Thoughts on teaching Creation in school...

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

you wont come down from full scale its all or nothing then?


Ok , there is no object organization or entity that does not
evolve in the presence of time.
not even vacuum as we observe the distance between the
stars Grow litterally even vacuum can expand on itself.

there are no exceptions
headlights
screwdrivers
hotel chains
aircraft
mountains
rivers
lakes
oceans
planets
stars
comets
galaxyies
superstrings.


find a valid exception you can name. :hmm:

That's exactly the freakin' point, there are exceptions that we CAN'T possibly name because they haven't been discovered yet.

[Letum]

Intelligent kids are gonna work out the most rational answer them selves.

Those that can't work it out for them selves probably won't ever need to know
how such things work and may live in ignorance with out any major problems.

One thing that you can be sure will evolve are ideas. Only the fittest survive.
This will be as much of a non-issue as geo-centralism in 50 years.

[Mush Martin]

Human history or canadian history
or earth history or universal history

they sort of all start in different place's

I of course would start human history somewhere
a little before Homo Habilus sure I will go with
austrailopithicus. if were talking human history
but the history of civilization begins later in
the tigris euphrates delta.
(JMO)

[Digital_Trucker]

Letum and I agree on something and he put it a lot simpler than I did. Thank you sir.

Mikhayl I would hardly say something as silly as dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. In fact, I've never said what my faith was or whether I believe in creation or not. Give children the evidence that we have and let them make up their own minds.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

But if you don't teach evolution, when/where does History start ?

History starts with recorded written history. Anything before that is speculation and theory. It may be good, sound theory, but it's still speculation.

Besides, evolution falls under science, not history.

And Creation falls under religion, not science.

[mrbeast]

The problem is there is no credible evidence for creationism. All the evidence points to evolution through natural selection. Therefore it would seem a pointless excercise to teach creationism.

[Digital_Trucker]

Evidence does not equal proof (otherwise we wouldn't have debates over whether the death penalty is appropriate or not based on the guilt of the "alleged" offender)

and

Lack of evidence does not equal non-existence (that which we had no evidence of 50 years ago does not disprove what we may discover 50 years from now)

[Blacklight]

This is about the one part of the Constitution that so few people obey. TOTAL SEPARATION of church and state.

Creation is a RELIGIOUS theory. It belongs being taught in a CHURCH. NOT in a public school.

[Sailor Steve]

Very true, but Evolution at least stems from trained scientist looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion; and any reputable scientist lives with the knowledge that today's pet theory might well be tomorrow's bad joke.

Creation, on the other hand, comes from a religious teaching and has no other background. As was said earlier, if you're going to throw Christian Creation into the mix and call it good, then you should also throw in Hindu creation, as well as Ancient Greek and Egyptian Creation stories. Who's to say they aren't correct?

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Evidence does not equal proof (otherwise we wouldn't have debates over whether the death penalty is appropriate or not based on the guilt of the "alleged" offender)

Certainly, but there comes a point where the evidence puts a proposition beyond reasonable doubt, ie the weight of evidence suggests a conclusion which is inescapable.

Lack of evidence does not equal non-existence (that which we had no evidence of 50 years ago does not disprove what we may discover 50 years from now)

In that case why don't they teach Bertram Russels giant teapot god theory, the fact that there is lack evidence does not equal its non existance? who know what they will find in 50 years?

does this mean they should teach flat earth theory in science also as a counter to the round earth?

[Digital_Trucker]

@MR Beast

We could debate this until the end of time and not come to a conclusion. There are no "inescapable conclusions" to be found here. I never said I believe in creationism or am a proponent of it's teachings. I also never said that I believed that any religion of any sort should be taught in school. I never suggested that we should just make up whatever crap we want to make up and teach it in school.

All I ever said was that we should give children the evidence and let them make up their own mind. Edit : If the conclusion is "inescapable" then they will come to it, won't they?

[Blacklight]

I know I may offend some hardcore religious, spiritual people (so please don't be offended ) with this but here's my take.

Religion comes from stories and teachings passed down through the ages. There's no direct, substantial proof of anything it teaches or purports to be true. This is true of any religion. Everything is based on faith in the stories and teachings of whatever texts the religion is bassed on. There is no and can be no absolute fact checking to verify anything as being true within them. Therefore, the theories derived from them about the nature and creation of the universe is forever safe to the faithful because it cannot be proved that it is there, yet cannot be disproved either.
Science on the other hand is based on testing, and reproducable results. Scientific theories can usually be proven by preponderance of experimental evidence. Religions don't have that. All they tend to have is a lot of hear-say. Stories that have been passed down through the centuries and translated so many times and with so many different version that it's impossible to even tell if the current texts and beliefs even partially match what the original texts and beliefs are.

Does this mean that we should totally give up on religion ? Heck no. I believe that there is a lot to learn from studying various religions. There's a lot of wisdom and interesting things to think about in their texts. Are they true, factual documentations of actual events ? Probably not. While including the names of actual places and occasionally real events did filter in, these stories were often embellished by those who wrote them. Also, not to mention the centuries of versions of these books being copied, re-copied, and copied more, probably embellished them further.

Before I get jumped on by the hardcore religious, I'd like to mention that I'm a member of a Unitarian Universalist church. We are tolerant of all religions. We have in our congregations Christians, Jews, Muslems, Aitheists, Bhuddists...and the list goes on. I share the Unitarian belief that if studying and following a particular religion betters you as a person, by all means I will support you and aid you regardless of your religious (or non-religious) choice. So as I may not be religious of the spiritual kind, I do support those who are.

As for teaching creation and religious doctrine in public schools ? That's a big no-no. Religion belongs being taught by a church, mosque, etc...

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Letum and I agree on something and he put it a lot simpler than I did. Thank you sir.

Mikhayl I would hardly say something as silly as dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. In fact, I've never said what my faith was or whether I believe in creation or not. Give children the evidence that we have and let them make up their own minds.

Give them the evidence and let them sort it out?

creationism is a dogma taught to them prior to critical
thinking skills development at an age whereby they
are unable to judge in an effectively objective manner
as the programming of a dogma comes from there
whole world of input their parents.

there is no evidence to observe in creationism even if
your teaching it. It wont hold water against real
science if you wait until they arent vulnerable and offer
them a data source that doesnt dominate them emotionally
and spritiually.

Promoting Creation Science as an activity
(not saying U R D.T.)
is in my mind equivalent to denying the legitmacy
of Copernicus. We dont teach the earth at the
centre of the universe because we cant deny
the repeatable observable evidence.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

Give them the evidence and let them sort it out?

Just to be clear, that is not what I was saying.

[Mush Martin]

No nore is my statement actually meant to imply anything about anyone
present in this debate.


I may have been wrong though I did find one single non evolving exception.
the christian right.