Endless debate over teaching of Creationism in schools resolves issue

by Abaddon 59 Replies latest members adult

• 

  AlanF

  I think that Forscher's comments nicely illustrate the rabid fear that biblical fundamentalists have of losing their traditions to the modern world.

  AlanF
• 

  Qcmbr

  Having had my butt tanned a couple of times on this issue I will be rapidly returning to my book on paleontology (due back at the library in four days)however, just because I can't resist, like a sucidal turkey mooning the farmer on the 4th July here I go...
  
  There is a long range goal of many people now which is to restrict religion and religious thinking purely in the church a luadable aim most will say however, there must be a replacement once we've removed christmas, divali (is that how you say it),easter, faith, God etc.. from everything. That replacement is evolution without creationism / ID or any other variation on a theme that can in any way stimulate critical thought on evolution on a world view level (ie there will be plenty of discussion about maybes and possibilities and constant 'new light' as the theories change- oops sorry - as the facts are clarified)but the theory will write itself and will become almost unremovable because few people will have the real opportunity to look outside of it and see another way. The other worrying counterpart to this secularisation of the educational / governmental world is the increasing agenda of sexual topics given to children by the school not by parents and families. My daughter will be able to recieve contraception at an age below the age of consent when she attends school here in the UK. There is no moral reason why she shouldn't, if you take away religion - after that it just becomes a debate about whether its good for 'society' to have kids having sex etc.. there are plenty of people who have an interest in exploiting children in the name of liberalism - for most of the last few hundred years religion has provided a strong counter to that. Now there are still many people (most I hope) who would still be able to make moral choices that protected children and were beneficial to society but those who made those choices are from ageneration that had a lot of religious exposure. Kids attitudes are changing today (not biologically!), as a generation, they are more exposed to advertising and messages about how they should live life that are not family centered - backed up by the secular school environment. Here in the UK respect is diminishing for authority figures (teachers raped, bullied and beaten up by kids), more and more there is no defence against liberalism in the sense that laws are being increasingly questioned and reduced -
  
  Cannabis downgraded a drug class, red light areas ignored and even sanctioned by some police forces, the right to smack removed, the right to touch a child even while being assualted is in danger of disappearing (you have to see some of these kids in the UK!), there is talk of reducing the UK age of consent to 14 (not taken seriously by most thank goodness) (it's 12 in the Netherlands), in the UK you can be sued if someone breaks into your house and then hurts themself while larking around inside, gay unions created - gay marriages are next, pornography is rampant in the UK media - from newspapers to TV and its all acceptable for anyone to see (I had to complain in the local record store when they put their adult selection on the rack next to the computer games - hmmm clever.)
  
  All I'm saying is that this creationism debate is part of an overall secularisation of life by the institutions of the west, religion is barely making a stand for itself except in America and some radical Islamic / Hindu areas. As a christian I pay my taxes just as much as anyone else but my views are increasingly being ignored at all levels of life - I am happy to have them teach evolution / sex education and all the rest but not to the total exclusion of everything I hold dear. Watch what is happening with France as they've gone as far as removal of religious symbols in the school (you can't wear a cross or a burkha)- maybe the next step will be to ban peoples right to be religious in public, next it'll be religion anywhere. There is a much bigger picture going on here than simply allowing space on our curriculum for a little religion.
• 

  EvilForce

  Seattle...
  
  Wow, all those years of college telling me differently, must be that Noo Zoo Light. Here I've been taught they were racoons all this time. Well science is wrong! I guess that proves now we should teach creationism ;)
  
  LOL
• 

  roybatty

  Is it really an issue here in the U.S.? I grew up in a part of the U.S. that has been dominated by the "righ wing" for as long as I can remmeber. I learned about evolution from grade school on up. It never even heard of anyone objecting to it being taught in the schools. As a matter of fact, I don't ever recall anyone suggesting that the creation account be taught.

  I now live with my two kids in a rural area. Our town has about 6,000 people and at least a dozen churches. On Sunday mornings, you don't see anyone out and about. They're all in church being good little Christians. To say that this is a religious town is an understatement. Now, I have attended quite a few of the school board meetings and never have I ever heard someone objecting to evolution being taught in school. Nor have I ever heard of anyone demanding that the creation account be taught in school.

  Is this debate really something that is taking place acroos the U.S. or is the media spot lighting a few cases because doing stories on nut-jobs sells papers?
• 

  Forscher

  "evolutionary theory does not cover how life came to be, only how lifeforms changed over time. this is testable and has been proven accurate by the fossil record."
  
  Ah, at last, you said something that I can at least partially agree on doogie! Evolution does not explain how life got here to begin with. Unfortunately it is based on the premise that there is no explanation other than the natural one for our origins. In the show on Darwin 4 that aired on discovery Channel last week, Dr. Hawkings made the statement that life generated spontaneously here on earth. That is the position of materialists despite the fact that spontaneous generation of life was disproved as a theory a long time ago. I do not dispute that adaptation is one of the mechanisms behind the diversity that we see on earth. I just disagree that it is the only mechanism.
  
  Ok EvilForce, I did come close to a formal fallacy in my argument there. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow! ;-) Please, though, do not discount the argument that I was making that if we are all here by pure chance, then their can be no objective basis for morality. better minds than mine have made that point!
  
  Sorry everybody that I cannot respond to all. My son is breathing down my neck for the computer so I need to get going!
  
  Bye!
• 

  the_classicist

  If I may jump into the fray...

  Learning evolutionary theory in elementary or high school doesn't help. Of course, I learn best from little concepts to big ones as I always want to know "how?." That's the problem with North American scientific education, you spent years learning about "kinetic energy" without learning anything substantive. I'd rather learn how DNA is transcribed than about evolution.

  In any case, once you teach the evolutionary nature of the genome, it is much easier to show the concepts of evolutionary theory, rather than expressing evolutionary theory in simplified terms that mediocritize our societie's general scientific knowledge.
• 

  EvilForce

  For, I am not dismissing your argument at all just challenging it.
  
  See I believe that man by his own right is a moral creature. I do not think we need a higher power to guide us on morality. I'm not saying absolutely, positively is there NOT a higher power... I'm just stating that I think by and large men are moral on their own. You may disagree with that and that's ok.
• 

  Abaddon

  EvilForce

  Zoo Light. That will make me giggle for weeks. You are awesome.

  And, yeah, pandas are bears. Great thing about having a paradigm based on facts; morphological studies, or is it claudistic?, classed it with raccoons. Zoo ight gives us genetics and bing! It's a bear. Where are the people protesting? Are they teaching this in schools? My god! Think of the children!
• 

  doogie

  Q: As a christian I pay my taxes just as much as anyone else but my views are increasingly being ignored at all levels of life - I am happy to have them teach evolution / sex education and all the rest but not to the total exclusion of everything I hold dear. and i can respect that, however to have something taught as a valid alternative scientific theory, there has to BE a valid alternative scientific theory. there is none. as evilforce said, if evolution is not correct, that doesn't make creationism correct by default. maybe the next step will be to ban peoples right to be religious in public, next it'll be religion anywhere. hmm... Forscher:

  In the show on Darwin 4 that aired on discovery Channel last week, Dr. Hawkings made the statement that life generated spontaneously here on earth. That is the position of materialists despite the fact that spontaneous generation of life was disproved as a theory a long time ago.

  so, because one scientist made a comment that we both agree is outside the realm of evolutionary theory, you propose that this "is the position of materialists despite the fact that spontaneous generation of life was disproved as a theory a long time ago"? being a "materialist" i'll have to disagree with you as this is not how i personally feel.

  I do not dispute that adaptation is one of the mechanisms behind the diversity that we see on earth. I just disagree that it is the only mechanism

  ok! well, then please provide a valid scientific theory as to any additional mechanisms (remember, 'testable and falsifiable') to the scientific community for peer review and then we'll have a valid alternative theory to present to all the little kiddies.

  edited to add: sorry, i have no idea what the heck i did to the formatting. maybe god is rebuking me
• 

  doogie

  Forscher:

  Unfortunately it is based on the premise that there is no explanation other than the natural one for our origins.

  no, that is wrong. it is based on no such premise and is not incompatible with a belief in a higher power starting the whole process up.