Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[AV1611VET]

Not all Christians believe in ID, that’s true. But of those who do, it’s only Christians. No one else.

Kinda gives the game away, doesn't it.

'Those of us who promote ID have no position as to who the designer is'.
'But...you're all Christians...'

crickets

Way to go, lamberth!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already know what the scientific method is. Quit talking down or get lost.

I doubt if you do. If you did you would realize that you have to swear not to follow it at Answers in Genesis and other creationist sites.

If you do understand the discussion will take no time at all. If you don't you might learn something.

 

[Bradskii]

Arab Phone, Chinese Whispers, Telephone Game, Grapevine ... take your pick.

OK, now I know what it means. But I still don't know the relevancy.

 

[Bradskii]

Way to go, lamberth!

Stop press: This doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. It's never been mentioned because not many people consider that stating the bleedin' obvious is a productive use of their time.

The cat has never been anywhere near a bag.

 

[VirOptimus]

You love telling others why they believe what they do. You must be a little god who can read minds I guess.

No, but I’m educated and know what I’m talking about.

 

[renniks]

Then what's the point of it? ID doesn't really square with anybody's origins doctrine, not YECs, mainline Protestants or traditional Christians.

So if it's not creationism, there's no point to it? Of course it squares with anyone who believes in a creator.

 

[Mr Laurier]

God's glory isn't limited by the size of the trees. Do you live in a house with wood in the walls? Logging is about being able to make stuff from what God made.

God's glory is limited by the imaginations of the religious.
Logging is about making money.
Alas, the industry is dominated by companies that think no further ahead then the next quarter. They strip-mine the forest, and move on.
Loggers either obey, or they get blacklisted.
And so the plunder is indiscriminate, and destructive. Leaving no old growth to sustain a healthy forest.
Selective logging is a better way. But the big lumber companies was to maximize profits.
Selective logging, although profitable, and sustainable, does not maximize profits.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Only on paper.

... and in the lab, and on the farm, and in the forest, savanna, veldt, steppe, taiga, jungle, desert, tundra, etc etc etc....

Yup ... it's a game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?

not even remotely close

 

[Mr Laurier]

Kinda coincidental that it tends to negate every jot & tittle of the Bible that it "researches," isn't it?

Except that it doesnt.
It negates all the fantasy and magic. But leaves any good and useful teachings intact.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I have no idea what that means...

Its a racist term used instead of another racist term for how information gets distorted as it in passed by word of mouth.
He calls it "Arab phone", instead of "Chinese whispers". It took me about a year to get him to explain it.

 

[Speedwell]

So if it's not creationism, there's no point to it?

Read what I said: ID doesn't really square with anybody's origins doctrine, not YECs, not mainline Protestants nor Traditional Christians.

Of course it squares with anyone who believes in a creator.

Not really--that's why so many Christians reject it.

 

[renniks]

God's glory is limited by the imaginations of the religious.
Logging is about making money.
Alas, the industry is dominated by companies that think no further ahead then the next quarter. They strip-mine the forest, and move on.
Loggers either obey, or they get blacklisted.
And so the plunder is indiscriminate, and destructive. Leaving no old growth to sustain a healthy forest.
Selective logging is a better way. But the big lumber companies was to maximize profits.
Selective logging, although profitable, and sustainable, does not maximize profits.

I talked to an old trapper from the adirondacks years ago. He said logging off the big timber was the best thing they ever did for wildlife. Now, I've studied it a bit and they almost decimated the forest's back in the day for bark tannerys. Conservation corps replanted and we have decent woodland in the east again. It's all a balance. Just like animals, we harvest some to keep the boom and bust cycles more even.

 

[renniks]

Not really--that's why so many Christians reject it.

They reject it because it's not specifically Christian. It says nothing about whether evolution happened either.

 

[sfs]

They reject it because it's not specifically Christian. It says nothing about whether evolution happened either.

Don't speak for others. I'm a Christian and I reject ID (as embodied in the Intelligent Design movement and the Discovery Institute) because it's a mishmash of bad, misleading, and vacuous arguments dressed up as science.

 

[Speedwell]

They reject it because it's not specifically Christian. It says nothing about whether evolution happened either.

But note that rejecting ID is not the same as rejecting God as author of our being. Likewise, accepting the theory of evolution--as a scientific theory--is not the same as rejecting God as the author of our being. If you want to argue for ID, go right ahead, but realize that it is not the same as arguing for the existence of God and those of us who argue against it are doing so not because it demonstrates the existence of God but because for theists and atheists it is bad science and for theists it is bad theology.

 

[dlamberth]

So if it's not creationism, there's no point to it? Of course it squares with anyone who believes in a creator.

No, not really.

 

[driewerf]

Logical arguments begin with axioms. If we can't agree that the sky is blue; no amount of logic, or theory, will explain why it is blue.

If you choose to believe what flies in the face of the empirical evidence; then I'll leave you to your own perception.

And scientific arguments begin with data. With empirically gathered facts.
Logic is but a tool to analyse this data and come to explain the data with theories. Logic without data is like letting an machine turn empty. Except for a lot noise you produce nothing.

that' another gap between creationists and scientifically educated people: creationists rely excessively on "logic" with little or no consideration for facts or data.

 

[BobRyan]

HB1701 - TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN-ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.

It now goes to the Senate.

Although the bill does not make creationism mandatory, it is still unconstitutional to teach creationism in science classes.

Arkansas should know this from McLean v. Arkansas and the more encompassing Edwards v. Aguillard.

It is false to say that it is unconstitutional to inform students about the Bible doctrine on origins and that only evolutionist doctrine on origins should be "allowed".

When the subject comes up that answers the question: "how did all life on Earth come about?" the historic fact is Bible creation - which is how it actually happened in real history. Claiming that it is "science" to try and imagine a way that it happened even if it is not at all what happened in nature, what happened in real history - is not logical.

scientifically - it makes no sense at all to claim that dust, gas, rocks and sunlight will "turn into a horse over time due to some innate undiscovered property of rocks".

It is much more logical to say that an infinitely capable Creator can do it - but not at all science fact that becoming a horse is an observed reproducible innate property of rocks themselves, given enough time and chance.

The same thing is true even at one of the smallest levels where one might 'imagine' a prokaryote "becoming" a eukaryote. That is not observable or reproducible.

 

[driewerf]

Have you ever heard of these wind storms called hurricanes?

It's fun to follow their projected landfall with computer models; but I wouldn't bet my life on those models.

Oh? How do you decide to yes or no evacuate? Tealeaves? Palmreading? Ornithomancy?
Please, if you happen to live in a area prone to hurricanes, I kindly ask you use the most reliable method. For your own good and for that of your family.

 

[Speedwell]

It is false to say that it is unconstitutional to inform students about the Bible doctrine on origins and that only evolutionist doctrine on origins should be "allowed".

The courts have consistently disagreed with that. Teaching sectarian religious doctrine in the public schools is unconstitutional.

scientifically - it makes no sense at all to claim that dust, gas, rocks and sunlight will "turn into a horse over time".

It is much more logical to say that an infinitely capable Creator can do it - but not at all science fact that becoming a horse is an observed reproducible innate property of rocks themselves, given enough time and chance.

The same thing is true even at one of the smallest levels where one might 'imagine' a prokaryote "becoming" a eukaryote. That is not observable or reproducible.

Rejecting the theory of evolution on scientific grounds is one thing. Rejecting it because it denies divine authorship of our being would be teaching lie. Make no mistake: the strongest objections to this bill will not come from atheists--there are hardly enough of them in Arkansas to make a difference--but from other Christians who have little difficulty reconciling the theory of evolution with their faith and don't want the public schools to be teaching their children Fundamentalist Bible doctrine..