Creationism/Creation Science... approved by Arkansas house

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Impact_event.jpg


On 15 September 2007, a chondritic meteor crashed near the village of Carancas in southeastern Peru near Lake Titicaca, leaving a water-filled hole and spewing gases across the surrounding area. Many residents became ill, apparently from the noxious gases shortly after the impact.

Impact event - Wikipedia
So let me see if I understand the scientific standard you are proposing:

No explanation for a process that takes longer than can be scientifically documented by direct observation in real time should be considered valid.

Is that right?
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,039
US
✟1,060,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,628
51
✟312,683.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
HB1701 House Vote - Arkansas State Legislature


Creationism bill passed in Arkansas House, headed to Senate

==== the result
Creationism bill narrowly defeated in Arkansas | National Center for Science Education

"Arkansas's House Bill 1701 (PDF), sponsored by Mary Bentley (R-District 73), was narrowly defeated, on a 3-3 vote, in the Senate Education Committee on April 21, 2021. If enacted, the bill would have allowed teachers in the state's public and open-enrollment charter schools to "teach creationism as a theory of how the earth came to exist."

"House Bill 1701 passed the House of Representatives on a 72-21 vote on April 7, 2021, after passing the House Education Committee on a voice vote on April 6, 2021"

====================== My POV as a creationist ============
Given that:

1. Creation has a particular doctrine on "origins" that explains how all life we see today got on Earth at all major levels from plants to humans.

Creation Science relates to "observations in nature" that evaluate intelligent design as well as studying short-term geochronometers found in nature.

2. Creationists know that Evolution (at the level of evolutionism) has its own competing doctrine on "origins" that includes a story about how all life we see today got on Earth at all major levels from plants to humans.

Evolution vs Evolutionism example from wikipedia


Evolution - Wikipedia

>> I call this "Evolution": -- as observed science fact

quote from wikipedia:
“Evolution: Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population”​



>> I call this part "Evolutionism" – the doctrine on origins believed by atheists – in direct opposition to Creationism. A story that explains how all the diverse life on earth seen today - came about.

quote from wikipedia:
“It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules."​

======================

My suggestion is that both of these religious views be left out of the science classroom - and just the actual science part should be taught.
Crikey. Arkansassanians really want their kids to grow up to be economically disadvantaged.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,039
US
✟1,060,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
So let me see if I understand the scientific standard you are proposing:

No explanation for a process that takes longer than can be scientifically documented by direct observation in real time should be considered valid.

Is that right?

We've covered this ad nauseam. How about first, we dispense with the strawman arguments, and begging the question; and then you demonstrate how macroevolution meets the commonly accepted definition of science, that I presented?

I assert that macroevolution is not a scientific fact.

If you wish to make the positive assertion that it is; then the onus is on you to support that argument.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
That is why I said 'the thrust of evolutionary science' and not 'evolutionary science as it is currently expressed'. I do understand that science will always be provisional. Indeed evolutionary science has been repeatedly modified and may one day be abandoned for a better hypothesis. This has all been said here a dozen times at least.

But enough of the nit-picking! Let's hear it for Arkansas! Let's have the rationale for creationism!

What is in it for children's understanding of the physical and biological sciences?

I have a question for you - and any other evolutionists that occasionally get into discussions with Creationists on this sort of topic --

@stevil @HARK! @MIDutch @Jimmy D @Larnievc @Pommer and others also free to comment of course :)

On the occasions when atheists and creationists enter into a discussion about the merits or flaws of each version of origins (as if to compare notes if not to actually convince the other side) I notice that very often the evidence each side gives is debunked by the other side as if no one would take that evidence seriously unless they were already Creationist or already atheist.

Suppose that the Evolutionist discovered that there was a meeting of the minds among Creationists where many of the leading creation science proponents, well-known to creationists worldwide, were in attendance. And “as it turned out” one of the well-respected scientists among the Creationists (who did not claim to believe evolution at all) said something like this

"we know that as Creationists we often accuse evolutionists of pleading ignorance of the means and affirming only the fact, when it comes to some of the more difficult unanswered questions in evolution"

“But let me be honest with you about something. It seems me that this is the same feeling I get when talking to creationists today. They plead ignorance of the means , but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place as Creationism describes!"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from Creation Science as knowledge to Creation Science as faith alone. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Creation Science not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to some of our key science claims about the evidence for the origin of all life on Earth"

“Can you tell me anything you know about Creation Science, any one thing…that is true?

"I tried that question on the geology department at one of our leading conservative Christian Universities and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Creation Science Seminar at another one of our Universities, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thingit ought not to be taught in our private schools up through high school

"... last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I thought that I was working on Creation Science in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

“It does seem that the level of knowledge about Creation Science is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

“about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking Creation Science as revealed truth alone rather than delving into it as science."
=================== end

So here is my question for atheists –

QUESTION1 :would it be of interest to you to have the reference for that meeting so as to share it with Creationists who say that evolutionism is a religious belief that has an opposing doctrine on origin to Creation – and the Creationist model is the one that is the best most reasonable conclusion for the origins question?

QUESTION2: Would it surprise you to learn that Creationists don’t want Evolutionists to know about those statements much less to quote them in a discussion with Creationists since the people they would be quoting are still Creationists and not evolutionists, and those people don't want evolutionists to see anything helpful to them in what was said (since nobody in that meeting believed in evolution) ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
No one’s has answered me and it’s possibly the most pertinent questions thus far (not to blow my own trumpet)..

Specifically what scientific evidence supports creationism? What research do it’s supporters find most compelling? You need to teach something in a science class, what would such a curriculum include?

I mention that in the OP -
1. Young Earth Geochronometers
2. Evidence for intelligent design vs random undirected results.
3. And young life biometric markers such as soft tissue and certain biomolecules in fossils
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
....If you can find a scientist to refute this statement; I'll consider the credibility of your statement.
Almost every single biologist considers macroevolution a scientific fact. So you are misunderstanding something about what makes scientific fact.

The part you are misunderstanding is that observation includes observation of evidence of past events.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It's not unfairly cynical if the American constitution really does forbid religious education. .

It does not allow the government to establish a federally mandated denomination (so avoiding the European model at the time) or to in anyway interfere with freedom of religion.
 
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

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In the public schools, one can teach about religion, as in history or social science. But religious instruction is forbidden*.

In science classes, science is to be taught. The legal status is that 'creationism' and Intelligent Design cannot be taught as science in science class. However, teachers in very religious areas often do so anyway, since nobody complains. Or at the very least, they often downplay the evolution content.

[*There are a few weird asterisks, such as some states have 'released time' programs where during the school day, students can be released for religious instruction, but it must happen off-campus and without public funds. Frog-faced heathen children just have to stay locked up in school, since it's part of the school day.]

Well let's take an extreme example of censoring -- Dover


There's already court precedent that would likely strike that down if it got sent up the chain to a higher court.

Some school districts had tried in the past to make creationism as part of the curriculum by re-branding as "intelligent design"

A federal court (under a Bush appointed judge) shot it down - despite being a conservative and appointed by a conservative president.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

There's already been a supreme court decision on a similar case, stating that teaching creationism fails to pass "The Lemon Test"
Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia

Which Justice Brennan quantified with:
  1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
  2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
  3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

In that trial the biology course begins with a short statement that boils down to this.
  • This biology class will only teach evolution
  • we do not yet have all knowledge - so some gaps in our knowledge still exists
  • There EXISTS A BOOK in the Library that students can check out if they want to see an example of a competing explanation for all life on Earth based on Intelligent design.

So the first part of the statement is questionable from my POV - I don't blame the judge for striking that part down.

But blocking the "there exists a book in the library" part of the statement is not the kind of orthodoxy in censorship one "expects" from liberal open minds. Science Bias-through-censorship is not a long lasting solution.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Almost every single biologist considers macroevolution a scientific fact. So you are misunderstanding something about what makes scientific fact.

The part you are misunderstanding is that observation includes observation of evidence of past events.

So then you might find this interesting -- #226
 
Upvote 0

Confused-by-christianity

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2020
1,254
384
48
No location
✟116,331.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It does not allow the government to establish a federally mandated denomination (so avoiding the European model at the time) or to in anyway interfere with freedom of religion.
I heard a lot about students not being allowed to pray at school or have bible studies.

is this true or is it propaganda?
 
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

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,828
36,129
Los Angeles Area
✟820,797.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I heard a lot about students not being allowed to pray at school or have bible studies.

is this true or is it propaganda?

Largely propaganda.

In the public schools, prayers organized by the school are illegal. Individual students praying before tests or meals have every right to do so. Student led clubs for Bible study are allowed as long as they meet other rules for such groups.

Students who are disruptive through praying or proselytizing can be punished.

There have been some cases where schools have taken bibles away from students and things like that. Those are violations of student rights and school districts are generally quick to remedy these things when they happen.
 
Upvote 0

Confused-by-christianity

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2020
1,254
384
48
No location
✟116,331.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Largely propaganda.

In the public schools, prayers organized by the school are illegal. Individual students praying before tests or meals have every right to do so. Student led clubs for Bible study are allowed as long as they meet other rules for such groups.

Students who are disruptive through praying or proselytizing can be punished.

There have been some cases where schools have taken bibles away from students and things like that. Those are violations of student rights and school districts are generally quick to remedy these things when they happen.
That’s sounds a little more believable.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
3,860
2,495
Worcestershire
✟158,912.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for the reference, Hark!

Ah, I see a name I recognise - Phylis Schlafly! I know her record as a Daughter of the American Republic. She is not exactly objective about this issue.

The relevant article in New American refers to a legal ruling in 1987 and a statement by Schlafly made in 1980:

'In March 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand ruled that Secular Humanism was a religion. Indeed, Phyllis Schlafly, a graduate of Harvard Law School, wrote in 1980, “Secular Humanism has become the established religion in the U.S. public school system.”'

I wonder, have you a reference less than 40 years old? the discussion is about a very recent attempt to change the curriculum in Arkansas.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
QUESTION1 :would it be of interest to you to have the reference for that meeting so as to share it with Creationists who say that evolutionism is a religious belief that has an opposing doctrine on origin to Creation – and the Creationist model is the one that is the best most reasonable conclusion for the origins question?
One guy losing faith in his position isnt that interesting to me, even he's coming around toward seeing things my way.


QUESTION2: Would it surprise you to learn that Creationists don’t want Evolutionists to know about those statements much less to quote them in a discussion with Creationists since the people they would be quoting are still Creationists and not evolutionists, and those people don't want evolutionists to see anything helpful to them in what was said (since nobody in that meeting believed in evolution) ?
People want to protect their intellectual turf. Even scientists behave that way. But scientists will come around to a different view before too long when the evidence starts to proliferate.
 
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

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
3,860
2,495
Worcestershire
✟158,912.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
For Hark!

From the New American:

'The only difference between a theistic religion and a non-theistic, or atheist “religion” is a matter of semantics. They are both religions in the sense that they deal with the meaning of life and provide human beings with'

The differences are much more than 'semantics'. Atheism does not deal with the meaning of life or provide human beings with guidance in how to morally conduct one’s life. That would be humanism, I expect.

What follows is just an attack on humanism. I was disappointed.
 
Upvote 0