Creationist school's plea is denied by state board

[The Scotsman]

April 24, 2008, 10:09PM
Creationist school's plea is denied by state board
Plan to offer a science master's degree is voted down unanimously

By JEANNIE KEVER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle


With virtually no discussion, the state's Higher Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously Thursday to deny a request by a Bible-based school and research institute to offer a master's degree in science education.

Leaders of the Institute for Creation Research were in the audience but were not allowed to address the board.

"So be it," said the institute's CEO, Henry Morris III.

Members of the board's Academic Excellence and Research Committee had voted Wednesday after a public hearing and discussion to recommend that the request by the Dallas-based group be denied.

Thursday, Committee Chairwoman Lynn Phillips of Bastrop, suggested that no more public discussion be allowed.

The issue was whether the institute, whose leaders believe in creationism, or that the world was literally created as recounted in the Bible, could adequately prepare its graduates to teach science in middle schools and high schools. Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes had found — and board members agreed — that it could not.

Board Vice Chairman A.W. "Whit" Riter III, in the only public comment before the vote, said after looking at the background material, he simply felt "the program presented to us was inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules.

"I still question that science can come to one conclusion (about the origin of life), but as a board, I think we need to be very sensitive," said Riter, a businessman from Tyler.

Several board members pressed Paredes and other coordinating board staff members Wednesday on whether the institute had been treated differently because of its founding religious beliefs. They were told "no," that the objections to the program had been based upon academic quality.

Thursday's decision ended the issue, but probably only temporarily. Morris said Thursday that the institute has not decided on its next step, but that it is likely to either appeal or file a new proposal.

jeannie.kever@chron.com

.................................................. .....................................


I guess its okay to live ones life 3 fries short of a happy meal but to be to run schools it makes it pretty difficult to be taken seriously if you believe the world was created 6000 years ago etc. - makes one wonder what sort of reality people like this inhabit :eek:


Morris said Thursday that the institute has not decided on its next step, but that it is likely to either appeal or file a new proposal. ...should be an interesting debate if they decide to appeal!

[vyo476]

I was still doing high school science three years ago. They taught us evolution and creationism, although not with equal footing, as there is more scientific evidence to back up evolution than creationism (which requires a more metaphysical discussion than belongs in a biology classroom).

If my biology teacher didn't know anything about evolution, I wouldn't have recieved both sides of the debate. Granted, my biology teacher was lacking in a number of categories, but she knew the material well enough. I don't see the Board's decision here as religious discrimination but as maintaining higher standards of education. They do not preclude the teaching of creationism with this decision, only stating that it cannot be the only side taught.

[9sublime]

Couldn't be happier.

[numinus]

Considering that general relativity and the cosmological constant were direct results of einstein's 'creationist' leaning, I wonder if we should allow these subjects taught in school as well?

What nonsense!

[PLC1]

Score one for rational thought, and in Texas no less!

[Coyote]

Another blatant case of Christian persecution....:rolleyes:


since when does science have to be real science in order to be taught as science eh?

[numinus]

Another blatant case of Christian persecution....:rolleyes:


since when does science have to be real science in order to be taught as science eh?

Eh?

"The issue was whether the institute, whose leaders believe in creationism, or that the world was literally created as recounted in the Bible, could adequately prepare its graduates to teach science in middle schools and high schools. Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes had found — and board members agreed — that it could not."

A lot of universities are run by religious orders.

[top gun]

There are multiple good reasons for this decision.

There are fundamental differences between the science aspects of evolution and the "faith" of creationism. There is actual scientific tracking and testing that leads to the theory of evolution. There was a time when people thought the world was flat and that gravity was God's hand holding us on this earth. Over time trial & error, learning, research, in short education taught us more & more.

Creationism is truly all "faith" in stories that have been passed down over time. The funniest thing that comes up is when "creationist" suddenly make new things up to plug holes in their story. For instance only after the fact was brought to their attention that dinosaur fossil evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were here on earth... they then added to their story that dinosaurs were intermingled with man at the time of Jesus and shockingly even on the Ark. Even though in no biblical writings were they ever... ever... there. (for nonsense... Goggle Creation Museum)

Of course the other thing is religion "creationism" while being fine as a specific class on religion is not a single religious perspective across the board.

The fact is different religions have completely different views on how the earth was created. So unless we're prepared to offer everything from Buddhist theology to Christian theology and everything in between as science... keeping creationism in a class on religions of the world and not in science class seems very reasonable.

[Pandora]

I guess its okay to live ones life 3 fries short of a happy meal but to be to run schools it makes it pretty difficult to be taken seriously if you believe the world was created 6000 years ago etc. - makes one wonder what sort of reality people like this inhabit :eek:


I am not sure creationists say the world is 6000 years old, but if they do thats kind of silly.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


You can't replenish something that was not plenished before. This is only the beginning of our story not the beginning of the planet and universe and beyond.

[numinus]

There are multiple good reasons for this decision.

There are fundamental differences between the science aspects of evolution and the "faith" of creationism. There is actual scientific tracking and testing that leads to the theory of evolution. There was a time when people thought the world was flat and that gravity was God's hand holding us on this earth. Over time trial & error, learning, research, in short education taught us more & more.

The 'fundamental difference', as you put it, between creationism and science disappears when you keep in mind that the bible is ALLEGORICAL.

Creationism is truly all "faith" in stories that have been passed down over time. The funniest thing that comes up is when "creationist" suddenly make new things up to plug holes in their story. For instance only after the fact was brought to their attention that dinosaur fossil evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were here on earth... they then added to their story that dinosaurs were intermingled with man at the time of Jesus and shockingly even on the Ark. Even though in no biblical writings were they ever... ever... there. (for nonsense... Goggle Creation Museum)

Creationism is merely an umbrella term to describe cosmological models that operate beyond empirical evidence.

There is NO DIRECT empirical evidence for, say, string theory, or vsl (varying speed of ligh), or the cosmological constant, lambda. But that doesnt stop the physical cosmology and theoretical physics community to say these things, now, does it? In fact, all these have been proposed by scientist struggling to find some rationality in the cosmological riddles we observe today.

When you accept that the universe came from a space-time singularity, then that point at which nothing becomes something IS CREATION.

Of course the other thing is religion "creationism" while being fine as a specific class on religion is not a single religious perspective across the board.

The fact is different religions have completely different views on how the earth was created. So unless we're prepared to offer everything from Buddhist theology to Christian theology and everything in between as science... keeping creationism in a class on religions of the world and not in science class seems very reasonable.

Religion isn't the only field of inquiry that arrived at creationism. Western philosophical tradition, prior to 17th(?) century materialism, is quite comfortable with it.

And if you really think about it, materialism is one of the most indefensible positions in metaphysics. It is something completely at odds with the human rational and intuitive faculties.

[top gun]

I am not sure creationists say the world is 6000 years old, but if they do thats kind of silly.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


You can't replenish something that was not plenished before. This is only the beginning of our story not the beginning of the planet and universe and beyond.

Come on you know better.

It's the standard Christian theological line that the earth is of the 6000 or so year time-line. Turn on TV sometime... evangelicals say it ALL the time.

It's kinda irrelevant to be pick out nuances in writings that were written by man anyway but if one were to try I'd say replenish fits fine. Replenish doesn't only mean something was already there before...

Replenish:
To furnish; to stock, as a house or farm.
To finish; to complete; to perfect.

[Pandora]

Come on you know better.

It's the standard Christian theological line that the earth is of the 6000 or so year time-line. Turn on TV sometime... evangelicals say it ALL the time.

It's kinda irrelevant to be pick out nuances in writings that were written by man anyway but if one were to try I'd say replenish fits fine. Replenish doesn't only mean something was already there before...

Replenish:
To furnish; to stock, as a house or farm.
To finish; to complete; to perfect.

how can you RE furnish something that was never furnished or RE stock something that was never stocked?

I dont really listen to tv preachers I just read and get my own conclusions. I am glad the schools dont teach this sort of stuff though. It already takes to much time to un program the retarded things the school is currently teaching. I dont need more work!

[top gun]

numinus;36452]The 'fundamental difference', as you put it, between creationism and science disappears when you keep in mind that the bible is ALLEGORICAL.

Being figurative (ALLEGORICAL) isn't fact. While not all science theory can be proven the fact is much can. As we develop we understand more & more.

This is not the case of creationism. This story only randomly interjects new theory when someone points out a gaping hole. There is no new test or new evidence. It is solely a personal belief or "faith".

Science works like this: I have never been hit by a bus. But I know by human existence trial & error that pain occurs when a body is impacted by a large object. So without being hit by the bus I still know it would hurt. It doesn't explain every situation but it is a learning path.

Creationism works like this: If you were around at the beginning of time fairies would fly out of your butt and you would never be hungry. There is no part of this that can be proven. Without more it's only a story... a fable.

[top gun]

how can you RE furnish something that was never furnished or RE stock something that was never stocked?

I dont really listen to tv preachers I just read and get my own conclusions. I am glad the schools dont teach this sort of stuff though. It already takes to much time to un program the retarded things the school is currently teaching. I dont need more work!

I'm just saying from a dictionary standpoint I've given you two different meanings other than the one you cite that something had to be there before... dictionary.com

Replenish:
To furnish; to stock, as a house or farm.
To finish; to complete; to perfect.

Like I said it's all a dog chasing it's own tail anyway because man wrote it in the first place, in another language no less, and then just passed it along for even more interpretation. One persons theology can just as easily be someone else's Aesop's Fable. That's one great reason why separation of church and state is the fair thing to do.;)

[numinus]

Being figurative (ALLEGORICAL) isn't fact. While not all science theory can be proven the fact is much can. As we develop we understand more & more.

Of course allegory is not fact. Not fact, however, does not mean that there is no fundamental truth to it.

This is not the case of creationism. This story only randomly interjects new theory when someone points out a gaping hole. There is no new test or new evidence. It is solely a personal belief or "faith".

Science works like this: I have never been hit by a bus. But I know by human existence trial & error that pain occurs when a body is impacted by a large object. So without being hit by the bus I still know it would hurt. It doesn't explain every situation but it is a learning path.

Creationism works like this: If you were around at the beginning of time fairies would fly out of your butt and you would never be hungry. There is no part of this that can be proven. Without more it's only a story... a fable.

I'm sorry but you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the nature of science, or any form of human knowledge, for that matter.

All fields of human inquiry start from a set of axioms. In mathematics --commutative, associative, identity, etc., in physics -- conservation of mass and energy, invariance of the speed of light, causation, etc., in logic -- axiomatic set theory, etc.

Axioms have no formal proof BUT are always true. In fact, NO field of inquiry is possible without one or more axiom at its foundation.

So you see, the natural sciences, mathematics and logic would crumble just as easily as theology and philosophy WHEN YOU NEGATE THEIR UNDERLYING AXIOMS.

[Pandora]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
re•plen•ish
1. to make full or complete again, as by supplying what is lacking, used up, etc.: to replenish one's stock of food.
2. to supply (a fire, stove, etc.) with fresh fuel.
3. to fill again or anew.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
replenish




© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
re•plen•ish Audio Help (rĭ-plěn'ĭsh) Pronunciation Key
v. re•plen•ished, re•plen•ish•ing, re•plen•ish•es

1. To fill or make complete again; add a new stock or supply to: replenish the larder.
2.To inspire or nourish: The music will replenish my weary soul.

v. intr.
To become full again.


[Middle English replenisshen, from Old French replenir, repleniss- : re-, re- + plenir, to fill (from plein, full, from Latin plēnus; see pelə-1 in Indo-European roots).]

re•plen'ish•er n., re•plen'ish•ment n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
replenish
1340, from O.Fr. repleniss-, extended prp. stem of replenir "to fill up," from re-, intensive prefix, + -plenir, from L. plenus "full" (see plenary).


Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
replenish

verb
fill something that had previously been emptied; "refill my glass, please"


WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
replenish [rəˈpleniʃ] verb
to fill up again; to fill up (one's supply of something) again
Example: We must replenish our stock of coal.
Replenish
Plen"ish\, v. t. [See Replenish.]
1. To replenish. [Obs.] --T. Reeve.
2. To furnish; to stock, as a house or farm. [Scot.]
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Replenish
Re*plen"ish\ (r?-pl?n"?sh), v. t. [OE. replenissen, OF. replenir; L. pref. re- re- + plenus full. See Full, -ish, and cf. Replete.]
1. To fill again[I] after having been diminished or emptied; to stock anew; hence, to fill completely; to cause to abound. Multiply and replenish the earth. --Gen. i. 28.
The waters thus With fish replenished, and the air with fowl. --Milton.
2. To finish; to complete; to perfect. [Obs.]
We smothered The most replenished sweet work of nature. --Shak.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Replenish
Re*plen"ish\, v. i. To recover former fullness. [Obs.]
The humors will not replenish so soon. --Bacon.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Replenish
Re*plete"\ (r?-pl?t"), a. [L. repletus, p. p. of replere to fill again, fill up; pref. re- re- + plere to fill, akin to plenus full: cf. F. replet corpulent. See Plenty, Replenish.] Filled again; completely filled; full; charged; abounding. "His words replete with guile." --Milton.
When he of wine was replet at his feast. --Chaucer.
In heads replete with thoughts of other men. --Cowper.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


in all of the above examples there is one weird line that really doensnt fit. every other online dictionary says its to RE fill Re stock exc. but ok what ever it is tech. one of the examples.

[Pandora]

I am curious, do you consider Inteligent Design the same as Creationism?

I do not see them the same. But probably some would. I saw the movie expelled no intelligence allowed. I though it was pretty good. I am glad they exposed to the public what I already knew.

[The Scotsman]

I am curious, do you consider Inteligent Design the same as Creationism?


I thought inteligent design was a term created by the courts as a sort of "fudge" to allow creationism to be taught legally? Thus intelligent design is the same as creasionism just dressed up differently - I think...

Anyway in answer to your question no.

[vyo476]

I was always told that intelligent design is meant as a bridge between creationism and evolution - that while neither theory is mutually exclusive the believers of both sides in practice couldn't reconcile their views with present terminology, so "intelligent design," the idea that God created everything and then natural law, including evolution, took over, was meant as a reconcilliation. If that's the truth of what intelligent design is, it'd be a highly Deist ideal.

[top gun]

Of course allegory is not fact. Not fact, however, does not mean that there is no fundamental truth to it.



I'm sorry but you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the nature of science, or any form of human knowledge, for that matter.

All fields of human inquiry start from a set of axioms. In mathematics --commutative, associative, identity, etc., in physics -- conservation of mass and energy, invariance of the speed of light, causation, etc., in logic -- axiomatic set theory, etc.

Axioms have no formal proof BUT are always true. In fact, NO field of inquiry is possible without one or more axiom at its foundation.

So you see, the natural sciences, mathematics and logic would crumble just as easily as theology and philosophy WHEN YOU NEGATE THEIR UNDERLYING AXIOMS.

With all due respect that's a lot of big words explaining nothing.

It goes without saying that an idea is the beginning of any search. The difference is that with science there is some provable, testable, forward progress in thousands of areas. Whether it be carbon dating or fossilized records... one could go on for days in hard factual evidence leading in a certain direction.

The only fact on the other side is one chooses to believe in it.

I'm a strong believer that anyone should be allowed to spiritually believe in anything they choose. But there is an obvious line that if crossed by a school system does a disservice to its students. Schools in the US aren't exactly setting any world records in math & science as it is. Introducing religion "creationism" as hard science only dumbs us down more. We don't need that. The State Board made the correct call.

[PLC1]

Evolution is based on science.

Creationism is based on philosophy. So is intelligent design.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism, nor for intelligent design other than creation itself. Neither is there any evidence against the existence of a creator. How could there be? Are we to expect science to prove or disprove the existence of God?

There is no fundamental conflict between the idea that life was created and the theory of evolution. Evolution could well be the means by which life was created. That evolution is the way that life came about in the myriads of interdependent forms we see on Earth today has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I believe that god started the whole thing, and most likely did a little tinkering here and there along the way. I can't prove that, of course, but then you can't disprove it either.

[Pandora]

Evolution is based on science.

Creationism is based on philosophy. So is intelligent design.

There is no empirical evidence for creationism, nor for intelligent design other than creation itself. Neither is there any evidence against the existence of a creator. How could there be? Are we to expect science to prove or disprove the existence of God?




If no one is ever allowed to peer review IE then we will never know. I don’t think there is empirical evidence for evolution; it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

There is a difference in creationism and IE IMO. IE doesn’t say there is a god; some believers in IE think our race was genetically changed by intelligent life from other places.

[PLC1]

If no one is ever allowed to peer review IE then we will never know. I don’t think there is empirical evidence for evolution; it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

There is a difference in creationism and IE IMO. IE doesn’t say there is a god; some believers in IE think our race was genetically changed by intelligent life from other places.

IE?

It is not possible to peer review a philosophy.

There is far more evidence for evolution that I could ever begin to post here on this thread. Evolution is the basis for modern biology, for one thing.

Philosophers have two choices: Tailor philosophy to fit scientific knowledge, or ignore the fact and logic and espouse ideas that could not possibly be true.

[Coyote]

Intelligent design starts with the supposition (and acceptance of) some manner of supreme all powerful being.

A being that:

can't be defined
can't be qualified
can't be quantified
can neither be proven nor disproven


Exactly how can this EVER be SCIENCE?

Teach it in Philosophy or Religion.

[The Scotsman]

Intelligent design = Divine Intervention

So who or what are or were the Intelligent Designer(s)?? Could they be God or indeed Gods!! If you read the books of Eric Von Daniken then you could be looking at...........ALIENS!! Which as we all know is total garbage because Daniken was a sandwich short of a picnic.



Personally I believe it was the Goa'uld travelling through the stargate and that Apophis manipulated our genes so that we would believe in him as our true God! JAFA CREE!!


....sorry....back in a second the doorbell just rung.....some odd looking gentlemen in white coats are coming up my dri...................


But then again who's to say that its not Aliens' - prove me wrong!! Yer man Dembski even considered within his writtings "God or Gods" and did not discount Alien intervention!.........total fruitbat!! :rolleyes:

[top gun]

Intelligent design = Divine Intervention

So who or what are or were the Intelligent Designer(s)?? Could they be God or indeed Gods!! If you read the books of Eric Von Daniken then you could be looking at...........ALIENS!! Which as we all know is total garbage because Daniken was a sandwich short of a picnic.



Personally I believe it was the Goa'uld travelling through the stargate and that Apophis manipulated our genes so that we would believe in him as our true God! JAFA CREE!!


....sorry....back in a second the doorbell just rung.....some odd looking gentlemen in white coats are coming up my dri...................


But then again who's to say that its not Aliens' - prove me wrong!! Yer man Dembski even considered within his writtings "God or Gods" and did not discount Alien intervention!.........total fruitbat!! :rolleyes:

You are crackin' me up my friend!:)

But you made a good point (you do know that right... LoL!) While science can't prove everything it does prove many... many... many... things.

In school we should teach things with at least some research value. It's fine to go to the church of your choice for spiritual inspiration and guidance.

Just like it's fine to go to a Star Trek convention for your alien search. (had to get that in there)

Hey, maybe God created evolution... who knows... but there's a place for different things to be taught and church is were the time should be spent searching for spiritual nourishment... not science class.

[Pandora]

IE?

It is not possible to peer review a philosophy.

There is far more evidence for evolution that I could ever begin to post here on this thread. Evolution is the basis for modern biology, for one thing.

Philosophers have two choices: Tailor philosophy to fit scientific knowledge, or ignore the fact and logic and espouse ideas that could not possibly be true.

Sorry about the IE, I was typing fast so I could go help my daughter. I meant ID.

Far more evidence than you could begin to post on here.... ok sounds like you know a lot about evolution so I was wondering if you could explain a couple of things to me.


1st if everything came from one first single cell, where did that cell come from ? or as I am often told we all came from pond scum, so where did that pond scum come from? and what are the mathmatical chances that a male and a female of all the creatures ever having lived and living today evolved enough the same to mate and create a race of what ever they are be.. people, horses exc.

2d. if everything evolved and is still evolving, where are the skeletons of the T rex in its evolutional process. we find hundreds of T Rex skeletions and the funny thing is, they all look like T Rex. none are in the process of becoming something else, or from having been something else. that seems to go for every other skeleton out there. i want to see some skeletons in some part of the process of evolution.

according to fish experts the sturgeon fish has not evolved in 25 million years. but in that same time look how everything else changed completly.

I am sorry but as of yet I have not got the faith to become a believer in this stuff.

[Mare Tranquillity]

It does my heart good to see so many reasonable people dismissing creationism for the nonsense that it is. Predictably there is one person using the same tired rhetoric, large words, poor--but creative--definitions, and a great deal of hot air to argue against science.

The only way that Creationism should be taught is in Comparative Religion and only then along with all the other stories of Creation that people believe. It is telling that the Creationists only want "their" version of Creationism taught--what's wrong with the Hopi version? The Dogon people actually have far more proof of their creation story than the Christians do.

[Pandora]

It does my heart good to see so many reasonable people dismissing creationism for the nonsense that it is. Predictably there is one person using the same tired rhetoric, large words, poor--but creative--definitions, and a great deal of hot air to argue against science.

The only way that Creationism should be taught is in Comparative Religion and only then along with all the other stories of Creation that people believe. It is telling that the Creationists only want "their" version of Creationism taught--what's wrong with the Hopi version? The Dogon people actually have far more proof of their creation story than the Christians do.

Oh I would never EVER EVER want some athiest with an agenda teaching my child ID in schools. Its bad enough to let them teach their "theory" of evolution. I am very happy to keep it out of schools. There is already enough to battle and fix with the warped things they currently teach.


PS I am glad your heart is doing good :)

[numinus]

With all due respect that's a lot of big words explaining nothing.

It goes without saying that an idea is the beginning of any search. The difference is that with science there is some provable, testable, forward progress in thousands of areas. Whether it be carbon dating or fossilized records... one could go on for days in hard factual evidence leading in a certain direction.

The only fact on the other side is one chooses to believe in it.

I'm a strong believer that anyone should be allowed to spiritually believe in anything they choose. But there is an obvious line that if crossed by a school system does a disservice to its students. Schools in the US aren't exactly setting any world records in math & science as it is. Introducing religion "creationism" as hard science only dumbs us down more. We don't need that. The State Board made the correct call.

Truth be told, physical cosmology speculates that the universe came from NOTHING -- couched in the fancy scientific term SPACE-TIME SINGULARITY.

So, science and theology speculates the VERY SAME THING.

[numinus]

Intelligent design starts with the supposition (and acceptance of) some manner of supreme all powerful being.

A being that:

can't be defined
can't be qualified
can't be quantified
can neither be proven nor disproven


Exactly how can this EVER be SCIENCE?

Space time singularities are phenomena that:

has no spatial length
has no time
has infinite (irrational) mass and density

Currently, it is the subject matter of higher mathematics and topology. Where do you suppose it should be taught?

Teach it in Philosophy or Religion.

I agree. It should be taught in philosophy. Although the natural sciences is a philosophical field of inquiry as well.

[numinus]

It does my heart good to see so many reasonable people dismissing creationism for the nonsense that it is. Predictably there is one person using the same tired rhetoric, large words, poor--but creative--definitions, and a great deal of hot air to argue against science.

The only way that Creationism should be taught is in Comparative Religion and only then along with all the other stories of Creation that people believe. It is telling that the Creationists only want "their" version of Creationism taught--what's wrong with the Hopi version? The Dogon people actually have far more proof of their creation story than the Christians do.

I find it hilarious that the people who require everything to be explained in terms of science are the very same people who know very little of science.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I find it hilarious that the people who require everything to be explained in terms of science are the very same people who know very little of science.

You have demonstrated over and over again that you speak with the voice of experience, Nums. Give it a rest, post about something you know about--knitting or dog washing or pan-galactic gargle-blasters, hematicrit levels, spontaneous human combustion, stellar parallax, the collected works of Amy Irving---there must be SOMETHING you know enough about to put together at least one cogent post, isn't there?

[The Scotsman]

This may be a daft question but do all US Schools teach Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as part of a "National Curriculum"? Or is it down to each schools choice if taught or not?

[top gun]

Truth be told, physical cosmology speculates that the universe came from NOTHING -- couched in the fancy scientific term SPACE-TIME SINGULARITY.

So, science and theology speculates the VERY SAME THING.

There is a law of probability my friend that one just cannot escape. Maybe there was always something. All one can really do is learn. However being as there is never anything new on the religious front. There is nothing testable and much of what has been said over the years has been shown to be scientifically incorrect... well there you go.

On the other hand you have a very likely chain of events and things further down the line that absolutely positively link up in a provable scientific way.

Once again "faith" is great. I have no problem with persons of faith and think if that fulfills ones life they should indeed strive for ideas in church or in private clubs with people of like minds.

It's just not something I want in a science or biology class because it is all speculative and varies greatly from one religion to another. Once you open the door will you be fine with the teaching as "science" that people come back to life in various forms depending on how good of a person they were in their previous life? I'm thinking no. But millions of people in India believe this whole heartedly.

Let's leave science to the scientists and keep it as scientific as possible. ;)

[numinus]

You have demonstrated over and over again that you speak with the voice of experience, Nums. Give it a rest, post about something you know about--knitting or dog washing or pan-galactic gargle-blasters, hematicrit levels, spontaneous human combustion, stellar parallax, the collected works of Amy Irving---there must be SOMETHING you know enough about to put together at least one cogent post, isn't there?

Try differential geometry and topology.

Do you know enough of that science you speak of to even begin comprehending this subject matter? Can you even imagine space with a time-dependent scale factor? Or do you need me to simplify relativity for you?

[numinus]

There is a law of probability my friend that one just cannot escape. Maybe there was always something. All one can really do is learn. However being as there is never anything new on the religious front. There is nothing testable and much of what has been said over the years has been shown to be scientifically incorrect... well there you go.

On the other hand you have a very likely chain of events and things further down the line that absolutely positively link up in a provable scientific way.

Once again "faith" is great. I have no problem with persons of faith and think if that fulfills ones life they should indeed strive for ideas in church or in private clubs with people of like minds.

It's just not something I want in a science or biology class because it is all speculative and varies greatly from one religion to another. Once you open the door will you be fine with the teaching as "science" that people come back to life in various forms depending on how good of a person they were in their previous life? I'm thinking no. But millions of people in India believe this whole heartedly.

Let's leave science to the scientists and keep it as scientific as possible. ;)

What are you talking about?

The universe couldn't always have existed.

If you observe the hubble separation, logic will tell you that the universe expanded from a single finite point through a finite amount of time. I'm afraid this isn't something debatable.

That the universe has always existed and will always exist is a fantasy concocted by the materialist idiots who have finally realized the implication of their indefensible philosophy and yet do not have the intellectual integrity to admit their mistake.

Creation IS the only logical conclusion to all cosmological phenomena we are observing today.

[arbitor]

oh, the big bang is fact now? evolution is fact now? last i checked they were theories. they are saying its not okay to teach kids a certain religion but it is okay to teach them that their religion is false. evolution and the big bang theory are theories. they require faith. they are religions whose god is a big cosmic coincidence. if you cant teach creationism you shouldnt be able to teach atheism.

[Coyote]

oh, the big bang is fact now? evolution is fact now? last i checked they were theories. they are saying its not okay to teach kids a certain religion but it is okay to teach them that their religion is false. evolution and the big bang theory are theories. they require faith. they are religions whose god is a big cosmic coincidence. if you cant teach creationism you shouldnt be able to teach atheism.

Evolution is fact and is observable.

The exact details and mechanisms are more theoretical in some cases.

Religion and science are two different things. Many religious people find a way to combine both their faith and rational science into a coherent whole - but not by adhering to a fundamentalist mindset which is what Creationists do.

You are wrong about theories - as has been said many times in this sort of argument, there is a difference between what constitutes a "theory" in general, and "scientific theory" in particular. The latter has to meet a series of hurdles before being accepted as a theory in science.

In terms of what is being taught, I think you are confused. Teaching evolution does not address the existence (or lack there of) of any diety. Evolution address the stage by stage evolution of life from ancient to modern forms as recorded and observed in fossil data, biology, biochemistry, geology and genetics. Religion and philosophy have nothing to do with it.


Something that:
can't be defined
can't be qualified
can't be quantified
can neither be proven nor disproven

can not be evaluated via the scientific method. By definition it is not science and never will be. Why should it be taught in the science classroom?

Or are you seeking a return to some sort of medievil dark ages?

[arbitor]

evolution is not a fact. evolution is a theory, its just that society has blindly accepted it for the mere fact that it is considered the only "scientific" alternetive to religion (despite all the missing evidence). basicly it wins by defult becuase it the only so called scientific theory for our creation. its idiots like you who have forgotten that is not a solid fact. we are missing billions of missing links. the most we have for a chain is 3 or so. that is not enough to asume that they evolved from each other.

[Coyote]

Space time singularities are phenomena that:

has no spatial length
has no time
has infinite (irrational) mass and density

Currently, it is the subject matter of higher mathematics and topology. Where do you suppose it should be taught?


I don't have the knowledge to understand singularities very well - but...higher mathamatics are structured so that they can be proven or disproven correct?

Something that can neither be proven nor disproven can not be answered by the scientific method, so by definition - not science.


I agree. It should be taught in philosophy. Although the natural sciences is a philosophical field of inquiry as well.

I think there is overlap or maybe it's complimentary. For example if you are looking into the origin and nature of life (which isn't really evolution) - you can easily cross over into philosophy. I don't think anyone argues that...but to argue the literal biblical view of creation and a young earth as science doesn't even come close to the definition.

[Coyote]

evolution is not a fact. evolution is a theory,


What is a theory?

What is a scientific theory?


its just that society has blindly accepted it for the mere fact that it is considered the only "scientific" alternetive to religion (despite all the missing evidence).


That's your opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinon (though that doesn't mean it's valid).

Religion and science are two different things. They both seek to explain the world and our place in it through different means.

Religion asks "Why" while Science asks "How".

Why are we here and how did we get here. Why do feel necessary to pretend that religion IS science?

As far as "missing evidence" - of course there are holes, you are looking at billions of years only spottily preserved in the geologic and genetic record.
You are also committing two fallacies:

- lack of evidence (negative evidence) is proof of evidence (postive evidence) for another theory.
- just because a theory is not 100% whole in it's details does not mean it's wrong (you believe in gravity don't you?).

basicly it wins by defult becuase it the only so called scientific theory for our creation.


It wins because it is the theory that BEST answers all of the available evidence thus far. THAT is what makes it science.


its idiots like you who have forgotten that is not a solid fact. we are missing billions of missing links. the most we have for a chain is 3 or so. that is not enough to asume that they evolved from each other.

The fossil record contains millions of examples of links and that's pretty impressive considering that a miniscule miniscule portion of all the species that ever existed were preserved as fossils and out of that tiny proportion an even smaller number have been discovered. For example the horse and the whale (two better known species) have a pretty comprehensive evolutionary trail.

Does creationism offer even close to that? Well, in a way it does but...first we must believe in an all powerful supernatural being that can neither be proved nor disproved nor qualified nor quantified and has no beginning and has no end.... (cough)...


Disclaimer: this does not mean I may not believe in an allpowerful being or three or that it might have something do do with our spiritual inner life - but, I know what is and is not science and I see no reason for religion to masquarade as science in order to validate itself.

[PLC1]

Sorry about the IE, I was typing fast so I could go help my daughter. I meant ID.

Far more evidence than you could begin to post on here.... ok sounds like you know a lot about evolution so I was wondering if you could explain a couple of things to me.


1st if everything came from one first single cell, where did that cell come from ? or as I am often told we all came from pond scum, so where did that pond scum come from? and what are the mathmatical chances that a male and a female of all the creatures ever having lived and living today evolved enough the same to mate and create a race of what ever they are be.. people, horses exc.

2d. if everything evolved and is still evolving, where are the skeletons of the T rex in its evolutional process. we find hundreds of T Rex skeletions and the funny thing is, they all look like T Rex. none are in the process of becoming something else, or from having been something else. that seems to go for every other skeleton out there. i want to see some skeletons in some part of the process of evolution.

according to fish experts the sturgeon fish has not evolved in 25 million years. but in that same time look how everything else changed completly.

I am sorry but as of yet I have not got the faith to become a believer in this stuff.


Probably anyone who has studied biology at one time or another, and who has taken the time to observe the world and how things work could make the statementr that there is a lot more evidence for evolution than could ever be posted on a forum like this one.

Where that first cell came from is unexplained. No one knows, not me, not you, not Charles Darwin himself. I think it was created, but I can't prove than, nor can you prove me wrong. No one knows.

As for dinosaurs, there are many examples of fossil evidence of their having changed gradually through millions of years. Some dinosaurs, we now know, had feathers, giving credence to the hypothesis that they may have evolved into modern birds.

If the sturgeon remained unchanged for millions of years, that is a testamony to the success of the sturgeon. The Ceolacanth is another example of a fish that didn't change for a very long time. Such examples don't mean that other organisms didn't change and aren't continuing to change. Evolution has not stopped. Just ask anyone trying to stay ahead of the pathogens that continue to evolve resistance to our antibiotics.

You don't have to suspend a belief in God to believe in logic and reason. Logic and reason brings an understanding of evolution. "Believing in" evolution is a misnomer, as it makes that theory out to be a religion, which it is not.

[top gun]

What are you talking about?

The universe couldn't always have existed.

If you observe the hubble separation, logic will tell you that the universe expanded from a single finite point through a finite amount of time. I'm afraid this isn't something debatable.

That the universe has always existed and will always exist is a fantasy concocted by the materialist idiots who have finally realized the implication of their indefensible philosophy and yet do not have the intellectual integrity to admit their mistake.

Creation IS the only logical conclusion to all cosmological phenomena we are observing today.

Listen to what I'm saying.

What isn't debatable is Creation theory is religion pure and simple. And it's so silly The Creation Museum itself just randomly shoved dinosaurs into the story of the Ark because the whole comical attempt had so many holes in it. It is all totally made up poppy cock.

Just like I don't want someone teaching the reincarnation in Hinduism as how life is created and recycled... (I.E. that if you're bad in this life you may come back as a fly) as science. Creationism is just as groundless, fictional and expectedly unprovable. :eek:

[arbitor]

Probably anyone who has studied biology at one time or another, and who has taken the time to observe the world and how things work could make the statementr that there is a lot more evidence for evolution than could ever be posted on a forum like this one.

oh thats very convient. "we have evidence but we cant fit it here." oh yeah. thats a valid arguement.

Where that first cell came from is unexplained. No one knows, not me, not you, not Charles Darwin himself. I think it was created, but I can't prove than, nor can you prove me wrong. No one knows.

it is absurd. if you left a pottassium molocule in a giant petri dish, do you honestly beleive that in a couple million years it is going to be anything other than a pottasium molocule. things dont magicaly transform into life.

As for dinosaurs, there are many examples of fossil evidence of their having changed gradually through millions of years. Some dinosaurs, we now know, had feathers, giving credence to the hypothesis that they may have evolved into modern birds.

i have seen those records and they are a JOKE. one is one foot three inches and the next is 5 feet tall. most evidence for a certain chain is no more than a dozen fossils (most are fewer than that). many of them could be from the same species but they are just different sizes. many could have been the same species only they were deformed from thousands of years of being packed under dirt. and many of them could just be different species altogether.

If the sturgeon remained unchanged for millions of years, that is a testamony to the success of the sturgeon. The Ceolacanth is another example of a fish that didn't change for a very long time. Such examples don't mean that other organisms didn't change and aren't continuing to change. Evolution has not stopped. Just ask anyone trying to stay ahead of the pathogens that continue to evolve resistance to our antibiotics.

why is any time you guys see something adapting you assume it is evolution that is at work. animals adapt to situations every day in the wild. for example, a lion lives in a valley were there is a herd of wildibeast. it hunts there daily but one day the beasts are gone. the lion doesnt just sit there. it analyzes the situation and moves on to a different place. of course it wont just sit there. just becuase something is cappable of change that doesnt prove that they can turn into another species altogether. that is your logical flaw.

You don't have to suspend a belief in God to believe in logic and reason. Logic and reason brings an understanding of evolution. "Believing in" evolution is a misnomer, as it makes that theory out to be a religion, which it is not.

im am purplexed by this comment. are you saying that evolution=logic/reason? if so then that is incredibly ignoorant of you. i may disagree but im not saying that you are incappable of reasoning.

[arbitor]

oops i kinda messed up the quote so my comments were mixed in with yours. im sure you can make it out.

[PLC1]

oops i kinda messed up the quote so my comments were mixed in with yours. im sure you can make it out.

Yes, I can make it out.

Your quotes and your spelling are both messed up. That doesn't really detract from what you're posting, though.

Your logic and understanding of evoltion is messed up also, and that does detract from your post.



Here is a link to a serious discussion of evolution on another forum. Read it, get back to us, and I'll forgive you the "incredibily ignorant" comment.

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60126

Here is more: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[Coyote]

im am purplexed by this comment. are you saying that evolution=logic/reason? if so then that is incredibly ignoorant of you. i may disagree but im not saying that you are incappable of reasoning.

The scientific theory of evolution is arrived at through logic and reason based upon available evidence.

The idea that the earth is 6000 years old and some sort of undefinable unproveable supernatural being created everything as is in a one-shot deal...hasn't even a passing aquintance with logic or reason.

[The Scotsman]

The scientific theory of evolution is arrived at through logic and reason based upon available evidence.



....why the hedge? "based upon available evidence" its a fact simple as that.... end of story! The only "creationism" going on is that being conducted by Scientists researching genes, DNA, Stem Cell research and all that malarchy - guess they must be Gods then Huh!! ;)

The idea that the earth is 6000 years old and some sort of undefinable unproveable supernatural being created everything as is in a one-shot deal...hasn't even a passing aquintance with logic or reason.
....or even reality.

Ahhh C'mon...... its kindda neat in a way that people believe in alternative theories such as religious creationism; like love it makes the world go round and all that jazz. But for people to put it up as real and viable reason to disprove reality is just bizzaar.

[top gun]

Ahhh C'mon...... its kindda neat in a way that people believe in alternative theories such as religious creationism; like love it makes the world go round and all that jazz. But for people to put it up as real and viable reason to disprove reality is just bizzaar.

And the funniest things are when the creationist just pull something out of their butt to plug a gap in their fable.

Man eventually finds dinosaur bones. Nothing about that in the Bible or in any of the writings of the time but they had to be there roaming around with man and destroyed at the same time everything else was OR be on Noah's Ark. Says 2 OF EVERY CREATURE was put on the ARK... and there the bones are now just sitting there. So they out of the blue just come up with... OK dinosaurs were on the Ark. WHAT!!! :eek:

Carbon dating. We carbon date provable items all the time. Things that we already know how old they are... very accurately.

We take a bowel that we know is from the time of Jesus... it carbon dates out exactly as expected back a few thousand years.

We take a dinosaurs bone and carbon date it... it comes back millions of years old.

The obvious creationist answer: Well carbon dating only works to about 6000 years back (conveniently the Biblical time line for how old the earth and everything on it is)????????????????????

Yep this is definitely the stuff we want taught to our future scientist. It goes well with the earth is flat and it's not gravity but the hand of God that keeps us from floating off into space. Good stuff! :D

[Mare Tranquillity]

And the funniest things are when the creationist just pull something out of their butt to plug a gap in their fable.

Man eventually finds dinosaur bones. Nothing about that in the Bible or in any of the writings of the time but they had to be there roaming around with man and destroyed at the same time everything else was OR be on Noah's Ark. Says 2 OF EVERY CREATURE was put on the ARK... and there the bones are now just sitting there. So they out of the blue just come up with... OK dinosaurs were on the Ark. WHAT!!! :eek:

Carbon dating. We carbon date provable items all the time. Things that we already know how old they are... very accurately.

We take a bowel that we know is from the time of Jesus... it carbon dates out exactly as expected back a few thousand years.

We take a dinosaurs bone and carbon date it... it comes back millions of years old.

The obvious creationist answer: Well carbon dating only works to about 6000 years back (conveniently the Biblical time line for how old the earth and everything on it is)????????????????????

Yep this is definitely the stuff we want taught to our future scientist. It goes well with the earth is flat and it's not gravity but the hand of God that keeps us from floating off into space. Good stuff! :D

Science has finally figured out how Noah got all those animals on the boat though: Freeze Drying, yep, and when the flood was over Noah dumped them overboard into the receding waters by the bucket load, they reconstituted and here they are. Not the dinos, they were too big and the water receded before they got completely reconstituted, so they died. That's why elephants are so wrinkly, they didn't get fully reconstituted either, but enough to stay alive anyway. You can prove this too: you know how your fingers and toes get wrinkly in water? Well, elephants don't do that, when they are in water they soak up and get really plump like a fresh grape. Try it, get an elephant and soak it a long time, you'll see.

[top gun]

Science has finally figured out how Noah got all those animals on the boat though: Freeze Drying, yep, and when the flood was over Noah dumped them overboard into the receding waters by the bucket load, they reconstituted and here they are. Not the dinos, they were too big and the water receded before they got completely reconstituted, so they died. That's why elephants are so wrinkly, they didn't get fully reconstituted either, but enough to stay alive anyway. You can prove this too: you know how your fingers and toes get wrinkly in water? Well, elephants don't do that, when they are in water they soak up and get really plump like a fresh grape. Try it, get an elephant and soak it a long time, you'll see.

:D That's great! Good to see ya again my friend.

[Coyote]

....why the hedge? "based upon available evidence" its a fact simple as that.... end of story!

Not meant to be a hedge - I didn't word it correctly. Scientific theories are theories that best explain a phenomena based on all available evidence - when that evidence changes, theories change to accommodate it. Evidence is examine first...then the theory is build upon that evidence.

That's unlike the "theory" of "Creationism" which starts out as a fully fledged theory and then they scramble to peice together evidence to support it (and that "evidence" usually consists of as yet unanswered questions in evolution - negative evidence). That's anti-science.


The only "creationism" going on is that being conducted by Scientists researching genes, DNA, Stem Cell research and all that malarchy - guess they must be Gods then Huh!! ;)


I could be a good creationist. I'm very creative. I have my own theory about all this but when I ever I state it they just point their fingers and laugh hysterically. Wonder why? Silly creationists don't believe in the Great Coyote.



....or even reality.

Ahhh C'mon...... its kindda neat in a way that people believe in alternative theories such as religious creationism; like love it makes the world go round and all that jazz. But for people to put it up as real and viable reason to disprove reality is just bizzaar.

There's lots of good creation stories...we could pick and choose :p

Just don't call it science...

[top gun]

Not meant to be a hedge - I didn't word it correctly. Scientific theories are theories that best explain a phenomena based on all available evidence - when that evidence changes, theories change to accommodate it. Evidence is examine first...then the theory is build upon that evidence.

That's unlike the "theory" of "Creationism" which starts out as a fully fledged theory and then they scramble to peice together evidence to support it (and that "evidence" usually consists of as yet unanswered questions in evolution - negative evidence). That's anti-science.



I could be a good creationist. I'm very creative. I have my own theory about all this but when I ever I state it they just point their fingers and laugh hysterically. Wonder why? Silly creationists don't believe in the Great Coyote.




There's lots of good creation stories...we could pick and choose :p

Just don't call it science...

Very rational thought process my friend. Hey one could even say God created evolution if they wanted to be spiritual and speculative about it.

But the science starts at evolution.

[Coyote]

Very rational thought process my friend. Hey one could even say God created evolution if they wanted to be spiritual and speculative about it.

But the science starts at evolution.

EXACTLY!!! There is no reason why evolution might not be God's tool for the development of life, and that is why I say religion - as in spirituality, need not be antagonistic to science. It's when you run up against fundamentalism that you run into serious problems with rantionality:(

[PLC1]

Very rational thought process my friend. Hey one could even say God created evolution if they wanted to be spiritual and speculative about it.

But the science starts at evolution.

It's quite possible that god did create evolution, or at least use it as a tool to create life. There is no scientific basis for that statement, of course, since creationism of any sort is by definition not in the realm of science, but of metaphisics.

It is interesting to see the mental gymnastics performed by those who seem to believe that a belief in god requires a denial of evolution.

Here's an idea to help out with those mental gymnastics and explain how the findings of modern science don't have to be denied after all:

All those animals from the seven continents (at least five of them unknown at the time of Noah) were gathered by the hand of God and one single cell of each preserved for the Ark. After the flood, God cloned all of the animals back to life, using the DNA that was preserved, ala Jurassic Park, then transported them (again by the hand of God) back to their native habitats on those unknown continents. Does that seem far fetched? Why, yes, yes it does, but not as far fetched as believing that the creation myths of the Bible are to be taken as literal historical fact at the expense of modern science.

[numinus]

I don't have the knowledge to understand singularities very well - but...higher mathamatics are structured so that they can be proven or disproven correct?

Correct.

Something that can neither be proven nor disproven can not be answered by the scientific method, so by definition - not science.

Proof isn't the same as evidence. There is proof that the square root of 2 is a real number (irrational number). It exists between the numbers 1 and 2. And yet, you cannot point to its actual position on a ruler, can you?

Same can be said about the infinite number of transcendental numbers (like pi and e). They are transcendental numbers whether you look at them in base 2, base 10 or base n number system.

Same can be said about creationism simply because the idea that the universe came from nothing is so counter-intuitive and abhorrent to logic.

I think there is overlap or maybe it's complimentary. For example if you are looking into the origin and nature of life (which isn't really evolution) - you can easily cross over into philosophy. I don't think anyone argues that...but to argue the literal biblical view of creation and a young earth as science doesn't even come close to the definition.

They are complimentary in that the operation of logic in all of them is the same.

[numinus]

Listen to what I'm saying.

What isn't debatable is Creation theory is religion pure and simple. And it's so silly The Creation Museum itself just randomly shoved dinosaurs into the story of the Ark because the whole comical attempt had so many holes in it. It is all totally made up poppy cock.

Just like I don't want someone teaching the reincarnation in Hinduism as how life is created and recycled... (I.E. that if you're bad in this life you may come back as a fly) as science. Creationism is just as groundless, fictional and expectedly unprovable. :eek:

Please don't make me repeat what I have just said.

Creationism is an umbrella term to describe philosophical cosmology. While I share your disdain regarding this young-earth nonsense, it simply isn't representative of what an academic understanding of creationism is all about.

Try reading the cosmological argument and its many variations. There is nothing religious about it, btw.

[numinus]

Very rational thought process my friend. Hey one could even say God created evolution if they wanted to be spiritual and speculative about it.

But the science starts at evolution.

Isn't that exactly the idea behind the FIRST CAUSE -- that the first cause is the cause of EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING?

In the beginning, there was void.....

[arbitor]

amen brother. and plc1, that source you gave me was biased. the evidence was crap. three fossils huh? thats TOTALY enough evidence to prove millions of years of evolution. in millions of years the changes would be gradual and minor. you would see a greater gradual change that took place over millions of years. that evidence was pathetic and the people who made the site obviously thought in their minds from the begining that evolution is fact and undeniable. next time give me a NONbiased source. also i do have an understanding of evolution.


P.S. christians dont beleive the world is 6000 years old. that is a lie. most of us beleive it is around 20,000 years old. dont put words in our mouths.

[9sublime]

He was saying creationists believe it was 6,000 years old - those who believe in "intelligent" (lol) design can believe what they like.

[PLC1]

He was saying creationists believe it was 6,000 years old - those who believe in "intelligent" (lol) design can believe what they like.

I suppose it's as easy to believe in the 20,000 year old myth as it is the 6,000 year old one. Hey, just pick a number. Forget about all that science crap, carbon dating and such. I say it's exactly 31,567 years and 21 days old. God told me. Now, prove me wrong as I ignore any scientific evidence you may produce.:rolleyes:

[top gun]

Isn't that exactly the idea behind the FIRST CAUSE -- that the first cause is the cause of EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING?

In the beginning, there was void.....

I said one "could" even say... but I personally don't believe it.

Researching creationist theory such as in the highly publicized and laughable "Creation Museum" they go off in all kinds of tangents. When I find something I believe is provable as a deception I tend not to believe other variations around the same theme... unless some hard evidence appeared of course.

Hey people should believe whatever makes them happy. I just don't see creation theory as anything but a thinly veiled religious explanation.

Just my take... :)

[top gun]

I suppose it's as easy to believe in the 20,000 year old myth as it is the 6,000 year old one. Hey, just pick a number. Forget about all that science crap, carbon dating and such. I say it's exactly 31,567 years and 21 days old. God told me. Now, prove me wrong as I ignore any scientific evidence you may produce.:rolleyes:

Well if around 6000 years old isn't the number then someone had better pick up the phone and call a whole bunch of TV Evangelists.

I've only heard that silliness about 100 times. Every time a show on the galaxy or dinosaurs or fossils or rock formations or anything and everything in the study of any science comes on TV...

I LoL and yell out to my girlfriend... How can that be 3 million years old the whole earth is only 6000 years old damn it!!! :D

[numinus]

I said one "could" even say... but I personally don't believe it.

Researching creationist theory such as in the highly publicized and laughable "Creation Museum" they go off in all kinds of tangents. When I find something I believe is provable as a deception I tend not to believe other variations around the same theme... unless some hard evidence appeared of course.

Hey people should believe whatever makes them happy. I just don't see creation theory as anything but a thinly veiled religious explanation.

Just my take... :)

When you think of all physical phenomena as FINITE AND CONTINGENT, as the natural sciences do, then the proof of creation becomes plain.

A phenomena that is contingent can either exist or not exist. That the universe exists at this very moment suggests that it could very well not exist at all, yes?

Since something cannot come from nothing (or you might want to phrase that the way the principle of conservation of matter and energy does), then the conclusion becomes inescapable -- the universe is CREATED.

Hard evidence enough for you?

[top gun]

Since something cannot come from nothing (or you might want to phrase that the way the principle of conservation of matter and energy does), then the conclusion becomes inescapable -- the universe is CREATED.

Hard evidence enough for you?

No I'm sorry but it's really not. We don't know... nobody knows how everything began. Through exploration, science and technology we've learned much... but not all. And we've learned that many things that were once firmly established as the way God created it or things attributed to an act of God to really be explainable scientific phenomenon. The world is flat state of mind.

You yourself run into the same argument you present with "you can't get something from nothing". If a God created everything... where did God come from? The answer is the same as the assumption in science... just always been.

Possibly the most basic elements in the universe just eventually matched up in a way that evolution from the most basic organisms to today became possible over millions or billions of years... we don't know.

But I still believe whole heartedly that creationism is an attempt to explain the unknown through a religious prism without any back up or test... before, during or after. It's not science and should not be taught in the context of being science. I'm in favor of church for creationism study.

[Coyote]

P.S. christians dont beleive the world is 6000 years old. that is a lie. most of us beleive it is around 20,000 years old. dont put words in our mouths.

6,000 or 20,000....when the reality is billions either figure is ludicrous.

[Coyote]

When you think of all physical phenomena as FINITE AND CONTINGENT, as the natural sciences do, then the proof of creation becomes plain.

A phenomena that is contingent can either exist or not exist. That the universe exists at this very moment suggests that it could very well not exist at all, yes?

Since something cannot come from nothing (or you might want to phrase that the way the principle of conservation of matter and energy does), then the conclusion becomes inescapable -- the universe is CREATED.

Hard evidence enough for you?

Numinus - is your idea of "creation" defined by the the creation of whatever began the universe? Something from nothing? Because...if so...I don't think that is what Creationists or even ID'ers are arguing - they are arguing an intellegence guiding the development of all life, including the creation of all species as they currently are.

And who then created the creator?

Why even, does it have to be viewed as a linear cycle beginning at creation? Maybe the universe always was? Maybe it is an endless cycle of birth-death-rebirth out of death? No beginning?

[Coyote]

hmmm...maybe the universe is God's body.

[arbitor]

6,000 or 20,000....when the reality is billions either figure is ludicrous.

once again you sit there and say "we are right youre wrong. the end" you state your beliefs as "reality." why are you on a debate forum when you arent even willing to debate? all youre cappable is saying "we're right becuase we have the most popular belief." you know what? you claim that us "religiuos nuts" have no evidence and all we do is say we're right but youre no better.

[arbitor]

And who then created the creator?

nobody. it is beyond our comprehension. do you honestly think humans can ever truly know everything?

Why even, does it have to be viewed as a linear cycle beginning at creation? Maybe the universe always was? Maybe it is an endless cycle of birth-death-rebirth out of death? No beginning?[/QUOTE]

then try to explain the soul. oh yeah, i forgot. you must not beleive in the soul and you probably think that all we are, are biological robots that think we have a soul when in reality all we are is a temporary chemical reaction in the infinate cosmos. thats comforting. i think i will stick with trusting god. not only becuase it is easier to beleive but it can explain everything in existence. all atheism can lead to is a world without morals. we are here for a reason. thats what i beleive. science cannot explain the universe or existence and it never will.

[9sublime]

And who then created the creator?

nobody. it is beyond our comprehension. do you honestly think humans can ever truly know everything?

Argh! Your so close to understand why I reject organized, man made religion all together! If we are unable to comprehed the creator, why have you chosen to believe you can and follow a religion!? Don't you see the contradictory flaw?

You don't know ANYTHING about the afterlife, NOBODY does. Instead you have chosen to follow what other humans around you, namely your elders tell you, and follow a man made religion, CHRISTIANITY.

then try to explain the soul. oh yeah, i forgot. you must not beleive in the soul and you probably think that all we are, are biological robots that think we have a soul when in reality all we are is a temporary chemical reaction in the infinate cosmos. thats comforting.

It doesn't matter if its comforting or not - sometimes the truth isn't comforting - are you saying you are willing to reject the truth and make believe something to make it more comforting?

Anyway, I'm not saying we don't have a soul, I'm saying its beyond our knowledge and comprehension, like you have stated above, so saying we do or we dont is only an assumption.

i think i will stick with trusting god. not only becuase it is easier to beleive but it can explain everything in existence. all atheism can lead to is a world without morals. we are here for a reason. thats what i beleive. science cannot explain the universe or existence and it never will.

But why do you believe there is a God if you admit that very knowledge is beyond our comprehension? Because its easier to believe? So you admit you are willing to believe in lies if its easier? I think deep down, you are actually an agnostic judging by this post and you have just taken pascal up on his wager.

I'm an athiest/agnostic, and I live a moral life; probably more moral than many so called Christians. Explain that.

Christanity does not explain existence, it fabricates a story to fill the void of knowledge about existence.

[top gun]

Argh! Your so close to understand why I reject organized, man made religion all together! If we are unable to comprehed the creator, why have you chosen to believe you can and follow a religion!? Don't you see the contradictory flaw?

You don't know ANYTHING about the afterlife, NOBODY does. Instead you have chosen to follow what other humans around you, namely your elders tell you, and follow a man made religion, CHRISTIANITY.



But why do you believe there is a God if you admit that very knowledge is beyond our comprehension? Because its easier to believe? So you admit you are willing to believe in lies if its easier? I think deep down, you are actually an agnostic judging by this post and you have just taken pascal up on his wager.

I'm an athiest/agnostic, and I live a moral life; probably more moral than many so called Christians. Explain that.

Christanity does not explain existence, it fabricates a story to fill the void of knowledge about existence.


Very realistic synopsis and I agree with you totally.

One works hard at living a good and moral life yet because they won't buy into a man made religious sect and all the theory and proselytizing that comes along with it... they're somehow not as deep or need a spiritual answer to everything thrust upon them.

Religion and creationist theory has it's place... and that place is in a church of ones choice. It's not like they're hard to find or join. School should be a neutral environment not hocking any particular religious view.

[PLC1]

I'm an athiest/agnostic, and I live a moral life; probably more moral than many so called Christians. Explain that.

An athiest believes that there is no god.
An agnostic says (admits?) that he does not know.

Neither an atheist nor a theist can prove themselves correct.

I think there are a lot more agnostics than will admit it. As you said, none of us really knows.

But, if you really don't believe in religion, how do you measure who is more moral than someone else? Where does your moral code come from?

[top gun]

An athiest believes that there is no god.
An agnostic says (admits?) that he does not know.

Neither an atheist nor a theist can prove themselves correct.

I think there are a lot more agnostics than will admit it. As you said, none of us really knows.

But, if you really don't believe in religion, how do you measure who is more moral than someone else? Where does your moral code come from?


You don't have to be in any particular religious group to know right from wrong... good from bad... kindness from meanness. A person knows how they would want to be treated.

[top gun]

An athiest believes that there is no god.
An agnostic says (admits?) that he does not know.

Neither an atheist nor a theist can prove themselves correct.

I think there are a lot more agnostics than will admit it. As you said, none of us really knows.

But, if you really don't believe in religion, how do you measure who is more moral than someone else? Where does your moral code come from?


You don't have to be in any particular religious group to know right from wrong... good from bad... kindness from meanness. A person knows how they would want to be treated... right? :)

[Mare Tranquillity]

Argh! Your so close to understand why I reject organized, man made religion all together! If we are unable to comprehed the creator, why have you chosen to believe you can and follow a religion!? Don't you see the contradictory flaw?

You don't know ANYTHING about the afterlife, NOBODY does. Instead you have chosen to follow what other humans around you, namely your elders tell you, and follow a man made religion, CHRISTIANITY.

But why do you believe there is a God if you admit that very knowledge is beyond our comprehension? Because its easier to believe? So you admit you are willing to believe in lies if its easier? I think deep down, you are actually an agnostic judging by this post and you have just taken pascal up on his wager.

I'm an athiest/agnostic, and I live a moral life; probably more moral than many so called Christians. Explain that.

Christanity does not explain existence, it fabricates a story to fill the void of knowledge about existence.

Most people are happier believing a comfortable lie than confronting an uncomfortable truth.

[The Scotsman]

School should be a neutral environment not hocking any particular religious view.

http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-638.gif (http://planetsmilies.net) That's the point.

[numinus]

No I'm sorry but it's really not. We don't know... nobody knows how everything began. Through exploration, science and technology we've learned much... but not all. And we've learned that many things that were once firmly established as the way God created it or things attributed to an act of God to really be explainable scientific phenomenon. The world is flat state of mind.

Haven't you gotten the jist of cosmology by now?

A space-time singularity is something that HAS NO MEASUREABLE MASS, SPATIAL DIMENSION NOR TIME -- the fundamental units upon which ALL PHYSICAL PHENOMENA ARE DEPENDENT ON.

How can such a 'thing' become the subject of scientific investigation, eh?

You yourself run into the same argument you present with "you can't get something from nothing". If a God created everything... where did God come from? The answer is the same as the assumption in science... just always been.

Of course not.

The creator is a NECESSARY EXISTENCE. If a contingent existence is something that may or may not exist, a necessary existence, by definition, COULD NOT NOT EXIST.

Notice that for all physical phenomena to be rational, it is imperative that we postulate necessary existence first.

Same can be said about axioms in both mathematics and set theory. LOGIC IS AXIOMATIC, as demonstrated by bertrand russell in his solution to the barber's paradox.

Possibly the most basic elements in the universe just eventually matched up in a way that evolution from the most basic organisms to today became possible over millions or billions of years... we don't know.

The thing is, we do know.

Einstein's field equation derived from general relativity, independently confirmed by the russian physicist freidmann, and scientifically verified by numerous astronomical observations, shows that the presence of all matter and energy in the universe will eventually collapse on itself under the influence of its own gravity -- unless a tensile energy (cosmological constant, vacuum energy, lambda, or whatever else you wish to call such a thing) counters this tendency.

At that point where it collapses on itself, the point of singularity, is the point beyond which the laws of mathematics and physics breaks down.

It is like the function f(x)=1/x approaches infinity as x approaches 0. 1/0 does not exist in mathematics although this fact does not stop us from contemplating the behaviour of a function as it approaches 1/0. That's what calculus is for.

Understand?

But I still believe whole heartedly that creationism is an attempt to explain the unknown through a religious prism without any back up or test... before, during or after. It's not science and should not be taught in the context of being science. I'm in favor of church for creationism study.



I said -- read the cosmological argument and its many variations. It's a 4 line informal argument, for pete's sake.

Is there anything in its proof that remotely suggests theology, hmmm?

[numinus]

Numinus - is your idea of "creation" defined by the the creation of whatever began the universe? Something from nothing? Because...if so...I don't think that is what Creationists or even ID'ers are arguing - they are arguing an intellegence guiding the development of all life, including the creation of all species as they currently are.

The cosmological argument was put forth by saint thomas acquainas in the 10th(?) century. Who do you think claims the distinction of 'creationism or intelligent design'?

And who then created the creator?

The first cause is both INFINITE AND INCONTINGENT. That is the conclusion derived from the cosmological argument.

Why even, does it have to be viewed as a linear cycle beginning at creation? Maybe the universe always was? Maybe it is an endless cycle of birth-death-rebirth out of death? No beginning?

Because the math and observations do not support a cyclic universe model.

[numinus]

Argh! Your so close to understand why I reject organized, man made religion all together! If we are unable to comprehed the creator, why have you chosen to believe you can and follow a religion!? Don't you see the contradictory flaw?

You don't know ANYTHING about the afterlife, NOBODY does. Instead you have chosen to follow what other humans around you, namely your elders tell you, and follow a man made religion, CHRISTIANITY.



But why do you believe there is a God if you admit that very knowledge is beyond our comprehension? Because its easier to believe? So you admit you are willing to believe in lies if its easier? I think deep down, you are actually an agnostic judging by this post and you have just taken pascal up on his wager.

I'm an athiest/agnostic, and I live a moral life; probably more moral than many so called Christians. Explain that.

Christanity does not explain existence, it fabricates a story to fill the void of knowledge about existence.

Of course not.

We believe creationism because it is INTUITIVELY TRUE.

Its opposite, that the universe has and will always exist, is the proposition that stretches the limits of logic and challenges human credulity.

[numinus]

hmmm...maybe the universe is God's body.

Or god's dream.

If you're into these kinds of speculation, you'd probably enjoy sophie's world. The ending is totally unexpected.

[arbitor]

Argh! Your so close to understand why I reject organized, man made religion all together! If we are unable to comprehed the creator, why have you chosen to believe you can and follow a religion!? Don't you see the contradictory flaw?

we can comprehend that he created us and listen to his influence in our lives and have faith in him. that is enough. we would be equal to him if we could fully understand him. there is no logical flaw in this idiology.

You don't know ANYTHING about the afterlife, NOBODY does. Instead you have chosen to follow what other humans around you, namely your elders tell you, and follow a man made religion, CHRISTIANITY.

we have no record of who "invented" christianity. it has existed throughout all recorded history. explain that.



But why do you believe there is a God if you admit that very knowledge is beyond our comprehension? Because its easier to believe? So you admit you are willing to believe in lies if its easier? I think deep down, you are actually an agnostic judging by this post and you have just taken pascal up on his wager.

the knowlege of what exactly god is, is beyond our comprehension, but that doesnt mean he doesnt exist. we can see intelligent design all around us. have you ever heard of bodes law?

I'm an athiest/agnostic, and I live a moral life; probably more moral than many so called Christians. Explain that.

why? why do you live a moral life when there is no point to existence and there are no written morals in science and evolution other than survival of the fittest? dont you know where morals come from? they come from philosophy and religion. if you say they come from science than all respect i have for you would be annialated, becuase that statement would be absurd.

Christanity does not explain existence, it fabricates a story to fill the void of knowledge about existence.

so does science.

[9sublime]

One works hard at living a good and moral life yet because they won't buy into a man made religious sect and all the theory and proselytizing that comes along with it... they're somehow not as deep or need a spiritual answer to everything thrust upon them.


A quote worthy of a famous historical figure.

[PLC1]

You don't have to be in any particular religious group to know right from wrong... good from bad... kindness from meanness. A person knows how they would want to be treated... right? :)

Yes, of course. Treating other people the way you want to be treated is from the Christian Bible. Other religions have other moral codes.

If you don't believe in god, why follow god's moral code?

[Here We Go]

Of course, people have the right not to believe in God. I am not a religeous fanatic but reading stuff like this hurts my soul. I feel sorry for those who do not believe in God but that's their business. How lost I would feel if I thought there was nothing after the "dirt nap". :o

[numinus]

Yes, of course. Treating other people the way you want to be treated is from the Christian Bible. Other religions have other moral codes.

If you don't believe in god, why follow god's moral code?

Because god's moral code is imbued with supreme reason which can be discerned by rational beings.

No one is obliged to follow a religious dogma when such dogma contradicts his own reason and conscience. Certainly not catholics, anyway.

[arbitor]

you know niminus, even though i totally disagree with you about capital punishment im glad to have your asistance in this debate.

you atheists are in a state of DENIAL. you just keep on lying to yourselves and saying that you dont get your moral codes from religion. there are NO morals in evolution and in science. if the morals are already written in your subconscious than isnt that just proof of a creator?

[PLC1]

you know niminus, even though i totally disagree with you about capital punishment im glad to have your asistance in this debate.

you atheists are in a state of DENIAL. you just keep on lying to yourselves and saying that you dont get your moral codes from religion. there are NO morals in evolution and in science. if the morals are already written in your subconscious than isnt that just proof of a creator?

I'm not an athiest (check my posts), and you have just articulated my point: Moral values are a religious concept.

Is it possible, then, to buy into the Christian value of the golden rule, while denying Christianity? I'm just asking.

[top gun]

Yes, of course. Treating other people the way you want to be treated is from the Christian Bible. Other religions have other moral codes.

If you don't believe in god, why follow god's moral code?

It's a which came first the chicken or the egg explanation.

I believe that man was able to understand what was right and wrong by how things felt when done to him or his. Religion was man's way to incorporate and ritualized these ideas.

Actually if you look at how such a wide & various range of religions started up all over the earth it is reasonable to conclude that "religion" was used to hold various groups or tribes together with a set of formalized rules almost like an early legal system. Plus it gave early man something every tribe would want over every competing tribe... God on their side... Christian v. Muslim etc.

So to answer your question directly. I don't see it as God's moral code. I see it as various religious sects taking what they knew was good and attributing it to God.

[PLC1]

It's a which came first the chicken or the egg explanation.

I believe that man was able to understand what was right and wrong by how things felt when done to him or his. Religion was man's way to incorporate and ritualized these ideas.

Actually if you look at how such a wide & various range of religions started up all over the earth it is reasonable to conclude that "religion" was used to hold various groups or tribes together with a set of formalized rules almost like an early legal system. Plus it gave early man something every tribe would want over every competing tribe... God on their side... Christian v. Muslim etc.

So to answer your question directly. I don't see it as God's moral code. I see it as various religious sects taking what they knew was good and attributing it to God.


That makes sense, but not every culture has the same moral code. How did people decide what was right and wrong in the first place?

[numinus]

I'm not an athiest (check my posts), and you have just articulated my point: Moral values are a religious concept.

Not at all.

Morality is merely the FIXED yardstick by which the value of human actions are measured.

To say that morality is relative is simply absurd. It is tantamount to saying that there is no morality, and that good and evil are merely functions of one's own sentiment.

But, we, as human beings, have an intuitive knowledge of what is good or evil, no? In fact, I cannot imagine human existence without it.

Is it possible, then, to buy into the Christian value of the golden rule, while denying Christianity? I'm just asking.

The golden rule isn't an exclusively christian value. The major religions of the world has some form of the golden rule incorporated in them.

To answer your question -- of course you can abide by the golden rule and reject christianity. What makes christianity a distinct theology is not the golden rule.

[numinus]

It's a which came first the chicken or the egg explanation.

I believe that man was able to understand what was right and wrong by how things felt when done to him or his. Religion was man's way to incorporate and ritualized these ideas.

Actually if you look at how such a wide & various range of religions started up all over the earth it is reasonable to conclude that "religion" was used to hold various groups or tribes together with a set of formalized rules almost like an early legal system. Plus it gave early man something every tribe would want over every competing tribe... God on their side... Christian v. Muslim etc.

So to answer your question directly. I don't see it as God's moral code. I see it as various religious sects taking what they knew was good and attributing it to God.

I beg to disagree.

A moral good is merely a COMMAND OF REASON. In this sense, the theology of st thomas acquainas overlap abundantly with the secular moral philosophy of kant.

What made christianity revolutionary during its conception is the assertion that the creator is both pure love and pure reason. This paved the way to the inexorable union of secular morality with the realm of the spiritual.

[numinus]

That makes sense, but not every culture has the same moral code. How did people decide what was right and wrong in the first place?

Because it is imbedded in the order of creation, in the same way that rational laws are imbedded in the motion of all things.

The truth is, all rational human beings have an intuitive foreknowledge of good and evil. The fact that this manifests differently in different cultures does not detract from its truth.

[PLC1]

Because it is imbedded in the order of creation, in the same way that rational laws are imbedded in the motion of all things.

The truth is, all rational human beings have an intuitive foreknowledge of good and evil. The fact that this manifests differently in different cultures does not detract from its truth.

Then, the Islamic fanatic who believes he will go to heaven by slaying as many infidels as possible does so out of an intuitive forreknowledge of good and evil?

Actions like honor killings and stoning of sinners are also due to that same intuitive foreknowledge. Of course, I see your point now.

[numinus]

Then, the Islamic fanatic who believes he will go to heaven by slaying as many infidels as possible does so out of an intuitive forreknowledge of good and evil?

Actions like honor killings and stoning of sinners are also due to that same intuitive foreknowledge. Of course, I see your point now.

Eh?

I said a moral good is a command of reason.

What exactly in honor killings and stoning to death would make you believe that they are commands of reason, hmmm?

[PLC1]

Eh?

I said a moral good is a command of reason.

What exactly in honor killings and stoning to death would make you believe that they are commands of reason, hmmm?

You also said:

The truth is, all rational human beings have an intuitive foreknowledge of good and evil. The fact that this manifests differently in different cultures does not detract from its truth.

[top gun]

That makes sense, but not every culture has the same moral code. How did people decide what was right and wrong in the first place?

The same way we come up with new laws in society all the time. Something bad happens... it affects people in some way... we come up with a way to avoid it in the future and/or penalize people from doing it through some type of punishment.

Actually that's why you see such a wide range of religious consequences. Because the world wasn't just Christian based. It like all religions started in a spot and spread out from there.

In some religions they still believe in cutting off a finger or a hand for things like stealing. (Boy... that makes the don't steal statement huh... :eek:)

[top gun]

I beg to disagree.

A moral good is merely a COMMAND OF REASON. In this sense, the theology of st thomas acquainas overlap abundantly with the secular moral philosophy of kant.

What made christianity revolutionary during its conception is the assertion that the creator is both pure love and pure reason. This paved the way to the inexorable union of secular morality with the realm of the spiritual.

Christianity itself obviously isn't the guide for moral right & wrong everywhere... there are many paths that have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity contains information that has it's way to go down a path to some moral values. But one can also be extremely moral and not be Christian at all.

Native Americans had a set of morals before the white man came and brought Christianity. Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Jews and even Scientologists all have their own pathways to moral values.

And for that matter one needs no formal religion at all to have morals. You don't need religion to know not to steal or kill or bare false witness etc. because an intelligent human being can on their own form an understanding of how that would feel if same was inflicted onto them.

Morals evolved from human experiences. All religion did was take those experiences, catalog & preach them.

[The Scotsman]

Some further reading for you from New Scientist

.................................................. ..........................................

Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science – and especially evolutionary biology – tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.

US courts have repeatedly decreed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science, and have no place in school science classrooms. But no matter what courts and school boards decree, it is up to teachers to put the curriculum into practice.

"Ultimately, they are the ones who carry it out," says Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

But what teachers actually teach about evolution and creationism in their classrooms is a bit of a grey area, so Berkman and his colleagues decided to conduct the first-ever national survey on the subject.

'Not shocking'

The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.

However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% – about 12.5% of the total survey – said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".

Science teaching experts say they are not surprised to find such a large number of science teachers advocating creationism.

"It seems a bit high, but I am not shocked by it," says Linda Froschauer, past president of the National Science Teachers Association based in Arlington, Virginia. "We do know there's a problem out there, and this gives more credibility to the issue."

Better training

When Berkman's team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number, 16% of the total, said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years.

Teachers who subscribed to these young-Earth creationist views, perhaps not surprisingly, spent 35% fewer hours teaching evolution than other teachers, the survey revealed.

The survey also showed that teachers who had taken more science courses themselves – and especially those who had taken a course in evolutionary biology – devoted more class time to evolution than teachers with weaker science backgrounds.

This may be because better-prepared teachers are more confident in dealing with students' questions about a sensitive subject, says Berkman, who notes that requiring all science teachers to take a course in evolutionary biology could have a big impact on the teaching of evolution in the schools.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_dn13930
.................................................. ..............................................

One assumes that there needs to be a stricter oversight from school principals over their departments! If the curriculum requirements are being infringed then surely these "Science" teachers need to be taken out and either trained or dismissed.......or moved to Religious Education classes!

[numinus]

You also said:

Exactly what part of my posts suggests to you that honor killings and stoning to death are moral goods, hmmm?

[numinus]

Christianity itself obviously isn't the guide for moral right & wrong everywhere... there are many paths that have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity contains information that has it's way to go down a path to some moral values. But one can also be extremely moral and not be Christian at all.

Native Americans had a set of morals before the white man came and brought Christianity. Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Jews and even Scientologists all have their own pathways to moral values.

And for that matter one needs no formal religion at all to have morals. You don't need religion to know not to steal or kill or bare false witness etc. because an intelligent human being can on their own form an understanding of how that would feel if same was inflicted onto them.

Morals evolved from human experiences. All religion did was take those experiences, catalog & preach them.

While I am inclined to agree with everything you said in principle, there is really no need to belittle the contributions of theology to human knowledge.

What the secular moral philosophy of kant calls a categorical imperative is simply st thomas' divine law in summa theologia. And while kant used logical rigor to arrive at the categorical imperative, st thomas started with the unwavering faith in the existence of the creator to discern his divine law.

Two paths towards the same conclusion. Your choice.

[top gun]

While I am inclined to agree with everything you said in principle, there is really no need to belittle the contributions of theology to human knowledge.

What the secular moral philosophy of kant calls a categorical imperative is simply st thomas' divine law in summa theologia. And while kant used logical rigor to arrive at the categorical imperative, st thomas started with the unwavering faith in the existence of the creator to discern his divine law.

Two paths towards the same conclusion. Your choice.

I apologize if it appeared I was belittling the contributions of theology. That was not my intent. I feel that there has been importance in explaining & organizing the good & bad, right & wrong that make up moral values.

I believe whole heartedly that everyone should take some time to research & explore a wide range of varying religions and their teachings. I feel it gives one better perspective as to if they really relate to any particular religion.

Or if they come away with so many doubts that they really don't want to participate in any formal religion. Some people remain spiritual in their own private way... others just don't believe in any of it.

I'm big on... to each his own... so I hope we're good. :)

[PLC1]

Exactly what part of my posts suggests to you that honor killings and stoning to death are moral goods, hmmm?

Go back and check it for yourself. I'm tired of doing your homework for you.

[PLC1]

.................................................. ..............................................

One assumes that there needs to be a stricter oversight from school principals over their departments! If the curriculum requirements are being infringed then surely these "Science" teachers need to be taken out and either trained or dismissed.......or moved to Religious Education classes!

But, how many of the principals also subscribe to the young earth fantasy, and how many are intimidated by the number of parents who do?

[numinus]

Go back and check it for yourself. I'm tired of doing your homework for you.

I know my own posts. There is nothing in what I said that remotely suggests what you are saying.