An atheists world

CabVet said:

We don't know. But it's not because we don't know that we will make something up to explain it or call it a miracle.

Click to expand...

we should not be teaching kids propaganda that we don't understand. Hence we should give them ID not BC biblical creationism. But teach the controversies over evolution. Give the kids a choice, not brainwash.

gradyll said:

we should not be teaching kids propaganda that we don't understand. Hence we should give them ID not BC biblical creationism. But teach the controversies over evolution. Give the kids a choice, not brainwash.

Click to expand...

Should we also teach them astrology?

we should not be teaching kids propaganda that we don't understand.

Click to expand...

We don't understand everything about gravity. Is teaching kids about gravity propaganda?

We don't understand everything about climate. Is teaching kids about climate propaganda?

We don't understand everything about chemistry. Is teaching kids about chemistry propaganda?

There are always things we don't know, and the same can be said for every theory and every aspect of science. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with teaching it or that it's propaganda. There is no controversy in the scientific community as a whole over evolution; the only flack comes from a small group of neophytes on the fringe.

Just because we don't understand everything about astronomy doesn't mean we're going to start teaching astrology. Just because we don't understand everything about chemistry doesn't mean we're going to start teaching alchemy.

gradyll said:

we should not be teaching kids propaganda that we don't understand. Hence we should give them ID not BC biblical creationism. But teach the controversies over evolution. Give the kids a choice, not brainwash.

Click to expand...

There really is no controversy over evolution.

Of the people who understand it best well over 99% accept it. That is almost unheard of. With standards like you have we should "teach the controversy" when it comes to 9/11, the Apollo projects, the Kennedy assassination, and even the Holocaust. Does that sound reasonable to you? All of those have more doubt about them than there is of evolution.

Subduction Zone said:

There really is no controversy over evolution.

Of the people who understand it best well over 99% accept it. That is almost unheard of. With standards like you have we should "teach the controversy" when it comes to 9/11, the Apollo projects, the Kennedy assassination, and even the Holocaust. Does that sound reasonable to you? All of those have more doubt about them than there is of evolution.

Click to expand...

I have brought up two already, and only asked two.

Archaeopteryx said:

Should we also teach them astrology?

Click to expand...

If it was a legitimate scientific alternative to astronomy, yes. But it's not. It is religious based. ID is not, see discovery institute. They have never tried to get ID into schools lately, it's baby steps. They are just trying to promote a curriculum called"teach the controversy"

My software is up and running finally, here is a clip....

"Support for ex Nihilo Creation. One of the oldest extrabiblical recorded statements on creation known to archaeologists, over 4,000 years old, makes a clear statement on ex nihilo creation: “Lord of heaven and earth: the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it, the morning light you had not [yet] made exist” (Ebla Archives, 259). Creation from nothing is clearly expressed outside the Bible in 2 Maccabees 7:28. It says, “Look at the heavens and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.”
While the Hebrew word for “creation,” bara, does not necessarily mean to create from nothing (cf. Ps. 104:30), nevertheless, in certain contexts it can mean only that. Genesis 1:1 declares: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Given the context that this is speaking about the original creation, ex nihilo seems to be implied here. Likewise, when God commanded: “Let there be light,” there was light (Gen. 1:3), ex nihilo creation is involved. For light literally, and apparently instantaneously, came to be where previously it was not.
Psalm 148:5 declares: “Let them [angels] praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created.”
Jesus affirmed: “And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began” (John 17:5). This phrase is repeated in 1 Corinthians 2:7 and 2 Timothy 1:9. Obviously, if the world had a beginning, then it did not always exist. It literally came into existence out of nonexistence. In this sense, every New Testament passage that speaks of the “beginning” of the universe assumes ex nihilo creation (cf. Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19). Romans 4:17 asserts ex nihilo creation in very clear and simple terms: “God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.” In Colossians 1:16 the apostle Paul added, “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.” This eliminates the view that the visible universe is simply made out of invisible matter, since even the invisible created realm was brought into existence.
In the Apocalypse John expressed the same thought, declaring, “for You created all things, and by Your will they were created and have their being” (Rev. 4:11).
From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible declares the doctrine of God’s creation of everything else that exists, other than himself, out of nothing.
Criticism of Ex Nihilo Creation. There are several important implications of creation ex nihilo. Most of them arise out of misunderstandings of the view.
It Does Not Imply Time before Time. It is objected that the view implies that there was time before time began, since it holds that time had a beginning and yet God existed before (a temporal term) time began. This objection is answered by the theist by pointing out that before is not used here as a temporal term, but to indicate ontological priority. Time did not exist before time, but God did. There was no time before time, but there was eternity. For the universe, nonbeing came “before” being in a logical sense, not a chronological one. The Creator is “before all time” only by a priority of nature, not of time. God did not create in time; he executed the creation of time.
It Does Not Imply Nothing Made Something. Sometimes ex nihilo creation is criticized as though it affirmed that nothing made something. It is clearly absurd to assert that nonbeing produced being (see CAUSALITY, PRINCIPLE OF). For in order to create there must be an existing cause, but nonexistence does not exist. Hence, nothing cannot create something. Only something (or someone) can cause something. Nothing causes nothing.
In contrast to nothing producing something, ex nihilo creation affirms that Someone (God) made something from nothing. This is in accord with the fundamental law of causality which demands that everything that comes to be is caused. Nothing cannot bring something into existence, but Someone (God) can bring something other than himself into existence, where prior to that it did not exist. So, for theism, creation from nothing does not mean creation by nothing.
It Does Not Imply “Nothing” Is Something. When the theist declares that God created “out of nothing,” he does not mean that “nothing” was some invisible, immaterial something that God used to make the material universe. Nothing means absolutely nothing. That is, God, and utterly nothing else, existed. God created the universe, and then alone did something else exist.
Conclusion. Ex nihilo creation is both biblically grounded and philosophically coherent. It is an essential truth of Christian theism which clearly distinguishes it from other worldviews, such as pantheism (ex deo) and atheism (ex materia). Objections to ex nihilo creation do not stand in the face of careful scrutiny."

Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (176–177). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

gradyll said:

If it was a legitimate scientific alternative to astronomy, yes. But it's not. It is religious based. ID is not, see discovery institute. They have never tried to get ID into schools lately, it's baby steps. They are just trying to promote a curriculum called"teach the controversy"

Click to expand...

ID is Creationism in disguise. See the Dover trial.

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions.

It is religious based. ID is not, see discovery institute.

Click to expand...

ID is just repackaged creationism. Literally.

The outcome of the case prompted significant editorial changes to the book. Dean H. Kenyon had presented an affidavit to the court in which he defined "creation science" as meaning "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form", which did "not include as essential parts... catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life,... the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts",[22] but this attempt to re-define creation science did not succeed in the Edwards case. Both authors had previously written young Earth creationist publications referring to biological design: a 1967 book co-written by Percival Davis referred to "design according to which basic organisms were created", and in an 1984 article as well as in his affidavit to Edwards v. Aguillard, Kenyon defended creation science by stating that "biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how".[23] According to the Discovery Institute's account published in December 2005, Charles Thaxton as editor of the Pandas book needed a new term after the Supreme Court case, and found it in a phrase he "picked up from a NASA scientist – intelligent design". He thought "That’s just what I need, it’s a good engineering term….. it seemed to jibe... And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally."[15] In a new draft of Pandas prepared shortly after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design,[24] The definition remained essentially the same, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", and "intelligent creator" changed to "intelligent agency":
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.[16]

The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".[18][21]
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.[17][21]

FTE founder Jon Buell says that the word creationism was a "placeholder term" whose definition "changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word."[25] However, the proof that intelligent design was creationism re-labeled played a significant part in the Kitzmiller trial, and "cdesign proponentsists" has been described as "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design."[26]

Click to expand...

lasthero said:

ID is just repackaged creationism. Literally.

Click to expand...

it's actually not, it is a secular institute. 8 states have adopted teach the controversy, and they are growing everyday.

Archaeopteryx said:

ID is Creationism in disguise. See the Dover trial.

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions.

Click to expand...

they didn't want to teach ID so they poisoned the well, thats a common mistake with the dover trial. It's guilt by association.

lasthero said:

ID is just repackaged creationism. Literally.

Click to expand...

ID, isn't trying to be taught in schools right now as people can't do it right and it needs special training. But teach the controversy is in 8 states.

gradyll said:

Archaeopteryx said:

ID is Creationism in disguise. See the Dover trial.

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions.

Click to expand...

they didn't want to teach ID so they poisoned the well, thats a common mistake with the dover trial. It's guilt by association.

Click to expand...

The plaintiffs in the dover trial poisoned the well?

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how they forced the editors of, Of Pandas and People, to literally cut and paste "intelligent designer" in place of all mentions of the word "creator," in their formerly creationist textbook.

Because it sure sounds like it was ID proponents who poisoned the well by blatantly substituting ID for creationism.

So your interpretation of who poisoned what is suspect.

Lethe said:

The plaintiffs in the dover trial poisoned the well?

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how they forced the editors of, Of Pandas and People, to literally cut and paste "intelligent designer" in place of all mentions of the word "creator," in their formerly creationist textbook.

Because it sure sounds like it was ID proponents who poisoned the well by blatantly substituting ID for creationism.

So your interpretation of who poisoned what is suspect.

Click to expand...

how is intelligent designer Biblical?

Creator is Biblical,

something can be similiar but not exact. Hence is science yes?

I was pleased with your link showing that they are making an effort to neutralize ID (a non Biblical version) to be publically accepted.

If someone like Ken Ham wants to teach BC let him.

I suggest looking up the true definition of ID.

Just as you as an atheist have your definitions so does IDers.

Atheist has changed meanings.

Can you do me a favor and reiterate what I just said in your own words?

I need some indication that you even understand what I'm saying.

gradyll said:

it's actually not, it is a secular institute.

Click to expand...

What rubbish. It is nowhere near a "secular" institute, their failed attempts notwithstanding. They couldn't even maintain that ruse in court.

8 states have adopted teach the controversy, and they are growing everyday.

Click to expand...

And that will be the downfall of them. Especially since "the controversy" doesn't exist.

Teach the Controversy
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Cincinnati Enquirer
March 30, 2002


When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject that intersects the public school curriculum students should learn about both perspectives.

In such cases teachers should not teach as true only one competing view, just the Republican or Democratic view of the New Deal in a history class, for example. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. Educators call this “teaching the controversy.”

Recently, while speaking to the Ohio State Board of Education, I suggested this approach as a way forward for Ohio in its increasingly contentious dispute about how to teach theories of biological origin, and about whether or not to introduce the theory of intelligent design alongside Darwinism in the Ohio biology curriculum.

I also proposed a compromise involving three main provisions:

(1) First, I suggested--speaking as an advocate of the theory of intelligent design--that Ohio not require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design, at least not yet.

(2) Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory. And Ohio should test students for their understanding of those arguments, not for their assent to a point of view.

(3) Finally, I argued that the state board should permit, but not require, teachers to tell students about the arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design.

There are many reasons for Ohio to adopt this approach.

First, honest science education requires it. While testifying before the state board, biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells and I, submitted an annotated bibliography of over 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles that raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution. If students are to be required to master the case for Darwinian evolution (as we think they should), shouldn't they also know some of the difficulties described in such scientific literature?

Shouldn’t students know that many scientists doubt that the overall pattern of fossil evidence conforms to the Darwinian picture of the history of life? Shouldn't they know that some scientists now question previously stock Darwinian arguments from embryology and homology? And shouldn't they also know that many scientists now question the ability of natural selection to create fundamentally new structures, organisms and body plans? Last fall 100 scientists, including professors from institutions such as M.I.T, Yale and Rice, published a statement questioning the creative power of natural selection. Shouldn't students know why?

Second, constitutional law permits “teaching the controversy” about scientific theories of origins. In the controlling Edwards v. Aguillard case, the Supreme Court made clear that state legislatures (and by extension state boards) already have the right to mandate teaching scientific critiques of prevailing theories. Interestingly, the court also made clear that teachers have the right to teach students about “a variety of scientific theories about origins . . . with the clear secular intent of enhancing science education.” Our compromise proposal requires teaching existing scientific critique of Darwinism, and permits discussion of competing theories, just as the Court allows.

Third, federal education policy calls for precisely this kind of approach. The report language accompanying the federal education act (“No Child Left Behind”) states that “where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist [and] why such topics may generate controversy.”

Some have dismissed this language as irrelevant to Ohio's deliberations because it appears in the report accompanying the federal education act, not in the act itself. But report language typically articulates Congress's interpretation of law and guides its implementation. As such, report language expresses federal policy and has the effect of law. In this case, as Ohio's John Boehner, chair of the House education committee, has advised the Ohio Board, the report language makes clear that “science standards not be used to censor debate on controversial issues in science including Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

Fourth, voters overwhelmingly favor this approach. In a recent national Zogby poll, 71% of those polled stated their support for teaching evidence both for and against Darwin's theory of evolution. Only 15% opposed this approach. An even greater majority favored exposing students to “evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.”

Finally, good pedagogy commends this approach. Teaching the controversy about Darwinism as it exists in the scientific community will engage student interest. It will motivate students to learn more about the biological evidence as they see why it matters to a big question. This is not only good teaching; it is good science. As Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

Yet, the modern Darwinist lobby continues to distract attention from their advocacy of censorship by reciting a litany of complaints about the emerging theory of intelligent design. But that theory is not the issue in Ohio. The issue is whether students will learn both sides of the real and growing scientific controversy about Darwinism,and whether a 19th century theory will be taught dogmatically to 21st century students.


Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from Cambridge University. He directs Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, Washington. He testified before the Ohio State Board of Education on March 11th, 2002.


-from discovery instute on teach the controversy

gradyll said:

When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject<snip>

Click to expand...

and you can stop right there. There are no two groups of "experts" disagreeing on the subject.

Failed before you even started...

gradyll said:

how is intelligent designer Biblical?

Creator is Biblical,

something can be similiar but not exact. Hence is science yes?

I was pleased with your link showing that they are making an effort to neutralize ID (a non Biblical version) to be publically accepted.

If someone like Ken Ham wants to teach BC let him.

I suggest looking up the true definition of ID.

Just as you as an atheist have your definitions so does IDers.

Atheist has changed meanings.

Click to expand...

I never asked about any of that stuff, I never contested any of it, and you didn't present any coherent argument about why any of it matters.



I can't talk with someone who strings together non-sequiturs flagrantly with no coherency.



And so I asked you to verify what I said in your own words, you know, just to indicate that we're having a conversation with each other here instead of just repeating different, completely unrelated talking points.

Lethe said:

I never asked about any of that stuff, I never contested any of it, and you didn't present any coherent argument about why any of it matters.



I can't talk with someone who strings together non-sequiturs flagrantly with no coherency.



And so I asked you to verify what I said in your own words, you know, just to indicate that we're having a conversation with each other here instead of just repeating different, completely unrelated talking points.

Click to expand...

ok, so what is your question. I am too lazy to go back and read it. (it's early)