Schools that teach creationism in the science class.

[Resha Caner]

I was in middle school, this was about as brilliant a response to expect a 14 year old to give.

Sure. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong. The teacher was wrong to suggest something based on a stereotype. I was just trying to distinguish the error of the teacher from motherhood itself. I'm not saying you've done this, but what I find sad is when someone turns away from something because they are trying to avoid looking like a stereotype.

Maybe it would have been better to just end my comment with: the teacher was wrong.

 

[USincognito]

The evolution of everything from nothing has no basis in reality.

That's great because your "everything from nothing" straw man has no basis in reality either.

We share 25% of the same DNA as a daffodil, but we don't share ancestry with daffodils.

A. We don't share 25% with them.
B. We do share common ancestry with them.

 

[USincognito]

Yet let a creationist make a passing reference to evidence being ignored and the evolutionauts lose their minds!

Yeah, "evidence" like "If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" and "Piltdown man!!!!".

 

[AV1611VET]

"If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys"

What's wrong with that question?

I see a major difference between:

Q: If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Q: Since humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
​

I see the "if question" ridiculed all the time, and I noticed that Mr. Dawkins, when explaining it, didn't even roll his eyes.

 

[USincognito]

You are proposing to make naturalism a state sponsored religion.

Hyperbolic rubbish. Teaching science in the science classroom is educating. Your overblown rhetoric is not helping you make your case.

Nope. Not buying it. We were "one nation under God" long before you were even thought of.

For me that was a mere 14 years.

Our Constitution is based on the premise that all rights come from God.

The Constitution says nor implies nothing of the sort. In fact a vague notion of God given rights was insufficient, hence the Bill of Rights.

Our currency says "In God we trust."

Because we were scared of the Commies, not out of a natural sense of national piety.

Atheists are an excessively vocal 15% minority. Most people realize there is a God. I'm sorry that you don't but it doesn't give you the right to mandate naturalistic indoctrination.

The person to whom you were responding was talking about teaching science in the science classroom. I'm pretty sure most religious believers apart from Creationists would like to have science taught in the science classroom.

 

[crjmurray]

What's wrong with that question?

I see a major difference between:

Q: If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Q: Since humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
​

I see the "if question" ridiculed all the time, and I noticed that Mr. Dawkins, when explaining it, didn't even roll his eyes.

The "why are there still monkeys" question gets ridiculed because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "why are there still monkeys" question gets ridiculed because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of biology.

Thus the question.

You guys don't think we're born spouting evolution, do you?

I thought evolution was about baby steps?

You gotta start somewhere, eh?

Not everyone has read Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

 

[dad]

I don't know if you're sincere or visiting us from Landover Baptist.

You an alien?

It's not wicked so much as irresponsible to deliberately impair a child's education by teaching them the pseudoscience of creationism to supplant the science they need to learn to become scientifically literate citizens.

It is required by God to teach kids right. If the wicked consider that impaired tough. I consider them dead anyhow who cares?

In the case of the charter schools they are actually setting a poor example of Christians because of their underhanded methods that just breed resentment at how taxpayer funding is spent.

If Christians had to be sneaky to teach truth, that is the fault of the wicked that make it hard. Not like we will not teach it regardless.

It's a breach of integrity on the part of these creationists and they compromise the public perception of Christians as a whole.

It is commanded by the Almighty that they do. What else matters? We ought to obey God rather than men.

I've spent time in China every summer since 2008 because my church is partnered with several churches there and we join forces for volunteer projects. Yes, it's a tremendous blessing that churches there are thriving when the government previously suppressed the Christian faith. I've witnessed one church in Harbin grow and expand so much there are now four. You can find Bibles in many bookstores, including the famous Wangfujing Bookstore in Beijing. My friends there who are Christians still attend school and learn genuine science.

Genuine science is a term that needs to be questioned if it excludes truth.

I've directly asked them about this several times out of curiosity. Like me, they view Genesis as an allegory, so there is no disparity between their faith and their science education, and no need for subterfuge by their parents and instructors.

However they view creation really is neither here nor there. I bet there are many millions who believe it totally but wouldn't tell you!

This tug of war between Christianity and evolution mainly takes place upon American soil.

That is just the truth rejection process of a nation. They embrace anything but Christ in a desperate and passionate way. Just look at what Obama promotes.

It's an absolutely unnecessary and counterproductive feud.

No. It is necessary that a dying Christ rejecting nation go through the pangs of death and truth rejection.

When it encroaches upon science education and impairs a student's education it's to the detriment of both the student and society.

It needs to have the light of God to know the truth of creation and where so called science bites it.

You want to tilt at the windmills about evolution, and perhaps that's your favorite form of exercise, but most sensible Christians find more productive ways to spend their time and energy.

What 'christians' do to molly coddle an anti Christ regime doesn't matter to me. I know what believers do.

 

[dad]

B. We do share common ancestry with them.

No. We don't. The way you determine shared ancestry needs to be put on the table.

 

[SteveB28]

Thus the question.

You guys don't think we're born spouting evolution, do you?

I thought evolution was about baby steps?

You gotta start somewhere, eh?

Not everyone has read Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

One hardly needs an impressive understanding of biology to understand the foolishness of the "why are there still monkeys?" question.

One only needs to realise that both you and your cousins can co-exist, thanks to your grandparents!

 

[lifepsyop]

No. We don't. The way you determine shared ancestry needs to be put on the table.

Basically, they assume it is true and shout down anyone who disagrees.

 

[dad]

Basically, they assume it is true and shout down anyone who disagrees.

Maybe it's time to do a little shutting ourselves

 

[AV1611VET]

One hardly needs an impressive understanding of biology to understand the foolishness of the "why are there still monkeys?" question.

One only needs to realise that both you and your cousins can co-exist, thanks to your grandparents!

I disagree.

Some things take patience to teach.

If it was so easy, why are there books written on it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I disagree.

Some things take patience to teach.

If it was so easy, why are there books written on it?

The study of evolution isn't easy, there's a lot to learn.

However, the question "If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" is trivially easy.

It is no more a problem for evolution than the same question turned on creationists: "If we came from dirt, why is there still dirt?"

Its not a logical objection at all to either hypothesis! Not all the dirt was used up! Not all the monkeys were used up!

Not that it was monkeys, exactly, in the real scientific theory.

 

[dad]

The study of evolution isn't easy, there's a lot to learn.

However, the question "If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" is trivially easy.

It is no more a problem for evolution than the same question turned on creationists: "If we came from dirt, why is there still dirt?"

Its not a logical objection at all to either hypothesis! Not all the dirt was used up! Not all the monkeys were used up!

Not that it was monkeys, exactly, in the real scientific theory.

Totally faith then. OK. Shallow end of the belief pool no less.

 

[crjmurray]

Thus the question.

You guys don't think we're born spouting evolution, do you?

I thought evolution was about baby steps?

You gotta start somewhere, eh?

Not everyone has read Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

Did you slam your head into the keyboard and hope words came out?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Did you slam your head into the keyboard and hope words came out?

Yep! Do it all the time. Some Shakespeare came out a few times. For example:

He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.​

 

[Blue Wren]

Creationism is no more science than stamp collecting.

I agree with you 100% about this, AV.



No, but as far as I'm aware there are not stamp collecting textbooks being taught in science classes in a blatant effort to supplant actual science. Stamp collecting pseudoscience textbook manufacturing isn't a lucrative business. There haven't been lawsuits to prohibit stamp collecting from being taught in public schools as part of an academic discipline.

Though if there were stamp collecting creationist textbooks they probably would make up Ken Ham and Henry Morris stamps to cover over the ones of Darwin that several countries have issued to honor his accomplishments. Anything with a creationist stamp would be returned to sender as it lacks use and function in the real world.



Charles Darwin | Stamp Magazine

New Royal Mail stamps celebrate Charles Darwin | Science | The Guardian

That's something I wish creationists would come to realize:

That creationism is not science.

HOWEVER, it's not creationism's fault if creationists are trying to teach it as science.

Calling it "pseudoscience" then is, in my opinion, a misnomer.

I love your brilliant moments. However, pseudoscience is a label often given to subjects that people try to pass off as science, and I think creationism qualifies, or, more specifically, ID.

 

[Blue Wren]

That's great because your "everything from nothing" straw man has no basis in reality either.



A. We don't share 25% them.
B. We do share common ancestry with them.

Hyperbolic rubbish. Teaching science in the science classroom is educating. Your overblown rhetoric is not helping you make your case.



For me that was a mere 14 years.



The Constitution says nor implies nothing of the sort. In fact a vague notion of God given rights was insufficient, hence the Bill of Rights.



Because we were scared of the Commies, not out of a natural sense of national piety.



The person to whom you were responding was talking about teaching science in the science classroom. I'm pretty sure most religious believers apart from Creationists would like to have science taught in the science classroom.

 

[SteveB28]

I disagree.

Some things take patience to teach.

If it was so easy, why are there books written on it?

Books written on the question of you existing alongside your cousins?

Because the same, simple principle operates in understanding why humans and monkeys coexist.

Not that this will make a scrap of difference to one who simply discards evidence willy-nilly.