Well, done anyone out there beleive in it and if so do you think it should be tought in schools?. Personally i think its down right dangerous to teach that to a kid, but is it a parents/schools choice?
Creationism is hilarious. Apparently the world is only something like 5000 years old!?!?! What a fucking joke.
I think it should be taught in school, not as fact, but as an idea that has shaped our nation and our planet and has lead to current events that we are dealing with to this day.....
So...we have a 50 page discussion, most of it entailing this already in this forum, but you've actually asked a question of whether it should be in schools or not, so I'll relent.
Plain and simple:
Creationism can be taught in a school as a section in a philosophy curriculum. It cannot exist in a science curriculum as it does not fall within science's parameters, and effectively uses no science nor the Full scientific method to explain its position. As a philosophy, it stands out and can be taught alongside the ideas of creation based on Greek and Roman gods, based on Buddhist creation, and based on how many worlds are balanced on the back of the Great Turtle Gan and Tak the destroyer.
Plain and simple:
Creationism can be taught in a school as a section in a philosophy curriculum. It cannot exist in a science curriculum as it does not fall within science's parameters, and effectively uses no science nor the Full scientific method to explain its position. As a philosophy, it stands out and can be taught alongside the ideas of creation based on Greek and Roman gods, based on Buddhist creation, and based on how many worlds are balanced on the back of the Great Turtle Gan and Tak the destroyer.
Jesus Christ!!!!!!!................I agree with Marconius now!!!..........is it too late to change my viewpoint???Marconius wrote:
So...we have a 50 page discussion, most of it entailing this already in this forum, but you've actually asked a question of whether it should be in schools or not, so I'll relent.
Plain and simple:
Creationism can be taught in a school as a section in a philosophy curriculum. It cannot exist in a science curriculum as it does not fall within science's parameters, and effectively uses no science nor the Full scientific method to explain its position. As a philosophy, it stands out and can be taught alongside the ideas of creation based on Greek and Roman gods, based on Buddhist creation, and based on how many worlds are balanced on the back of the Great Turtle Gan and Tak the destroyer.
How has creationism shaped our nation? Examples, please.
Christianity certainly has, but creationism...? I'd like to hear your reasoning on this.
Christianity certainly has, but creationism...? I'd like to hear your reasoning on this.
I'll tell you what's hilarious: Evolutionism. I can't believe they teach that anywhere. If not Creationism, it would be better to have Intelligent Design taught or almost anything besides Evolutionism.
As for me, I'm a Creationist of course, becuase I'm a Christian.
You know what else is hilarious? People coming to a 99% atheist forum and picking on Christians and their beliefs.
As for me, I'm a Creationist of course, becuase I'm a Christian.
You know what else is hilarious? People coming to a 99% atheist forum and picking on Christians and their beliefs.
Last edited by TechGuy (2006-05-30 16:41:21)
ID/Creationism are based on belief and don't use the scientific process to generate their facts. The basis of belief necessitates that they are, indeed, philosophies.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a study and analyzation of the natural order of species that entails utilizing the Scientific Method to arrive at their facts. Therefore, it is a Science. Evolution is still a Theory as it is still undergoing the scientific process, and is taught in Science classes as such.
From my standpoint, asking to include Creationism/ID in a Science-based curriculum is like arguing to include a mandatory cooking-class/Home Ec. segment in an AP British Literature class.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a study and analyzation of the natural order of species that entails utilizing the Scientific Method to arrive at their facts. Therefore, it is a Science. Evolution is still a Theory as it is still undergoing the scientific process, and is taught in Science classes as such.
From my standpoint, asking to include Creationism/ID in a Science-based curriculum is like arguing to include a mandatory cooking-class/Home Ec. segment in an AP British Literature class.
Well, I think it is clear enough, our nation is based on the morality of the bible, and creationism comes from the stories of the bible.chittydog wrote:
How has creationism shaped our nation? Examples, please.
Christianity certainly has, but creationism...? I'd like to hear your reasoning on this.
He's right. However, you can argue that Creationism should not be allowed to be taught in schools because it violates the first amendment. 1) it is religious and not secular 2) most of the people proposing to teach it in schools (ok, all the people) are christian, thus violating freedom of religion.Marconius wrote:
So...we have a 50 page discussion, most of it entailing this already in this forum, but you've actually asked a question of whether it should be in schools or not, so I'll relent.
Plain and simple:
Creationism can be taught in a school as a section in a philosophy curriculum. It cannot exist in a science curriculum as it does not fall within science's parameters, and effectively uses no science nor the Full scientific method to explain its position. As a philosophy, it stands out and can be taught alongside the ideas of creation based on Greek and Roman gods, based on Buddhist creation, and based on how many worlds are balanced on the back of the Great Turtle Gan and Tak the destroyer.
Google "Lemon Test" for info on how courts decide whether it can be taught or not.
True, Chrisianity is based on beliefs and faith, and Creationism would have a hard time making it into science curriculum now days.ID/Creationism are based on belief and don't use the scientific process to generate their facts. The basis of belief necessitates that they are, indeed, philosophies.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a study and analyzation of the natural order of species that entails utilizing the Scientific Method to arrive at their facts. Therefore, it is a Science. Evolution is still a Theory as it is still undergoing the scientific process, and is taught in Science classes as such.
From my standpoint, asking to include Creationism/ID in a Science-based curriculum is like arguing to include a mandatory cooking-class/Home Ec. segment in an AP British Literature class.
Last edited by TechGuy (2006-05-30 16:47:34)
No, I gotta disagree, whe nyou learn about the native americans, you learned about their culture, which included their homes, hunting tactics, what thet ate and grew, and their BELIEFS!!.....teaching someone of an ideal is NOT teaching them it is truth, just that it exists.Daysniper wrote:
He's right. However, you can argue that Creationism should not be allowed to be taught in schools because it violates the first amendment. 1) it is religious and not secular 2) most of the people proposing to teach it in schools (ok, all the people) are christian, thus violating freedom of religion.Marconius wrote:
So...we have a 50 page discussion, most of it entailing this already in this forum, but you've actually asked a question of whether it should be in schools or not, so I'll relent.
Plain and simple:
Creationism can be taught in a school as a section in a philosophy curriculum. It cannot exist in a science curriculum as it does not fall within science's parameters, and effectively uses no science nor the Full scientific method to explain its position. As a philosophy, it stands out and can be taught alongside the ideas of creation based on Greek and Roman gods, based on Buddhist creation, and based on how many worlds are balanced on the back of the Great Turtle Gan and Tak the destroyer.
Google "Lemon Test" for info on how courts decide whether it can be taught or not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
edited.......C'mon Marconius, ya know you wanna + karma me for that!!!
Last edited by lowing (2006-05-30 16:51:21)
Creationism is a theory on how life began. Same as evolution. So kids should be taught different theories because that is all they are, theories. Both have proof but neither can be taken as absolute fact. But of course if you taught Christian creationism, then you would have to teach about Christianity. Which in it's way is also a theory so you should also teach about Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, Pharsee, Hinduism, and a few others not to mention the different variations of each. I think it would sure help make kids a lot more tolerant of others if they knew something about them. Maybe they wouldn't incorrectly call Muslims diaper heads, not that you should correctly call Sikhs diaper heads, but they would know the difference. Instead of not allowing a religion to be taught, teach about all of the equally. The parents could still heavily influence the child's choice, but they would know about the choices.
Of course I would have to perfect my pig catapult first and find a better glue for attaching the wings, but that's a different thread.
Of course I would have to perfect my pig catapult first and find a better glue for attaching the wings, but that's a different thread.
I don't know that I fully agree with you on this one. How many of the ten commandments are laws? Creationism is a story from the bible, but so is Jonah and the whale. Neither of those has any bearing on our laws. We can see the evidence all through history that christianity was an influence, but really it's contained to references to God, at least in the past 50 years or so. We all remember the stories of it being illegal to work on a Sunday and stuff like that, but how many solid examples are there of religion influencing public policy in a lasting, widespread fashion?lowing wrote:
Well, I think it is clear enough, our nation is based on the morality of the bible, and creationism comes from the stories of the bible.
The things that most people consider the christian influence are pretty universal. Even the most anti-religous societies would have rules against stealing, murder, etc.
Back on track, I still don't see the connection between God creating a young Earth, and the government. If you can convince me, I'll try to stay openminded.
ROLF, +1 for you.Point&Shoot wrote:
Maybe they wouldn't incorrectly call Muslims diaper heads, not that you should correctly call Sikhs diaper heads, but they would know the difference.
+1 for lowing too for keeping his cool and trying to rationally explain his view without being a jerk.
Point&Shoot...the idea here in the US is that Creationists want Creationism to be taught directly alongside Evolution as if they were equal theories, when the fact is they are not. They are both theories, yes, but Creationism doesn't use the Scientific Method, and therefore cannot be taught in a Science class, which is what they want (They actually want Evolution to be dropped completely, but that's besides the point).
I know your arguments Daysniper, and they are good ones. It really comes down to whether or not the parents of the school district will allow the school district to start funding a Philosophy section of the school, in order to appease creationists. You'll start running into the Lemon test if they Only want a Creationist class created (in which tax payers will be paying for only one representation, which is something I am very against). ID is just christian creationism in disguise. Just remember that if such a philosophy class is taught, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism will have to be taught as well.
I know your arguments Daysniper, and they are good ones. It really comes down to whether or not the parents of the school district will allow the school district to start funding a Philosophy section of the school, in order to appease creationists. You'll start running into the Lemon test if they Only want a Creationist class created (in which tax payers will be paying for only one representation, which is something I am very against). ID is just christian creationism in disguise. Just remember that if such a philosophy class is taught, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism will have to be taught as well.
FSM FTW!!!Marconius wrote:
Point&Shoot...the idea here in the US is that Creationists want Creationism to be taught directly alongside Evolution as if they were equal theories, when the fact is they are not. They are both theories, yes, but Creationism doesn't use the Scientific Method, and therefore cannot be taught in a Science class, which is what they want (They actually want Evolution to be dropped completely, but that's besides the point).
I know your arguments Daysniper, and they are good ones. It really comes down to whether or not the parents of the school district will allow the school district to start funding a Philosophy section of the school, in order to appease creationists. You'll start running into the Lemon test if they Only want a Creationist class created (in which tax payers will be paying for only one representation, which is something I am very against). ID is just christian creationism in disguise. Just remember that if such a philosophy class is taught, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism will have to be taught as well.
Fallacy, pure and simple. Science deals only with observable phenomena and experiments that can be repeated. Evolution deals with a series of events that have not been observed and processes that cannot be observed or repeated in the laboratory. Calling any result of this a 'fact' is unscientific to say the least.Marconius wrote:
ID/Creationism are based on belief and don't use the scientific process to generate their facts. The basis of belief necessitates that they are, indeed, philosophies.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a study and analyzation of the natural order of species that entails utilizing the Scientific Method to arrive at their facts. Therefore, it is a Science.
The truth is that there are no facts, and there is no evidence; all we have are data. We make it into 'evidence' when we interpret the data according to a set of assumptions. Christians assume that there is a supernatural. Atheists or secular humanists assume that nothing exists outside the material. Both have explanations for the data which fit their assumptions, but only the latter group argue that their explanation proves their assumptions. Since their assumptions gave rise to their explanation, this is circular reasoning.
Which means simply that we must choose what we want to believe. If you want to believe that there is no existence apart from the material, and that life is the product of random, meaningless processes: evolution. If you want to believe that there are things in the universe that we can't see with our eyes or telescopes, and that life is the product of a brilliant mind: creation.
If you are genuinely interested in this debate, hit the literature. Read both sides of the story first-hand, instead of regurgitating a third-hand version of only one story. For evolution, look for books by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Behe. For creation, read Duane Gish, Werner Gitt or Carl Wieland (although these are much harder to get).
Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Werner Von Braun and many others were all young-earth creationists. You'd think dudes as smart as that could spot a 'fucking joke' when they saw one.CameronPoe wrote:
Creationism is hilarious. Apparently the world is only something like 5000 years old!?!?! What a fucking joke.
Last edited by J=MAN (2006-05-30 17:47:28)
What does bollox mean? I heard them say it in V for Vendetta and haven't been able to figure it out. It's like saying "bullsh*t" except the bollox means balls? Or something like that?
You're right about the meaning, but it's actually spelt "bollocks".Spearhead wrote:
What does bollox mean? I heard them say it in V for Vendetta and haven't been able to figure it out. It's like saying "bullsh*t" except the bollox means balls? Or something like that?
the key word though is......morality, not just laws. Our society, itself, is based on this. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife"..you can't go to jail for cheating on your wife.but you are looked upon as a piece of shit for doing so ( in most cases )..And you yourself admit that most societies hold to these same values and teachings..thus making it a significant contribution to human history and worthy of discussion in the classroom.chittydog wrote:
I don't know that I fully agree with you on this one. How many of the ten commandments are laws? Creationism is a story from the bible, but so is Jonah and the whale. Neither of those has any bearing on our laws. We can see the evidence all through history that christianity was an influence, but really it's contained to references to God, at least in the past 50 years or so. We all remember the stories of it being illegal to work on a Sunday and stuff like that, but how many solid examples are there of religion influencing public policy in a lasting, widespread fashion?lowing wrote:
Well, I think it is clear enough, our nation is based on the morality of the bible, and creationism comes from the stories of the bible.
The things that most people consider the christian influence are pretty universal. Even the most anti-religous societies would have rules against stealing, murder, etc.
Back on track, I still don't see the connection between God creating a young Earth, and the government. If you can convince me, I'll try to stay openminded.
C'mon Marconius, you wanna give me a + karma.......fork it over!
Last edited by lowing (2006-05-30 18:39:20)
And "spelt" is actually spelled "spelled". Always ironic to me when people misspell "misspelled" or "spelled" after making such a correction.
http://dictionary.reference.com/J=MAN wrote:
You're right about the meaning, but it's actually spelt "bollocks".Spearhead wrote:
What does bollox mean? I heard them say it in V for Vendetta and haven't been able to figure it out. It's like saying "bullsh*t" except the bollox means balls? Or something like that?
here you go if you are going to correct someone, DONT misspell any thing your self
And for the record, if you believe in any religion, concept associated with religion, etc - you're an ignorant fool. To assume that there is something outside of the observable is to defy all logic. But by the inverse of such, it is also ignorant to assume there is nothing outside of the observable. In other words, if you follow a religion or claim to be an atheist, you're an idiot. Yes of course, it is an assumption that there is no other force guiding the material, and that to believe observation as we see it as fact is ignorant as well. Although, it still remains evident that this is the only method of justification that has yet to fail or otherwise be discounted. So, until then, trust apparency.
I believe it but i dont think it should be taught in science. I think crediting everything to absolute nothingness is ignorant.