Creationists are trying to ban science from schools in Ohio. Seriously.

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,484
62
✟570,656.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
That will never fly..the ACLU would be all over it in a heart beat.

They are already. Why are they so afraid of teaching something like the theory of Creation if there is supposedly so much evidence against it.

Everyone wants God out of the schools, no prayer, no bible, nothing Christian.

Yet when a kid comes in and shoots up the place, the first thing they do, as they should, is PRAY.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
They are already. Why are they so afraid of teaching something like the theory of Creation if there is supposedly so much evidence against it.

A) because kids are stupid. Teaching them two competing "theories" is just asking for trouble.
B) Schools aren't about "debate". They are about teaching facts as understood by the best available understanding of the evidence of the day.

When kid's have grown up, have a little self awareness, and preferably a decent grounding in critical thinking, then, by all means, teach them about whatever ludicrous "alternative" theory you like. Maybe appropriate in second year philosophy course, maybe, but that's not what secondary schools are about.
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟10,521.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
They are already. Why are they so afraid of teaching something like the theory of Creation if there is supposedly so much evidence against it.

OK I'm game. Can you present a scientific Theory of Creation? That is what would be required in most countries as a starting point to teach the theory in science class.



Dizredux
 
Upvote 0

twinc

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2011
778
5
Wirral
✟1,281.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
OK I'm game. Can you present a scientific Theory of Creation? That is what would be required in most countries as a starting point to teach the theory in science class.



Dizredux

and why not - simul et ex nihilo instead of non science and nonsense taught and accepted for many years as The Big Bang and other such rubbish posing as science - via google see [Fact vs Faith/textbooks]creation today - twinc
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟10,521.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Dizredux
OK I'm game. Can you present a scientific Theory of Creation? That is what would be required in most countries as a starting point to teach the theory in science class.

and why not - simul et ex nihilo instead of non science and nonsense taught and accepted for many years as The Big Bang and other such rubbish posing as science - via google see [Fact vs Faith/textbooks]creation today - twinc
OK then, can you show the predictions that creationism can make that evolution cannot?

Even better, can you show how your scientific theory of creationism can be falsified. That is a bedrock requirement for a scientific theory.

Dizredux
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Dizredux


OK then, can you show the predictions that creationism can make that evolution cannot?

Even better, can you show how your scientific theory of creationism can be falsified. That is a bedrock requirement for a scientific theory.

Dizredux

if you are talking about concepts then yeah it can be verified, if you are talking origin science, well that can't be verified because we were not there. So either way it's not empirical science because it cannot be repeated or observed. But if you are talking about concepts of Intelligent design, well yeah we have peer reviews on design all over, here is one:

"1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” ...

"Nonviability of Transitional Forms—Another problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway."

above quotes from- Norman Geisler, frank turek - book entitled -I don't have faith enough to be an atheist.

Avian feathers are one example of irreducible complexity and more specifically specified complexity:

a peer review article details it for us:
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟10,521.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Dizredux responding to twinc
OK then, can you show the predictions that creationism can make that evolution cannot?

Even better, can you show how your scientific theory of creationism can be falsified. That is a bedrock requirement for a scientific theory.
Grady, you did not really respond to what I posted or just glossed over it. You do bring up some points that I think need addressing however and so I am responding.


Grady
if you are talking about concepts then yeah it can be verified, if you are talking origin science, well that can't be verified because we were not there. So either way it's not empirical science because it cannot be repeated or observed.
You are channeling Ham again. What is observed are the physical effects left from the events. These are both observable and repeatable.

Ham's "You were not there " is one of the more foolish arguments I have seen creationists use. This restriction would knock out geology, much of biology, all of astronomy, a good bit of physics, paleontology, archeology. On none of them were current researchers there to witnesses the events. What they do witness is the effects of those events.

But if you are talking about concepts of Intelligent design, well yeah we have peer reviews on design all over, here is one:

"1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” ...
This is well known and so far it has held up.

"Nonviability of Transitional Forms—Another problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway."

above quotes from- Norman Geisler, frank turek - book entitled -I don't have faith enough to be an atheist.
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek are Christian apologists. We are talking about science here and the proper places to research science is scientific sources not apologists, ministries or people who are beating a rhetorical drum like the Discovery Institute.

You don't research the solar system by going to geocentric sources, you don't research Olympic wrestling by going to World Wrestling Entertainment for your information. If you are going to discuss science then you need to use scientific sources.

On to your next thing:

Avian feathers are one example of irreducible complexity and more specifically specified complexity:

a peer review article details it for us: Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionists.org: Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views
Grady did you check this out or did you just glance at it and thought it might agree with you. Even worse did you just take the Discovery Institute's word on the significance of the article.

If you had done just a little homework, you would have seen this disclaimer before the abstract

Editor’s Note: This paper presents a different paradigm than the traditional view. It is, in the view of the Journal, an exploratory paper that does not give a complete justification for the alternative view. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper. It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organize themselves. The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic
Hardly earth shaking and as the editors of the journal indicated the article does not justify the conclusions. Again, did you bother to check your source out before posting it?

Grady, you need to work more on getting your facts together and being honest about what they mean.

Dizredux
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
They are already. Why are they so afraid of teaching something like the theory of Creation if there is supposedly so much evidence against it.

Everyone wants God out of the schools, no prayer, no bible, nothing Christian.

Yet when a kid comes in and shoots up the place, the first thing they do, as they should, is PRAY.

Do you have the opportunity to have God at home and in your church?

I imagine you do, so why would it be ok to have your God in school, where others might not worship that God, or any God at all?
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟10,521.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
JacksBratt

They are already. Why are they so afraid of teaching something like the theory of Creation if there is supposedly so much evidence against it.

Everyone wants God out of the schools, no prayer, no bible, nothing Christian.

Yet when a kid comes in and shoots up the place, the first thing they do, as they should, is PRAY.
bhsmte
Do you have the opportunity to have God at home and in your church?

I imagine you do, so why would it be ok to have your God in school, where others might not worship that God, or any God at all?
Jack reports living in Canada. I don't know what the rules are there concerning religion and the schools.

Jack, perhaps you could fill us in on the situation there just for information.

Dizredux
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,484
62
✟570,656.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
JacksBratt

bhsmte Jack reports living in Canada. I don't know what the rules are there concerning religion and the schools.

Jack, perhaps you could fill us in on the situation there just for information.

Dizredux


The Public schools in Canada are not much different than In the US as far as science goes. No more Lords Prayer at the beginning of the day etc.

We don't have the ACLU here but the US is kinda like our big brother so we follow a lot of their ways.

The Catholic School has a separate board and has a separate curriculum. It is also funded through tax money. I don't know it very well as I didn't attend and my kid's didn't either.

There are a few Christian Schools, in Ontario, where the parents pay a tuition for their children to attend. There are elementary level and grade 9 -12 level schools. When our kids were going there, there was a lot of non Christian parents that sent their kids there due to the level of education that they received and the excellent student to teacher ratio. These schools teach creation. They are funded by the parents so the government cannot dictate who attends, or disallow the prayer, Christmas concerts, Easter celebrations etc.

When my oldest son was in the public school system, grade 1, he asked the teacher how to spell "Jesus". She told him she couldn't tell him. I can understand if she wasn't allowed to tell him to write Jesus, but to withhold the education to a child of how to spell a word because of its religions nature is wrong. That was it, tuition costs or not, we yanked him from there and gave him a far better education and he is now doing well in Post secondary.

Education in Ontario sucks. It has no ability to discipline and puts kids ahead to the next grade even if they haven't grasped or learned the proper curriculum. The teachers union is too strong and they cannot fire a teacher even if they are not completing the curriculum or can't control a class.

My other two kids are still in secondary school, public system and the quality of education, compared to what they got in the private Christian school is shockingly lacking.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The Public schools in Canada are not much different than In the US as far as science goes. No more Lords Prayer at the beginning of the day etc.

We don't have the ACLU here but the US is kinda like our big brother so we follow a lot of their ways.

The Catholic School has a separate board and has a separate curriculum. It is also funded through tax money. I don't know it very well as I didn't attend and my kid's didn't either.

There are a few Christian Schools, in Ontario, where the parents pay a tuition for their children to attend. There are elementary level and grade 9 -12 level schools. When our kids were going there, there was a lot of non Christian parents that sent their kids there due to the level of education that they received and the excellent student to teacher ratio. These schools teach creation. They are funded by the parents so the government cannot dictate who attends, or disallow the prayer, Christmas concerts, Easter celebrations etc.

When my oldest son was in the public school system, grade 1, he asked the teacher how to spell "Jesus". She told him she couldn't tell him. I can understand if she wasn't allowed to tell him to write Jesus, but to withhold the education to a child of how to spell a word because of its religions nature is wrong. That was it, tuition costs or not, we yanked him from there and gave him a far better education and he is now doing well in Post secondary.

Education in Ontario sucks. It has no ability to discipline and puts kids ahead to the next grade even if they haven't grasped or learned the proper curriculum. The teachers union is too strong and they cannot fire a teacher even if they are not completing the curriculum or can't control a class.

My other two kids are still in secondary school, public system and the quality of education, compared to what they got in the private Christian school is shockingly lacking.

Ok, so answer my question from before.

Why would God need to be included in public schools were some people don't believe in that God, or may worship another God?

Since you have God all you want in your home and in the church you choose, why the need to take God to a public school?
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟10,521.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
The Public schools in Canada are not much different than In the US as far as science goes. No more Lords Prayer at the beginning of the day etc.

We don't have the ACLU here but the US is kinda like our big brother so we follow a lot of their ways.

The Catholic School has a separate board and has a separate curriculum. It is also funded through tax money. I don't know it very well as I didn't attend and my kid's didn't either.

There are a few Christian Schools, in Ontario, where the parents pay a tuition for their children to attend. There are elementary level and grade 9 -12 level schools. When our kids were going there, there was a lot of non Christian parents that sent their kids there due to the level of education that they received and the excellent student to teacher ratio. These schools teach creation. They are funded by the parents so the government cannot dictate who attends, or disallow the prayer, Christmas concerts, Easter celebrations etc.

When my oldest son was in the public school system, grade 1, he asked the teacher how to spell "Jesus". She told him she couldn't tell him. I can understand if she wasn't allowed to tell him to write Jesus, but to withhold the education to a child of how to spell a word because of its religions nature is wrong. That was it, tuition costs or not, we yanked him from there and gave him a far better education and he is now doing well in Post secondary.

Education in Ontario sucks. It has no ability to discipline and puts kids ahead to the next grade even if they haven't grasped or learned the proper curriculum. The teachers union is too strong and they cannot fire a teacher even if they are not completing the curriculum or can't control a class.

My other two kids are still in secondary school, public system and the quality of education, compared to what they got in the private Christian school is shockingly lacking.

Does Canada have some sort of constitutional or legal restriction on teaching or practicing religion in the public schools?

Dizredux
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,484
62
✟570,656.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
OK great, can you give us the scientific theory of creationism? Interested people have been asking for decades for someone to present one and so far no one has.

A good scientific theory of creationism would do a lot for the controversy.


Dizredux


The theory of creation is backed by the Bible. From wiki we get:

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works.

The scientific evidence that is out there has been used by both camps, as I have stated before, in many debates, by people with far more knowledge than I have on the subject.

If Creation was that easy to debunk, these debates wouldn't exist.

Many of the scientists that present new data or examine existing data in a manner that is pro creation are publicly harassed and ridiculed. Some may lose their jobs or stature. It has been, to my understanding, that in the past, it is these people, who buck the system, dare to go against the grain, are the ones that, in the end, change the world and expose the truth.

Matthew 7:13-14King James Version (KJV)

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟10,521.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
The theory of creation is backed by the Bible. From wiki we get:

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works.
But as you describe it is not a scientific theory but more of a religious/philosophical idea and in some cases this is true but not for scientific theories. In science the term theory has a very specific use so a generalized discussion on the word does not really apply.

This is what a scientific theory is: Also from Wiki
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
Jack
The scientific evidence that is out there has been used by both camps, as I have stated before, in many debates, by people with far more knowledge than I have on the subject.
I have not found that to be the case, many apologists state they will automatically reject any evidence that does not coincide with their idea of a literal Genesis. You can't say both use the same evidence when one side throws out huge amounts of it without thought or evaluation.

If Creation was that easy to debunk, these debates wouldn't exist.
The debates almost all come from the creationist side as far as I can tell. You cannot rule in or rule out a deity being involved so with science, there is no debate as there is no evidence for or against the role of God in the process.

Parts of YEC however have been debunked or more accurately falsified, shown wrong. These include young universe, young earth, global flood and no evolution.

Many of the scientists that present new data or examine existing data in a manner that is pro creation are publicly harassed and ridiculed.
This is mostly because their arguments and evidence often deserve ridicule.

Some may lose their jobs or stature.
So far the only one that I know that may have lost their job was Guillermo Gonzalez who did not get tenure but there is no way to know for sure as these decisions are but public. Some did lose stature but that happens to many that cannot support their arguments. When they do, stature is usually returned even leading up to a Nobel prize.

to my understanding, that in the past, it is these people, who buck the system, dare to go against the grain, are the ones that, in the end, change the world and expose the truth.
That is true but also many more try to do so and make absolute fools out of themselves. The difference comes from finding evidence to back their arguments up.

The issue here is looking for a scientific theory of creationism for use in a science classroom. That is the grail that has been asked for so very many times but has never been presented and that is want it is going to take to get creationism legitimately into science classes.

Dizredux
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Simmeh

Flying Bugbear
Apr 11, 2014
103
33
✟15,847.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Does Canada have some sort of constitutional or legal restriction on teaching or practicing religion in the public schools?

Dizredux

I'll jump in and try to answer this:

Technically, Canada is a Christian nation. Our Charter begins with the line, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." Our head of state is also the Queen of England, who is the head of the Anglican Church.

However, one of our freedoms, found in that same Charter, is a "freedom of conscience and religion," and this has been interpreted that the government should not overly favour one religion over another. It still does - as was mentioned, Catholic schools get public funding in Ontario - but the population is now so diverse and secular that I doubt that any government could go very far attempting to advance a single religion.

Sometimes governments still attempt it- go look up Quebec's Charter of Secular Values from last year - and can do so by an oddity in our charter: the Notwithstanding Clause, which allows a government to override the Charter if they deem it necessary. It's rarely used and is heavily frowned upon, but I do know the previous Quebec government was intent on using it to pass their odious charter. I've found, though, living here basically my entire life, that governments and the populace at large leave religions alone so long as religions don't try to interfere with anything else.

Also, another comment: I went to those private Christian schools in Ontario, and I can tell you that in highschool biology, students are taught the ToE. It isn't stressed, but it also isn't downplayed or denigrated, and YEC is not taught at all outside of the Biblical studies courses. Of course, I can only speak for the schools my cousins and I went to, but those were the two largest in the country. I would imagine that in some of the farther reaches there may be issues, but not in the big urban schools.

EDIT:

My 6th grade science teacher was the brother of a Baptist preacher and a devout Christian himself. We covered the Creation version in one class as a debate. I drew the lucky straw and represented the Creation side and won the debate, but my opponent was ill prepared so it was too easy.

I also had this debate, in my Grade 10 Biblical studies course. I had to defend naturalistic evolution, the position that very few people in the class knew much about and even fewer actually accepted. I was still able to win the debate, mostly through being able to out-logic the arguments more than any real evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dizredux
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The theory of creation is backed by the Bible.

So for people who don't believe the Bible, the theory has no merit whatsoever, correct?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If Creation was that easy to debunk, these debates wouldn't exist.

I see this dishonest equivocation all the time. Conflating "Creation" with "Creationism". It's very dishonest.

"Creation" is a concept about which philosophers and theologians my argue endlessly.

"Creationism" is a debunked pseudoscience devoid of support or evidence.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,771.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
an ad hominem is whenever your post is against the person and not what is being said, as I have explained several times now.

Which I have known for years and my post, which you quoted, accurately breaks down what is, and what it not, an ad hominem fallacy.

"ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger."

Common fallacies

which is an atheist site, not a Christian site. So maybe you should email the webmaster and tell him what you told me.

I love, Love, LOVE when people who don't understand what I wrote try and lecture me.

Here it is again. Please not the word in bold.
You're an idiot - insult, but not an ad hominem fallacy.
You're an idiot and you're wrong because of X, Y and Z - still insulting, but not an ad hominem fallacy.
You're wrong because you're an idiot (or an "evolutionist" or Creationist, etc. etc. etc.) - ad hominem fallacy as well as being insulting.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,484
62
✟570,656.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So for people who don't believe the Bible, the theory has no merit whatsoever, correct?


If you don't believe the Bible, why would you care?

If you don't believe the Bible, who makes right right and wrong wrong?

Some leader could come along and change the entire way their nation thinks. Throw the whole moral base out the window. After all, the system we have now is just some man made guide to how we should function.

Hold the phone here......Isn't that what Hamas, Fatah, and all the radicals are doing now? If I don't repent they can kill me as an infidel?

If God is not God and man is just the end of a long line of mutations, adaptations, morphing whatever....Why can't I just take what I want? Do what I want? Go where I want? Smoke what I want? Drink wherever I want?

There has to be a datum somewhere. Something base all measurement by. Where is this if there is no God?
 
Upvote 0