|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by Antonio Wright:
I am going to have to disagree. I personally believe that both should taught in the classroom because both are theories. It is not fair to only hear one side of the argument.
Awesome Ant! I totally agree about equal time in public schools.
Simple fact is that if students had to be taught every side of every argument, no one would ever leave school. If we make it so that you have to give equal time to both those theories I want you to give equal time to my theory too, and some other kid's parents will want you to give equal time to their belief. And then I want you to do it for every single subject you cover. It'd make for a GREAT education, but an endless one. You could go on forever on a single subject.
School curiculum is focused on teaching the leading belief of the expert community on the subject at that time. As soon as a majority of the scientific community subscribes to Creationism then we can require that it be taught in school. Granted, that's a Catch-22, getting a significant number of scientists to subscribe to a theological theory, but you have to set up some sort of standards for curriculum if you're going to start requiring things like equal time for alternative theories.
For the record, I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught as an alternative theory, just not a required one, and a teacher who chooses to fit it into their lesson plan should be prepared to deal with the flak they'll get)
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,467
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,467 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by Antonio Wright:
I am going to have to disagree. I personally believe that both should taught in the classroom because both are theories. It is not fair to only hear one side of the argument.
Awesome Ant! I totally agree about equal time in public schools.
Simple fact is that if students had to be taught every side of every argument, no one would ever leave school. If we make it so that you have to give equal time to both those theories I want you to give equal time to my theory too, and some other kid's parents will want you to give equal time to their belief. And then I want you to do it for every single subject you cover. It'd make for a GREAT education, but an endless one. You could go on forever on a single subject.
School curiculum is focused on teaching the leading belief of the expert community on the subject at that time. As soon as a majority of the scientific community subscribes to Creationism then we can require that it be taught in school. Granted, that's a Catch-22, getting a significant number of scientists to subscribe to a theological theory, but you have to set up some sort of standards for curriculum if you're going to start requiring things like equal time for alternative theories.
For the record, I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught as an alternative theory, just not a required one, and a teacher who chooses to fit it into their lesson plan should be prepared to deal with the flak they'll get)
It would not take a whole school year. The teacher could just say that not every believes in evolution and present the other theory. I see nothing wrong or even hard to do.
Last edited by Antonio Wright; 09/04/05 01:20 AM.
Now I hate America? That is a new one to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939 |
Originally posted by SalKhan:
If God was all powerful, he wouldn't have bothered with our understanding of "7 days" and then need to "rest". God doesn't rest. Humans rest. He would've snapped his proverbial fingers and it would be done.
Did he set things in motion a trillion years ago? I say yes and that's how I join religion and science.
You're assuming that God rested because he was tired. When you kick back and take a day off, is it always because you are exhausted? Doubtful. He rested because there was no more creation left for him to do. He looked at what he had created, and "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." (Gen. 1:31).
Your comprehension (or lack thereof) of God is what holds you back. He is not human. His strength and energy are immeasurable and impossible to deplete.
2000 Silver Frost SVT
# 1637/2150
D.O.B. 01/14/2000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939 |
Originally posted by Martin:
Originally posted by Corbett:
Originally posted by Viss1:
Evolution = science
Creationism = philosophy/theology
Teach one in science class, teach the other in philospohy class. Better yet, teach it in church.
I disagree. I think both should be taught with equal emphasis. Then let the student choose which they believe.
Which Biblical Creation story should be taught? If you read Genesis carefully, you'll notice that there are two different Creation stories. The first, (Gen 1:1-2:4) shows God creating the universe in six days. Day 1- creation of light, Day 2- creation of heavens and water, Day 3- creation of land and vegetation, Day 4- creation of bodies of light, Day 5- creation of creatures of heaven and waters, and finally Day 6- creation of life on land and its vegetable food, and finally creation of mankind (both man and woman in his image).
From Gen 2:4-25, we see a totally different Creation story. To sum, it begins with the creation of man (just males, females come later), then follows with the creation of plantlife, then "every animal of the field and every bird of the air". Man found none of these animals fit as a partner, so God put the man to sleep, removed one of his ribs and then made a woman out of it.
I feel that the ancient Israelites, after witnessing the power of God through their exodus out of Egypt, reasoned that God must have been around since the beginning of time. So they utilized stories already known at the time (such as the Babylonian account of creationism) and put their own "spin" on it.
And if you were to read your bible even closer than you claim to have yourself, you'd notice that the second creation story is an indepth examination of the first.
After God created the plant life and animal life, the plants had not yet sprouted or germinated, as there was no rain until God sent a mist of rain...
God then created beasts and man.
God goes on to plant the Garden of Eden. He places man there. He then brings these created beasts to man to name them and let the man find a suitable helper. In Gen. 2:19 there is no language specifying a chronological event. It merely states the fact that God had created these beasts He is bringing before man. You are reading something into the passage that is not there.
I'll close with this explanation by Edward J. Young, from his book, An introduction to the Old Testament
There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about manâ??s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).
Or how about Howard Johnston's Bible Criticism and the Average Man ?
The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man (1902, p. 90).
2000 Silver Frost SVT
# 1637/2150
D.O.B. 01/14/2000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Evolution = science
Creationism = philosophy/theology
Teach one in science class, teach the other in philospohy class. Better yet, teach it in church.
Thus spake Viss1
Absolutely correct in every way.
In some ways I can almost sympathize with the religious right. They basically donâ??t give a hoot about improving our understanding of and ability to describe this world we live in. Their agenda is purely political. They want to bring God back into the classroom and into public life. Teaching kids about the scientific method and the results of applying it to every aspect of our lives is unimportant to them.
I also would prefer to see faith and the concept of God play a more open and natural role in the lives of children. The place where I draw the line is not about teaching religion to children, it is about teaching religion as â??science.â?
Our modern life is built upon the fruits of applying the scientific method. For each generation it is more and more vital that the methods and tools of science be understood and embraced. Providing a confused description of religion, faith and science is not doing school-kids any good at all.
What is so threatening about evolutionary theory anyway? It is a breathtakingly simple way of looking at the natural world and the complexity we see all around us:
Populations have variations within them.
Some individual variations occur randomly (mutations)
The variations found in individuals may be passed on to their offspring
Variations that provide benefits to individuals result in greater reproductive success and thus become ever more prevalent in the population
And thatâ??s it. Evolutionary theory states that these simple rules applied over vast number of generations have produced the incredible complexity we find in nature.
Prove it? Scientific theories can be proven invalid, but they can never be â??proven.â? This is not a weakness; it is the major strength of the scientific method. Even theories that are proven to be flawed and incomplete can still provide incredibly powerful tools for describing the world around us. Ask any mechanical engineer to stop using the theories of classical mechanics because they are flawed and do not account for relativistic effects!
Lets apply evolutionary theory to a problem that may face all of us eventually. Antibiotic resistant bacteria. How on earth did bacteria become resistant to drugs that worked so very well just a few decades ago? Without evolution there is no way to account for this. Looking at the problem from an evolutionary standpoint makes it easy to see not just the likelihood of this, but also its inevitability. Understanding a process is the first step towards manipulating it towards the advantage of mankind.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939 |
You are confusing microevolution to macroevolution. Even the religous right concedes that microevolution occurs in nature. However, bacteria becoming resistant to drugs is a huge leap of faith (pun intended) to bacteria becoming multicellular complex organisms. It is simply two different ballparks on opposite coasts.
2000 Silver Frost SVT
# 1637/2150
D.O.B. 01/14/2000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by t-red2000se:
You are confusing microevolution to macroevolution. Even the religous right concedes that microevolution occurs in nature. However, bacteria becoming resistant to drugs is a huge leap of faith (pun intended) to bacteria becoming multicellular complex organisms. It is simply two different ballparks on opposite coasts.
I am not confusing anything. Evolution is evolution, regardless of scale. What you are quoting is a specious argument and terminology created by the religious-right as a way of confusing something as plain as day.
The real issue is putting God back into the schools. The religious-right believe that any tactic that facilitates this goal is justified - and that is something I whole heartedly oppose.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939 |
Semantics. I'd call it your desire to erase God from daily life.
2000 Silver Frost SVT
# 1637/2150
D.O.B. 01/14/2000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
Originally posted by t-red2000se:
Semantics. I'd call it your desire to erase God from daily life.
Another tactic of the religious right is to demonize anyone who opposes their agenda for any reason. Attack the character of the individual.
What am I opposed to really? I am opposed to teaching faith based religious beliefs in public school science classes - in any science class actually.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 453
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 453 |
There is a big difference between say dogs adapting, and changing in minor ways over generations and dogs evolving from rocks or fish. I know I know if you have a jillion years anything's possible  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse. Rom. 1:20 I could never look at the sun setting on the himalaya's and convince myself that there wasn't something more than chance at work
|
|
|
|
|
