria respond to stimuli in a laboratory. The Old Testament cautions us about even giving God a name. They understood that wisdom begins with awe and that we cannot make specific claims about the nature of our Maker without venturing into the realm of idolatry.

But the Christian faith offers us a personal relationship with God. Thus, I know that God is merciful because I experience that mercy on a moment to moment existenial plane. This knowing is a matter of the heart and spirit, not of the mind or intellect. It is the confusing of those two realms of human experience that makes the anti-evolutionist such a bore. Please don't make the same mistake in reverse!

God is certain unknowable to the rational mind that needs details and specific proofs. As you point out, that is where faith begins. Both faith and reason are necessary. Those who seek to supplant either with the other err grieviously.

Unregistered

06-23-2006, 12:01 PM

(some bits snipped out for brevity) I'm with you all the way up to this point, and may I add my thanks for a well thought out response to the anti-evolution craziness that has gone on here by suppossedly rational creatures (teachers?). But your assertation that we "could or should understand" the Creator and that the concept of a merciful God is "hogwash" seems to me an assumption that contradicts your open mindedness. I beg you to reconsider.

No problem. It was a strong statement on my part. I'll try to rephrase it and back it up with some more points (which tie into Intelligent Design, the next incarnation of Creation) -

A common theme I hear in Christianity is that God is merciful, God is kind. My belief is that these are human things - God created the universe so why does he care about us? And consider other religions - their understandings of God(s) is different, which dilutes all religions tenets of God-like behaviour, goals, purposes (each religion has parts that contradict other religions, so which one is the universal truth?)

Everything we do and understand is framed by our biases accumulated over our lives. I think something is good if it fits with my values, but that's because I have framed it according to me; someone else would interpret it differently. Here's a (contrived!) example:

I step out onto the street - my free will. A drunk driver hits me - his free will, but from my perspective, God's will deeming that there should be a drunk driver speeding around the corner at that instant. Everyone then says it's a tragedy, why is God so unjust based on their understanding of me and the situation. I end up immobilized in hospital in extreme pain and suffering; is it merciful for God to put me out of my misery, or merciful for God to continue my pain so that I can continue to enjoy my family?

What I'm trying to get at is that our definition of mercy, kindness, love and our criteria for it are not universal truths; they are framed by our own values and beliefs. It's my belief that a Deity such as God maintains universal truths - he created time, space, the heavens and earth. In this my existence is trivial and temporary, my understandings of good, evil, mercy, love, kindness my own interpretations and learnings over my lifetime. Ergo I am no-one in particular; God extends me no more or less special treatment than he does a gnat or a galaxy.

Further to this I feel that any preferential treatment God would provide to humans over anything else is based on at a subconcious level on fear, pride (and a certain species-level arrogance: we're different and somehow better than houseflies that exhibit no God-worshipping behaviour) of the believer in that treatment - that we as humans psychologically feel a need to feel better about ourselves than we really know ourselves to be. We want to belong (humans are fairly social creatures), we want to feel special (i.e. not worthless), we want to have hope (otherwise what's the point to existing? this spins off to being exicted about the afterlife, have hope that it doesn't just stop because we are afraid to give up our living existence).

And so we try to explain how we got here, where we go afterwards, and what we should do in the meantime based more on our fears of not belonging and low self-worth than actually sitting down and questioning the process of how it happens, coming up with ideas, trying them out, observing the result and refining our ideas (i.e. the scientific process). And society drums this into our heads pretty much from day 1 (this is how you should think, how you should act, etc to be accepted in this society).

This got a bit away from the point I was trying to make, but I'll try to bring it back. Consider Intelligent Design, that "this tree looks so nice and is so perfectly a tree that it must have been designed that way" (gross simplification from a evolutionist). For this to work there must be a goal in mind - that the tree must have been planned and then built, according to some idea of how the tree should be in its final incarnation. But this then makes one wonder what the goal was, why the tree is a certain way, especially if it does not help the tree. Or in our case, why we have fingernails, facial hair, a bunch of other odd things. Evolution explains this as being that it is only discarded from the species if it is detrimental to the species' survival; mere odd appendages don't generally make one a less capable organsim and so they stay around indefinitely. But under ID, they were put there for a purpose by God.

Consider this - if everything is designed why do we have 20 million species of insects (I'm probably off by some huge factor on the low side)? What was the purpose? An example, there are 3000 species of fireflies. What was the purpose of the tree? Why a maple tree, a pine tree, an oak tree? Yes we don't understand God's ways, but that's precisely why we can't attach meanings like love, kindness, mercy to his actions - they're our words, and our interpretations.

And ID still doesn't address the "when" question - was this tree designed yesterday to be in its current form? If so it was designed in its current shape in its current hole in the ground too.

whee I've waffled a lot again :} sorry! Kudos to you if you read this far!

Unregistered

06-23-2006, 12:03 PM

Couldn't fit this in the previous message:

As a closing thought, some more points about evolution:

A cat doesn't turn into a bird. True. But a tadpole turns into a frog, a caterpillar into a butterfly. Individuals can and do change structurally. Metamorphoses is already all around us in nature. Metamorphoses isn't evolution though. Evolution is change over time and in a large enough population (which is one with enough individuals to sustain reproduction - some species of birds won't mate unless there are millions of birds in the population; other things will reproduce asexually with no-one else around).

There are fish that can - and are - living out of water for long periods of time (days, weeks maybe). If conditions are right, more of the fish will be surviving out of water than in the water. Those with features that are more suited to the conditions will survive and breed thereby passing on their traits to their offspring (basic tenet of evolution). Essentially if you can reproduce your species can evolve, if given enough time and some differentiating circumstances (food, environment, geography).

How can a single cell bacteria become a thinking, opinionated human? I don't know but it's probably similar to how a human embryo starts out with a single egg and a single sperm and evolves over 30 years into the opinionated human being (it only takes 3-9 months to look like one, the opinionated part takes the 30 years :) ). This all from a pile of chemicals in a little blob. Something about the chemicals and their arrangement causes them to change the overall structure of the population of cells into a human, a cat, a blade of grass (plants and animals significantly different however, but still many similar processes happening).

If I can figure out how the original cells came into being I'll be pretty comfortable with the whole evolutional process. I used to figure there were big hurdles to overcome : single cell organism, multicell organism, organs, higher brain functions. But the embryo gives a perfect example of how the single ->multi->organs->brain functions process is defined. Study that and we're 95% of the way there. Just have to figure the original chemicals->single cells step, which could be an extrapolation of my earlier bacterial population explosion example.

Unregistered

06-26-2006, 05:02 PM

This issue has been blown out of proportion ever since Scopes. Evolution's greatest attribute is the scientific method, it's methodology hasn't proven how life began. Even those who accept the big bang theory can't tell you what ignited it. Has anyone yet discovered the missing link to modern man? Thus the methodolgy sounds good, but merely leads to a theory which to date has not been proven. Creationism's greatest attribute is it's claim to knowledge of originator (creator) of the universe (heavens), earth and man. However, it is lacking a bit in that it doesn't have a basis in the scientific method. It's validity is based on faith. Intelligent design appears to be a hybrid. ID is based on probabilites and improbabilites and as such is more scientific in nature than creationism. It's conclusion that our evolution is so impropoble that it has to be the product of some originating form of intelligence seems to be valid. However, can anyone say with absolute and provable certianty that any of these theories is correct? More importantly, does this issue deserve the amount of attention that it is being given? I'm a Christian who reads Genesis and sees intelligent design. Does that make me any less a Christian? My finacee reads Genesis and sees creatism does that make her any less of a human being whom I love? My best friend, reads the exact same words and sees evolution. Does that make him any less a friend? The ewmphasis of education should not be on where we're from or how we got here. The emphasis of education should be on where we're going and how we're going to get our students there. Placed in this perspective, the great debate is just that a debate and, in an academic environment, presented as such.

Unregistered

06-26-2006, 08:25 PM

This issue has been blown out of proportion ever since Scopes. ... The emphasis of education should not be on where we're from or how we got here. The emphasis of education should be on where we're going and how we're going to get our students there. Placed in this perspective, the great debate is just that a debate and, in an academic environment, presented as such.

True. As such we should teach all concepts and present them, their history, backgrounds, etc. Give our students the ability to make their own choices, and to open their minds to other aspects of the available knowledge.

For some this will lead them to deeper understanding and belief in their idea be it creation, ID, or evolution, or something else entirely, not on the horizon. For others it may cause them to change camps to a different idea.

Perhaps as teachers the decision has to be made as to where things are taught - it is difficult to lend weight to something in science class that does not follow the scientific process; it is also difficult to present a scientific approach when a more open-minded holistic "what if" approach is required. So as teachers it's probably important to present the least biased most open-minded approach in all cases, if possible, and at least promote further study of the topic by the students.

Unregistered

06-27-2006, 10:58 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.

You had better check the constitution. It says government cant dictate a particular religion. IE America could not be a "Catholic" nation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

BTW If Evolution is a theory why do all the textbooks state it as fact?

Unregistered

06-27-2006, 11:32 PM

Interesting how things change depending on what is highlighted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BTW If Evolution is a theory why do all the textbooks state it as fact?

The definition of the word fact is not being used in the same sense as in everyday language. A scientific fact simply describes an idea that has been confirmed numerous times by many unbiased people. It can still be wrong. Newton's second law was considered a fact for many centuries. Now we realize that what appears to be a fact may turn out to be incorrect. Hence the debate over evolution.

By the way, few seriously doubt that evolutionary processes can occur. The issue is whether the theory of evolution explains the origin of Man.

Is evolution a fact according to the scientific use of the term? Yes. Does that make it true? No.

Tom Tuttle

06-29-2006, 01:10 AM

Every other week or so, I check this forum to remind me why intelligent people spurn religion. Discussing science from the point of view of your faith is so laughable.
Here's an idea. Spend a few hours reading about the scientific method and Darwin's Evolutionary Theory. Then 3 amazing things might happen:
1. You might actually learn something - Just because you read the Bible doesn't mean you have to turn off your brain, you know?
2. You might actually have something intelligent to say about this topic instead of rehashing the same old backwoods sermonizing about some of the clearest thinking about biology ever. If you read Darwin instead of the hacks in your church who criticize what they don't understand, you might at least begin discussing from the position of a learner instead of posing as an expert in a subject you know nothing about.
3. Instead of turning intelligent people against Christianity, you might impress them with your humility and broad-mindedness. If Jesus can die to bring Redemption to mankind, the least you can do is stop behaving like the Pharisses who shout on the street corner without a fresh idea in their empty heads and call it Christianity, thereby making all Christians look like numbnuts.

Unregistered

06-30-2006, 05:06 PM

The decision of whether to teach Creation / Evolution is a big one to make. As a teacher you are responsible for helping to shape your students. These young people - our future leaders - look up to their teachers and believe all that they are taught as truth.

I truly believe that creation is the truth. God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th day (read Genesis 1 in the Bible). God, the Creator, is bigger than any scientific explanation and no human mind can comprehend what He is capable of doing (that includes creating this world). I'm sure from an educated perspective you can't help but be amazed at the intricate splendour that exists all around us.

I would love for all primary/elementary students to be taught about the Creator of the heavens and earth and this definitely has a role in the Science curriculum because it demonstrates to them the intricate detail and diversity that God showed in His creation of the universe.

As teachers, be encouraged to explore for yourselves what you believe to be truth.

Why should children of other faiths (Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, etc) be taught that your creator is the right and only one?

See it goes to faith. Different religions have different creation stories/myths. Why should my child/your child be taught about a religions creation story in school? Isn't that what churches/mosques/etc are for?

You are right that some children look up to their teachers. So if you preach your christian belief to a student and that student's family faith is Hinduism - do you tell that child that their parents are wrong and you are right?

If christian's creation is taught in science class to passify christians. Then other creation stories need to be taught in science class too (all creation stories from all religions...hmm sounds likes philosophy or world religions course huh?). We would also need to teach about allah, and the goddess mother earth, the FSM, Marduk, and all the other gods/goddess that helped for the earth in different creation stories. But would not then christians be upset? I know many christians who will not even discuss anything about other religions with their children or allow their children to even play with kids of differing religions....these are the same parents who want creation to be taught in public schools.

I say if you want your religion taught in school, then you need to send your child to a private school. If you are christian and want your creation story taught as fact, then you need to send your child to a christian private school.

I homeschool and teach my children about all religions and we discuss many different creation stories. BUT that is in our world religions course...not our science course.

Cat