BF2S Forums God Help Us...Creationism To Be Taught In Northern Ireland?

Bell wrote:

Evolution is portraid as being ''anti God'' by much of the fundy movment, which is simply not the case.  All it does is rule out a literal interpritation of the bible, which, if you thought was plausable you shouldnt really be allowed out during the day (or night for that matter).

This said though, I dont think the likes of Richard Dawkings aserting that you cant be an evolutionist and a theist is helping matters either.

Creationism is a knee jerk reaction to a ''problem'' that doesnt exist.

Edit:  Infact now that I think about it.  Considering it aserts that there bible isnt literal, it throws up the posibility (or probability amoung atheists) that things like the resurection where metaphorical at best, which fucks the whole thing up.  So, they pretty much cant allow any of it to be brought down (or atleast let it happily), because it opens the flood gates to everything else being torn appart.

Martyn

kylef wrote:

Maybe we should try and fix the protestant/catholic issue before the creationism/evolution/god theory ... I mean I know the situation has improved but let's face it, it isn't exactly brilliant. I'm cool with it being taught in a theory class, but not as fact. This is why I have an issue with an RE class. At least in my school, it is mandatory and despite the fact that I do believe in God, I don't think it should be. Yes, the Christian faith is probably higher than the Muslim faith but we sure as hell don't have any muslim teaching classes.

Don't make it mandatory. Teach it as a theory. Show people other options and tell them blatantly "this is not a fact" and I'm cool with that. But even at that, most people are stupid enough to believe pretty much anything. I speak from personal experience.

Stingray24 wrote:

Why are you asking for God's help with the situation if you don't believe in Him ...

Stingray24 wrote:

Ah ok. 

As I see it, the theory of evolution and intelligent design are quite similar.  Scientists researching our origins have come to 2 different conclusions while digging through the evidence available to them.  I doubt we'll ever prove either one to the point of scientific fact because we're too far removed from the event.  Believe evolution is more scientific if you like, but both sides have their own viewpoint even before research and approach science with said viewpoint.  To say one theory is more scientific reveals you simply agree with their point of view.

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

There was some guy on the Colbert Report a few weeks ago. He was talking about Creationism/Intelligent Design or whatever it's called now. He said that calling the Bible a book of Science is insulting the Bible as you are denying the Spiritual Truths of in it if you say it is Science/History.

That's how I feel on this whole creationism matter.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-08-09 14:29:54)

Stingray24 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Ah ok. 

As I see it, the theory of evolution and intelligent design are quite similar.  Scientists researching our origins have come to 2 different conclusions while digging through the evidence available to them.  I doubt we'll ever prove either one to the point of scientific fact because we're too far removed from the event.  Believe evolution is more scientific if you like, but both sides have their own viewpoint even before research and approach science with said viewpoint.  To say one theory is more scientific reveals you simply agree with their point of view.

In what way would you say they are similar? To my knowledge evolution does not put any of nature's adaptation traits down to any kind of deity. Can you explain to me any of the actual scientific evidence put forward to back up the theory of creationism/intelligent design because all the 'evidence' I've ever seen for it has been utterly ridiculous.

I just explained how I see them as similar in the previous post. 

To be honest, even if I could, I wouldn't waste my time explaining the evidence because it would be dismissed immediately no matter how eloquent or scientific the research.  Why?  Because you and others here detest religion and dismiss the existence of higher power/intelligent designer.  So when you approach science, you also dismiss any theory that points to an intelligent designer, not matter how scientific the research.  Just because you don't like the conclusion, doesn't mean you are justified in labeling the research as flawed ... especially when you are completely unqualified to do so.

Turquoise wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=70774

I know, creationist theory is unprovable, but that doesnt mean that evolution theory is true.

What's the point in believing in something that's unprovable?

Ottomania wrote:

BALTINS wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

creationist theory is unprovable

Isn't proof something very very important in science?

creationism isnt related with science. the problem is evolutions always want an alternative to their theory, which I want to tell but cant prove creationism because its really different stuff. Everyone believes whatever they want to. I understand that challenging evolution vs creationism is meaningless, everybody should choose his/her own way.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

BALTINS wrote:

Isn't proof something very very important in science?

creationism isnt related with science. the problem is evolutions always want an alternative to their theory, which I want to tell but cant prove creationism because its really different stuff. Everyone believes whatever they want to. I understand that challenging evolution vs creationism is meaningless, everybody should choose his/her own way.

The earth is round is also a theory, is that bullshit too? I'd like to see them trying to teach the earth being flat in school.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm just saying...  I can make up something too that makes me feel good or confirms my belief in something without rational reasons, but why should I?

I'm just wondering why people don't live their lives guided solely by reason and logic.

Braddock wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

In what way would you say they are similar? To my knowledge evolution does not put any of nature's adaptation traits down to any kind of deity. Can you explain to me any of the actual scientific evidence put forward to back up the theory of creationism/intelligent design because all the 'evidence' I've ever seen for it has been utterly ridiculous.

I just explained how I see them as similar in the previous post. 

To be honest, even if I could, I wouldn't waste my time explaining the evidence because it would be dismissed immediately no matter how eloquent or scientific the research.  Why?  Because you and others here detest religion and dismiss the existence of higher power/intelligent designer.  So when you approach science, you also dismiss any theory that points to an intelligent designer, not matter how scientific the research.  Just because you don't like the conclusion, doesn't mean you are justified in labeling the research as flawed ... especially when you are completely unqualified to do so.

I'm just asking for some evidence...any evidence...in support of the theory of creationism that stands up to the rigours of scientific scrutiny. Any such evidence would build the case for creationism to be considered as a scientific theory and not just a religious theory but I've never heard any. Why should creationism be given a pass on scientific scrutiny while all other fields of study follow the strict principles of science.

You're suggesting that creationism deserves to be taken seriously in scientific terms, why?