|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Originally posted by Antonio Wright:
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.
There's lots of "other" theories regarding how we got here. Where do you stop? You want to stop at the point where you're satisfied. What about other people who believe other things? What about other subjects? If we require equal time to alternative theories on creation then we should equally require the same thing for why World War 2 began, or what the Battle at the Alamo really was about.
In grade school you simply get the prevailing scientific theory of the time. Whatever it may be. In later years you teach alternate theories when you can take an entire course on that one subject. It's be great if we had all the time in the world to do that early on, but we don't. We used to teach kids the Four Food Groups, then we taught them the Food Pyramid, now we teach them the new Food Pyramid; but we leave the nuances of nutrition for later years in education when you can take an entire course just devoted to nothing but that.
For example, I hope everyone in here could tell me that 2+2=4. We were all taught that, right? But you probably weren't taught that 2+2 is also equal to 100, 11, and 10. Or that the solution to 19+5 is 24, 22, 20, 1B, 14, 120, or 11000, among several other answers. Those are all correct answers. 19+5 has at least 18 solutions actually, we only teach children one of them. But 19+5=24, a base-10 standard, is the prevailing scientific thought on what grade-school students should learn in school. When you get older you might learn the other ways. Base-10 caught on for everyday use because it's really easy to use your fingers to count. Should we require that all students learn all the other ways too? It's only fair to give equal time to all possible answers, right?
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
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.
HAHAHA!!
Quote:
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.
You mean to tell me that Christians don't give a hoot about the sciences?  Christians do care about science, but they aren't willing to stretch the truth or support a bald faced lie (i.e. evolution) ...
Quote:
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?
Creationism has nothing to do with religion, if that's what you want to call it. In fact, Creationism has everything to do with giving credit where credit is due. If you created a watch, you wouldn't want me stealing the credit and saying that I went through a junkyard,grabbed some junk, and threw it together. That's dumb...
As for faith and the (as you call it) concept of God playing a larger part in children's lives, that was destroyed in 1966 when the government and courts told America that praying in school was illegal!!
Quote:
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
What is so threatening? Could it be the simple fact that it removes a creative being from the world around us? It takes away the creativity and the wonderful design in our world and makes it all about chance. That's very dangerous...
Quote:
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.
Without evolution, you can account for this. It's called adaptation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,367
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,367 |
Originally posted by t-red2000se:
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.
Oh please. Just claiming God needs to "Kick back and have a beer" applies human qualities. Claiming God felt good about his work and chilled out with his homies because he was happy is applying a human quality to him. Applying a time to an All powerful being is applying a human quality to it. It just happened. It's unexplainable which is what God is meant to be.
Maybe you should realize that parts of the bible just might... Not... be... accurate.
Sal Khan
00 SVT - Not pretty
00 Aprilia RSV Mille - Also Loved.
http://www.thelunchjournals.com
"I just want someone I can stand once her mouth is free of obstruction."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by SalKhan:
Maybe you should realize that parts of the bible just might... Not... be... accurate.
The Bible is accurate...it is, GOD BREATHED! Inspired by God...It's HIS WORD!!
You either believe the Bible, or you don't...It's either complete or it's not...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Antonio Wright:
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
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.
That's valid, and I'd be willing to compromise by allowing creationism to be taught in philosophy class. But it's not a science, and as such shouldn't be taught as one.
Woodencross, your material is killing me here 
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by Antonio Wright:
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
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.
That's valid, and I'd be willing to compromise by allowing creationism to be taught in philosophy class. But it's not a science, and as such shouldn't be taught as one.
Woodencross, your material is killing me here
Why is that? Is it because you find it utterly ridiculous to believe in something like I do? Is it because you believe that a bald faced lie like evolution has more basis for belief than a time tested faith? I guess from that perspective, it would seem kind of funny!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,939 |
Originally posted by SalKhan:
Originally posted by t-red2000se:
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.
Oh please. Just claiming God needs to "Kick back and have a beer" applies human qualities. Claiming God felt good about his work and chilled out with his homies because he was happy is applying a human quality to him. Applying a time to an All powerful being is applying a human quality to it. It just happened. It's unexplainable which is what God is meant to be.
Maybe you should realize that parts of the bible just might... Not... be... accurate.
God ended his creative endeavor when he was pleased with it. He's the creator, he calls the shots of when he wanted to finish. Your cavalier lack of respect to God ("chilling with his homies", "kick back and have a beer.") shows how deep your contempt of religion is. Your view is skewed, so the argument is moot. Good day.
BTW, a beer does sound pretty good, doesn't it? 
2000 Silver Frost SVT
# 1637/2150
D.O.B. 01/14/2000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Why is that? Is it because you find it utterly ridiculous to believe in something like I do? Is it because you believe that a bald faced lie like evolution has more basis for belief than a time tested faith?
Nope, none of that, just the stuff you wrote:
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Darwinism this, darwinism that...
Carbon dating this, carbon dating that...
It's all a bunch of bunk...
Originally posted by Jb1:
woodencross, perhaps i am missing something in your post. are you saying that neandertals did not exist? and that carbon dating does not work? or am i just reading your post wrong?
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Nope, seems you got the point!!!
Originally posted by Woodencross:
FOR THE RECORD! Evolution is based much more on "faith" than creationism.
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Christians do care about science, but they aren't willing to stretch the truth or support a bald faced lie (i.e. evolution) ...
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Creationism has nothing to do with religion
Originally posted by Woodencross:
As for faith and the (as you call it) concept of God playing a larger part in children's lives, that was destroyed in 1966 when the government and courts told America that praying in school was illegal!!
I swear, I've never known any group to have a bigger persecution complex than the hardcore Christians. And the ironic thing is they're the group with the least reason to have that complex.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
I swear, I've never known any group to have a bigger persecution complex than the hardcore Christians. And the ironic thing is they're the group with the least reason to have that complex.
I wonder why....
That is, if a persecution complex exists...
It doesn't take a genius to see people and organizations hard at work trying to remove all sorts of rights and freedoms from Christians...
|
|
|
|
|
