I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
The Origin of Species
-
would it not be wiser to teach both sides of the story
Well, there are several religions besides Christianity. If you’re going to teach one, why not the others? Wouldn’t that allow “our children” to choose their own path? And for that matter, why not teach them about Zeus and Ares and all the Norse gods and whatever other mythical deity one can think of. That would really allow our children to make an informed decision.
-
Well, there are several religions besides Christianity.
Exactly. And they don’t all come to the same conclusion about anything…and in fact if you are going to teach one faith you might as well teach all. Buddism, Muslim, Native American Indian lore and it goes on and on. Religion is an ideal on how to live your life and something to believe in. But to start teaching that as fact in school with nothing to base it on outside of a book of stories that would be tough to swallow.
I’m not bashing anyone for being of a Christian faith at all her nor am I implying you are wrong for thinking this.
-
@F_alk:
Thinking the world was round took a leap of faith as all the scientists thought it was flat.
Especially as all scientists of that times were religious scholars or monks (in our culture).
Yes, but thinking the world round and setting out to prove it was still a leap of faith - one that almost cost Columbus his life by mutiney, if I have my history right.
SHP: No, I’ve never objected to chemistry or physics because I can see the tangible results of their theories. I can mix hydrogen and oxygen (two highly explosive elements) and get water (one of the most stable products) or I can throw an apple at an orange with incredible velocity and achieve fruit salad. However, with evolution, there’s no definitive proof other then we are all carbon based life forms. And what proof there is, isn’t even widely accepted by all scientists but only by some scientists - others remain skeptical or outright hostile.
That’s why I say we should teach BOTH evolution and creation in schools so that the individual can decide which they choose to believe and which they choose to disbelieve. I don’t mean to force religion on the people, nor do I mean to force evolution on the people. I just want the schools to give the students both sides of the story and the theories behind those opinions so that the children can work it out, at least until we find incontroversial proof that one or the other theory is false.
I also disagree that science is designed to predict and religion to be psychological. Science is the study of God’s universe and CAN be used to predict what might happen in the future, but it’s more a study of how things work and why, not of future events. Perhaps that’s a matter of semantics to you, but it’s a huge difference in my mind. As for religion, it’s not so much psychology as it is cultural ethics. Thou shalt not kill, steal, lust, etc. These, as well as ancient Mosaic law, are more designed to form harmonious tribes of people then it is to treat depression or anxiety - although, if your wife isn’t being lusted after, your children arn’t killed and you havn’t lost anything to theft, I’d wager you’re a bit happier then the man who’s had that done to him.
F_alk:
Perfect dogma. We are right, and therefor the burden for the proof is on you. And it is a proof of non-existance, just for the fun of it.
That alone is the definition of unscientific. Nothing exists until postulated and proven.Exactly. Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.
Who knows, maybe God does not exist. Personally, I think he does and that he’s extremely lenient and loving to his creations, but that doesn’t mean he does - or for that matter if he does that he actually cares two hoots about his creations. However, science will never be able to prove - definitavly - that God does not exist and without that proof, religion will always be a part of man’s culture and life - in one form or another.
Hax: Mr Ghoul: I could understand teaching the thoeries of reincarnation, evolution and creationism and other widely accepted beliefs of the origin of the human body and mind. I wouldn’t advocate teaching ancient religions except as electives since they are no longer active religions and thus, would bring no understanding between groups of individuals. (Last I checked, it’s been at least a few hundred years since Ares and Mars went to war with one another bringing war to the people….) However, teaching Christianity, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddist might be wise - at the very least, it would teach understanding between the religions and maybe that understanding would bring more peace between the people. In any event, I doubt teachings of this type could bring harm, no more so then telling children who believe in God that it’s all tripe and that we evolved from fish and apes - IMHO.
-
Hax: Mr Ghoul: I could understand teaching the thoeries of reincarnation, evolution and creationism and other widely accepted beliefs of the origin of the human body and mind. I wouldn’t advocate teaching ancient religions except as electives since they are no longer active religions and thus, would bring no understanding between groups of individuals. (Last I checked, it’s been at least a few hundred years since Ares and Mars went to war with one another bringing war to the people….) However, teaching Christianity, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddist might be wise - at the very least, it would teach understanding between the religions and maybe that understanding would bring more peace between the people. In any event, I doubt teachings of this type could bring harm, no more so then telling children who believe in God that it’s all tripe and that we evolved from fish and apes - IMHO.
Who’s going to pay for all this? Now not only do you need to squeeze in the normal class time but you need to get teachers who can do all this as well…the parents will start to throw fits about the other religions and it will turn into a Battle Royal with each faith stepping up - which is exactly my point and I am glad you hinted at this idea. Let the teaching of evolution be for public school and the teaching of creationism be for parochial school.
-
Exactly. Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.
In the same respect no one can prove God does exist…
-
Hax: Mr Ghoul: I could understand teaching the thoeries of reincarnation, evolution and creationism and other widely accepted beliefs of the origin of the human body and mind. I wouldn’t advocate teaching ancient religions except as electives since they are no longer active religions and thus, would bring no understanding between groups of individuals. (Last I checked, it’s been at least a few hundred years since Ares and Mars went to war with one another bringing war to the people….) However, teaching Christianity, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and Buddist might be wise - at the very least, it would teach understanding between the religions and maybe that understanding would bring more peace between the people. In any event, I doubt teachings of this type could bring harm, no more so then telling children who believe in God that it’s all tripe and that we evolved from fish and apes - IMHO.
Who’s going to pay for all this? Now not only do you need to squeeze in the normal class time but you need to get teachers who can do all this as well…the parents will start to throw fits about the other religions and it will turn into a Battle Royal with each faith stepping up - which is exactly my point and I am glad you hinted at this idea. Let the teaching of evolution be for public school and the teaching of creationism be for parochial school.
Or teach neither and let the children learn it in college in elective classes.
The problem is, this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith. I don’t care if your religion said we sprung from acorns that were alit by the tears of the moon goddess while floating on the ocean. Since I cannot disprove it, nor can I prove my own theory as being 100% correct, I should not tell you that you are wrong and that I am right - in this regard. If we truely want to leave religion out of schools, then we need to stop teaching anti-religious theories that we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Will this stop the teaching of math or science? Hardly. Biology, chemistry, physics, calculus, geometery, etc are all still valid. All we’re removing is 1 biology module that is heavily contested and hardly accepted world wide by people in general.
Or, we could teach all major theories on human creation with equal amounts of time dedicated to each.
-
Well teaching something that isn’t fact isn’t really a good idea so if you take out Evo you probably shouldn’t put in Creation…again there are already schools all around that teach it, if it is a big deal for your child to learn it and not learn the heathen Evo theroy’s then look into private school. Of course the parents that want this so badly are also the ones that wouldn’t want to pay that much for their child to go to a private school, so here we are…:D
-
Exactly. Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.
Science does not attempt to disprove the existance of god. It is creationists who feel so, and thus i nturn want to bring god back into science “as he belongs everywhere”. Disprove that evolution is the way, and disprove that ID does not take place ……
Or teach neither and let the children learn it in college in elective classes.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It does predict things.
this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.
So would the teaching of any non-christian creation myth.
Go to theology and discuss that there, but don’t do it in science!If we truely want to leave religion out of schools
See, that is not what we are wanting. We want it not to be mixed with science. Each at its time, each at its place … but not together.
All we’re removing is 1 biology module that is heavily contested and hardly accepted world wide by people in general.
Don’t think that the USA is the “world”. Just don’t.
And btw…. you are so wrong with the above.we could teach all major theories on human creation
Creationism is NOT a theory. It is wild speculation with no scientific basis.
-
Science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. They can prove that they cannot find God, they can attempt to discredit evidence that supports the existance of God, but they cannot disprove God’s existance.
Right here in front of me there are floating pink elephants that are smoking Cuban cigars and discussing the politics of Peru in “elephantese”.I challenge someone(Jen,maybe? :D ) to “disprove their existence”.
-
Real, how has your mental health been lately? :D
-
Well teaching something that isn’t fact isn’t really a good idea so if you take out Evo you probably shouldn’t put in Creation.
F_alk basically re-iterated this again in the upper most section of his post before he dissolved into a little anti-american rant by my usage of the word “world” (which I maintain is still a factual claim as much of the world believes in alternative methods of creation of mankind and not necessarily evolution.)
And I agree. It should be removed and not replaced. You may reintroduce it when evolution is proved to be the only method that could have created life as we know it on planet earth. Personally, I think evolution holds up well to explain the differences in “flavors” of mankind (white, black, curly hair, straight hair, etc.)
And F_alk, as I said in my post, many religious people, of varrying “flavors”, view “this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.” Whether it is or is not is totally irrellevant to the discussion. Evolution is a theory, there’s no proof that it exists and as a theory, to believe in it takes faith. That faith is contrary to the faith’s of other people who disbelieve in evolution and to force all children to study it and hold them accountable for repeating it as fact can be perceived by many to be detrimental to their children’s spiritual well being.
Notice, I’m saying “can be viewed” and referencing others then myself. Personally, I like to believe that my children will be raised properly and can tell the difference between opposing theories and choose which they believe in themselves, much like I was able to do. However, if we TRUELY want to be tolerant of all religions, then we really should not side with one theory or another that directly contradicts fundamental pillars of certain religions - especially when the facts supporting the theory in question are questionable at best and at times, completely doctored. (Yes, there are cases where men took bones from different animals and combined them to claim they had the missing link for personal glory, so no, I’m not making it up when I say even evolution has fictitiousness around it.)
-
(which I maintain is still a factual claim as much of the world believes in alternative methods of creation of mankind and not necessarily evolution.)
Okay I object to your oversimplification of origin mythology in non western cultures as being similar to intelligent design. Do the people who believe humans were made by the Jaguar that raped the first women fit into ID. I don’t think so. Unless God is a licentious feline deity.
No, but then again, you’ll notice I said that a majority of the world believes in ALTERNATE methods of creation and not in creation by God or some other form of god(s), thus, a jaguar raping the first woman creating the first man would fit into that alternate theory (alternate to evolution that is.)
Personally, I think evolution holds up well to explain the differences in “flavors” of mankind (white, black, curly hair, straight hair, etc.)
And this is where I previously attacked you for being a cultural evolutionist but not a biological one. You can’t the latter without the former. There is actually very little genetic variation between humans, far less than many other species in fact. The “racial” characteristics are entirely superficial. Could you tell an Arab from an Italian, a German from a Russo-Ukrainian. I seriously doubt it.
That’s the point I was trying to make. While we have minor genetic drift we did not evolve from another species. Yes, we have olive skin, tan skin, white skin, black skin, red hair, curly hair, black hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. But we’re all still human. We have the same number of chromosomes, the same medicine works on us, we all bleed when we’re cut, we all have the capability to love and feel warmth.
We create larger ears of corn by planting only the kernals from the largest ears of corn. Does this mean corn evolved from grass? No, it means that through selective breeding we have brought the best traits of our corn to the forefront while limiting those traits we find least desireable…but it’s still corn.
many religious people, of varrying “flavors”, view “this whole line of teachings is viewed by many religious families as a direct assault on their faith.”
If thats the case then they should look into private schooling. These same christian fundamentalists would chafe at the idea of jesuits teaching there kids and if you open the doors to religion in the schools that is what will happen. You can’t reject one faith and allow in another.
Very true, and the same arguement I am making against teaching evolution in schools. How can you permit one theory that contradicts another without disproving one of the theories? Better would be to not teach any form of evolution/creation then to espouse one as true and all the rest as false. Later, when children are in their early twenties, they can take courses on the various theories and decide for themselves which they choose to accept on faith and which they choose to ignore. But having the government decide which to teach is the equivalent of having the government say that all other theories are wrong and that this is the only proper theory. A stance I do not feel the government should be taking - at least without concrete evidence to support their claims - spoken or assumed.
However, if we TRUELY want to be tolerant of all religions, then we really should not side with one theory or another that directly contradicts fundamental pillars of certain religions - especially when the facts supporting the theory in question are questionable at best and at times, completely doctored.
Okay lets let in religion but only the Jesuits b/c they are actually highly educated and therefore the only ones trained to teach to students. Or is it that you want less qualified persons to be teaching the young of America. In other words is your objections to public schooling that it doesn’t reflect the biases of mass culture enough?
No, I think I stated my stance quite well. Basically, the government is determining what theory should be widely accepted at the expense of other theories. It isn’t that they’ve proven their theory to be truth, but rather, have just chosen this theory as the one they want to teach - and thus the one they want people to believe. However, if they dropped the entire module from the curriculum and replaced it with teachings on how to fight viral infections, or some other factual information we have in the field of biology, all would be happy as all could teach their children their own theory and the children could learn the other theories on their own time. It isn’t like I’m advocating the abolishment of all evolutionary teachings from the public library or the internet. I just do not like the government choosing one theory over another based on nothing other then the opinion of a few men decades ago.
(Yes, there are cases where men took bones from different animals and combined them to claim they had the missing link for personal glory, so no, I’m not making it up when I say even evolution has fictitiousness around it.)
But you ignore that it was the scientific process and academic review that acted as a safeguard to prevent such misrepresentations from being taught. If we go to your extreme say there is a minister who preaches that God ordains little boys submit to being molested by him and that it is “scientifically” beneficial for them to be treated so would you permit that if this person could point to “proof” that suggests molestation isn’t harmful. Once you eliminate academic review you open up a pandoras box that can’t be closed. Just who will decide then what ideas are suitable for teaching in schools? Politicians have a conflict of interest to use school as propaganda instruments or is that what you want?
No, I didn’t ignore it. After decades of research peer review did in deed determine that the fossile records had been altered. But this does not negate the fact that the community was so desperate to prove their theory that they were willing to accept falsified records for years without proper scrutiny. It would be like the schools in Texas refusing to teach any form of creation but the Jewish theories and when evidence to the contrary arose ignoring it and when falsified information is brought forth supporting their theory, espousing it as validation.
We really need to get the conjecture out of the class room and leave it for the graduates to research. Our children need to be taught the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. Since evolution is not fact, creationism is not fact and any other story of human existance is not fact, none of it should be taught - especially in an organization where you expect to receive the facts, such as school.
-
Among the majority of the scientific community, there is not contestation to evolution, it is the accepted theory. it has not been elevated to law yet, as there is not sufficient proof to ascribe it this status, but it is not under debate between most of the scientific world.
Jen:
the idea that the world was flat required nothing more than a tacit acceptance of what you see, that is, no investigation. as soon as people began to explore the world around them, and investigate things, as soon as they began approaching things scientifically, it became rather easy to conclude the world was round. in fact, by columbus’s time, only the unenlightened masses and religious zealots disbelieved the round earth theory. it was too easy to see flat ground and say: the earth is round? psshhh…as far as ancient religions: mars was ares. the romans adopted the greek mythology, but ascribed their own names to the greek deities. for some reason, apollo remained apollo however. (fyi: anybody know that “Hercules” was actually the roman name for the mythological figure? the greek name was actually Herekles. but whenever people talk about “hercules” its ancient greece they are referring to.)
teaching ID in school is the same as Falk suggested, teaching science in sunday school. ID is not a theory. its a religious belief. for some, its a political belief. either way, it is not scientific, it has not observation or experimentation, it can not be tested, proved or disproved, and there is no need for it. to the scientific powers that be, evolution is accepted.
the idea that “we should teach children with an open mind, allowing for both evolution and ID or creationism” opens the can of worms like hax said, to teaching all world religions. or like falk said, to teaching science in church. they are supposed to be seperate from each other. if we allow religious groups to force the teaching of ID in school, then scientists should be able to go to sunday school, and teach those kids about evolution. -
Maybe a class period should mention that other theories do exist and very briefly go over why they exist and why there is not enough evidence in comparision to evolution. So the worst that could come out of this idea is forty or fifty minutes might be wasted IMO.
-
Yes, but Janus, what I’m espousing is teaching of only fact. As evolution is not fact (and contrary to your statements, is hardly accepted by the scientific community as a whole the world wide but rather only in certain enclaves of the scientific community) and cannot be proved as fact, we should not teach it.
Should students want to learn about it, they can learn the same way they learn about fixing cars, astro-physics, firearm safety, etc…by reading a book or purchasing a class specifically geared towards the exploration of that specific theory.
It’s also very immoral for a government agency, especially one that should be representative of the people, to tell one group of people they are wrong and the other they are right when they cannot make any proof of their assertations. I’m not saying creation is fact and evolution is fiction and I’m not saying evolution is fact and creation is fiction - I’m just saying that neither can be proved with the information we have today and to assume one is right and the other wrong based soley because it is politically convenient at the moment to do so is ridiculous at best and out right harmful at worst.
Imagine that scientists discovered God one day and God told them that he created the world and proved it to them. Now you’d have to reteach all of mankind that evolution was completely wrong and invented in the minds of people with great imagination. Imagine the issues that might be experienced. You’d have people committing suicide, you’d have others that refuse to believe the new theory, etc.
Much better is it to either represent all the theories with equal plausibility, or to not advocate any theory and allow the individual to decide what s/he believes to be true and false - at least in the absense of any physical evidence.
-
As Jennifer pointed out I’d have to disagree with talk that the scientific community accepts the that evolution is no longer a theory but fact. I’ve read many books on this subject because as I’m sure you all know by now I am a Christian and I want to support what I believe in and there are many scientists that lean now more towards creationism. If you would pick up the book a Case for a Creator or some of the many other Creationism supporting books out there I’m sure you would see my point.
Sure it takes faith for you to believe in Creationism, but on CNN there was a guy who was on the beach when the tsunami hit in Indonesia and there were about 15 kids that he was in charge of watching and he could see that they weren’t gonna make it. So, he raised up his hand and said in Jesus name stop and the water went around all of them. Now people I’m not making this up it was on CNN, there isn’t any way in the world that you can tell me that there wasn’t some kind of power behind that and things like that happen every day. That’s one thing I think people need more now a days is a little more faith.
-
Well, on the flip side, UKcommander, I also don’t advocate the teaching creation in public schools for much of the same reasons - that is, it is (A) not proveable as fact beyond a shadow of a doubt (B) is not held as the only method that could have created by the entire religious community (or all christians for that matter) and © it would denounce the faith others have placed in their own idea of man’s commance into being.
That’s why the entire subject should be left for students to study at their liesure or in college where students can elect to study methods and theories of man’s being.
-
As evolution is not fact (and contrary to your statements, is hardly accepted by the scientific community as a whole the world wide but rather only in certain enclaves of the scientific community) …
What qualifies you to make this statement about the scientific community?
@UKC:
As Jennifer pointed out I’d have to disagree with talk that the scientific community accepts the that evolution is no longer a theory but fact. I’ve read many books on this subject … and there are many scientists that lean now more towards creationism.
“Many” scientists …. how many? Of how many ??
Even less than a permille can be seen as “many” in absolute numbers.The Creation-thing is big only in the USA. It is undisputed were i am. The big press it gets and the repeated but baseless claims that it was “disputed” is a political thing. There are people who want it to be disputed, and best to make it so is to call it so repeatedly over. This seems to be a very common strategy to “prove” unproven things.
@UKC:
I’m not making this up it was on CNN
While any scientist who pushes ID does so free of religious nomination, the political wing who pushes it has a different agenda.
-
While any scientist who pushes ID does so free of religious nomination, the political wing who pushes it has a different agenda.
I’ve given up trying to explain the fine-tuning argument- either you get it or you don’t (you do know you can compare inifinite sets, right?). You seem perfectly willing to believe in non-carbon based life just to avoid the conclusion of the argument. There is no evidence for consciousness arising out of- say - silicon, and plenty of evidence that it can’t (e.g., the fact that all complex life-forms observed so far are all carbon-based). I don’t think you quite realize what a leap of faith your position requires.
That last line in your quote is pretty revealing: Are you saying that any scientist who pushes ID is “free of religious nomination”? Lol. It’s almost as if you believe scientists are these Spockesque masters of rationality. Oh contrare. They’re just like the rest of us and they all have agendas.
-
I’ve given up trying to explain the fine-tuning argument- either you get it or you don’t
I get it and i think it shows nothing. Fine tuning can be explained by the anthropic principle, no creator is needed. To go into probablitities does not matter, as we don’t know how many universes or creators are out there, and thus we have no idea over what our one measurement has to be sampled over.
(you do know you can compare inifinite sets, right?).
Yup.
You seem perfectly willing to believe in non-carbon based life just to avoid the conclusion of the argument.
I have read somewhere that silicon based life could be possible. Well, chemically there is not too much difference between carbon and silicium.
There is no evidence for consciousness arising out of- say - silicon, and plenty of evidence that it can’t (e.g., the fact that all complex life-forms observed so far are all carbon-based).
There is no evidence that it can’t. It just did not happen on this one planet.
And there is as much proof(!) for silicon based life as there is for a creator. Although Si based life has the benefit that evidentally life can come from rather light elements of the chemical group.That last line in your quote is pretty revealing: Are you saying that any scientist who pushes ID is “free of religious nomination”? Lol. It’s almost as if you believe scientists are these Spockesque masters of rationality. Oh contrare. They’re just like the rest of us and they all have agendas.
No, i wanted to say that they don’t mix their religious belief in the argument, not that they are free of any belief.
And do you want to say that ID is just an agenda ;) ?
Suggested Topics
