• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Schools reject evolution because of pressure from creationist parents

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by ocean, Oct 22, 2002.

  1. Great! It's about time they stopped teaching this atheist lie in schools!

  2. Bad. These students need to learn about science

  3. Good. There shouldn't be anything controversial in schools

  4. No opinion

  5. Other (please state your opinion)

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    choccy already provided a reference. If you really want me to, I'll dig up more.

    And, (like Morat pointed out), in doing so they figured the Earth would be much older than the accepted (~6000 year) Biblical timeline.
     
  2. ocean

    ocean Banned (just kidding)

    +3
    Agnostic
    The Biblical timeline has been disproven. That's a fact. Why can't YEC's accept that fact?
     
  3. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    Because it scares them.

    That's about as best I can figure it.
     
  4. blader

    blader Evilutionist

    809
    +0
    Well, my school, for one. A public school in California. There was a whole chapter in evolutionary theory in my biology book. Guess which chapter we just happened to skip over?
     
  5. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    I've had choccy on ignore for ages, so I didn't see it. Comte de Buffon was not a geologist, so I don't see the relevance of the quote. And the oldest I've ever heard regarding his estimates was 70,000 years.

    Anyway, sure. If you can dredge up some pre-Darwinian geologists who concluded that the earth was billions of years old based on what they discovered, I'd love to see the evidence.
     
  6. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    That's correct. But I have this neurological condition that causes a delayed adrenal reaction, which is why I believed in an old earth and evolution during my first several years as a Christian. The fear didn't take over my ability to reason until much later.
     
  7. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    Woah now, don't be putting words into my mouth. I never claimed they thought the world was necessarily billions of years old. Rather, they had tossed out the idea of a young (~6000 year old) Earth.

    From this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv11n2_scrip_geol.asp

    "In the early 1800s Georges Cuvier (1768–1832), the famous French comparative anatomist and vertebrate palaeontologist, developed his theory of catastrophism112 as expressed in his Theory of the Earth (1813). ... He believed that Earth history was very much longer than the traditional 6,000 years, but that the Flood had occurred only a few thousand years ago, just as the Bible indicated."

    Further down,

    "Through the influence of these two [Adam Sedgwick and William Buckland] and others (for example, George Greenough, William Conybeare, Roderick Murchison and Henry De la Beche), old-Earth catastrophist (or diluvial) geology was widely accepted in the 1820s by most geologists and academic theologians."

    Further still,

    "A massive blow to catastrophism came during the years 1830 to 1833, when Charles Lyell (1797–1875), a lawyer by training as well as a former student of Buckland, published his masterful three-volume work, Principles of Geology. ... His theory was a radical uniformitarianism in which he insisted that only present-day processes at present-day rates of intensity should be used to interpret the rock record of past geological activity. The uniformity of rates was an addition to Hutton’s theory but was the essential, distinctive feature of Lyell’s view."

    Please note, that all of this is happening well before Darwin published Origin of the Species (which wasn't published until 1859).
     
  8. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    So what? That has nothing to do with the point I was making. The only quote you provided that even comes close is the one about Charles Lyell. There are only four problems with that quote.

    First, Lyell was a lawyer, not a geologist.

    Second,

    A: Charles Lyell: 1797–1875
    B: Charles Darwin: 1809-1882

    No, Origin hadn't been published yet, but I have to wonder what other sources of information Lyell had.

    Third, his position was one of deism, so his presupposition of an older earth had a different motivation but it was still a presupposition.

    Fourth, how old did Lyell think the earth was? Did he approach the bench of geology from the assumption that the earth was millions to billions of years old? No? Then what did that have to do with my point?

    TODAY, most geologists approach geology with the assumption that evolution is true, which requires an earth that is millions to billions of years old. So they interpret the evidence through those glasses.
     
  9. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    So what is your point, then? That geologists approach the idea of an old Earth with respect to evolution? Despite that they had tossed out the idea of a young (6000 year old) Earth about 200 years ago? (which is my point, and not something I see you actually trying to refute)

    I think you should spend some time actually reading that article I linked(specifically the part entitled "Historical developments in geology, palaeontology and cosmology").
     
  10. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      *snicker* "Lyell was a lawyer". *snicker*. Come on, Nick, do you really think that's an argument?

       You do realize that the "professional scientist" didn't show up for some time, right?

      Nick's point is fairly simple, if not too bright. Modern geologists are taught the world is old, so anything they do is with that presumption. Of course, modern geologists are also taught the world is flat, that it's not hollow, and that it moves around the sun once a year.

       All of these ideas, age included, are accepted because they have been shown to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. And yet, in the process of actual geology, they're studied and tested daily.

       And while we don't require geologists to relearn everything in geology, on their own, with no books or resources beyond tools, we do teach them the history of geology. And they learn why certain things are so well established as facts.

       In Nick's Bizzaro World, Computer programmers would be forced to write their own compilers, after building their own motherboards and processors, from IC's they built in their own garage.

     
     
  11. choccy

    choccy Member

    126
    +0
    Atheist
    I didn't even realise you had one. Care to share it with the really dense of us. Lyell arrived at the conclusion that the world had to be 100's of millions, if not billions of years old, without any prior assumption of old age. What point are you trying to make?

    How do you think they would interpret modern radiometric dates without prior assumptions about the actual age of the earth? Since different methods all give us the same answer they must have the same error of approx 4.5 billion years, which fits exactly with a literal interpretation of Genesis? Or would they conclude that the world is approx 4.5 billion years old, regardless of what age biologists might want it to be?

    Choccy
     
  12. ocean

    ocean Banned (just kidding)

    +3
    Agnostic
    I always thought the world was round, but geologists have proven it to be flat. I guess i was wrong.

    [/sarcasm]
     
  13. FordPrefect

    FordPrefect WWADGD

    377
    +6
    Atheist
    Having spent the last four years as a PowerBuilder/SQL developer, the Bizarro World scenerio could be fun...
     
  14. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    woah, you just broke my irony meter. Phillip Johnson and his opinions on science?
     
  15. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    Just a little bit of background on Charles Lyell:

    "LYELL, SIR CHARLES (1797-1875), British geologist, was the eldest son of Charles Lyell of Kinnordy, Forfarshire, and was born on the 14th of November 1797, on the family estate in Scotland. His father (1767-1849) was known both as a botanist and as the translator of the Vita Nuova and the Convito of Dante: the plant Lyellia was named after him. From his boyhood Lyell had a strong inclination for natural history, especially entomology, a taste which he cultivated at Bartley Lodge in the New Forest, to which his family had removed soon after his birth. In 1816 he entered Exeter College, Oxford, where the lectures of Dr Buckland first drew his attention to geological study. After taking his degree of B.A. in 1819 (M.A. in 1821) he entered Lincoln's Inn, and in 1825, after a delay caused by chronic weakness of the eyes, he was called to the bar, and went on the western circuit for two years. During this time he was slowly gravitating towards the life of a student of science. In 1819 he had been elected a fellow of the Linnean and Geological Societies, communicating his first paper, "On a Recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire," to the latter society in 1822, and acting as one of the honorary secretaries in 1823. In that year he went to France, with introductions to Cuvier, Humboldt and other men of science, and in 1824 made a geological tour in Scotland in company with Dr Buckland. In 1826 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, from which in later years he received both the Copley and Royal medals; and in 1827 he finally abandoned the legal profession, and devoted himself to geology." - source (emphasis mine)
     
  16. TheBear

    TheBear NON-WOKED

    +1,764
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    What schools are those? Please cite the source of this information.

    Thanks.
     
  17. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    Evolution disappearing from Canadian schools

    "In Ontario, public school students may go their entire grade school education without being taught the theory of evolution at all.

    Ontario provincial curriculum developers have quietly removed virtually all teaching about evolution in order to avoid controversy. The new provincial curriculum has only one course that teaches evolution—a Grade 12 biology course for students headed for university studies in biochemistry or biology."


    I keep bringing this up, but no one seems to be listening to me. :sigh:
     
  18. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    interesting. I don't think not teaching evolution will make too much of a difference to people who pursue science as a career, as soon as they get to university they're going to have to learn it or they'll fail - of course, the general public will be more ignorant than they already are, but what does that matter....
     
  19. FordPrefect

    FordPrefect WWADGD

    377
    +6
    Atheist
    I am listening Pete, I just hope Manitoba doesn't follow suit... oops, doesn't matter since I live in a very fundamentalist town, most of the teachers have done this on their own...
     
  20. TheBear

    TheBear NON-WOKED

    +1,764
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Thank you for the reference point. It is confusing to start a thread, making vague assertions, without references or sources.

    The Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada has already made a declaration on this this subject, and it was delivered by Fellows of the Academy, to each Provincial Minister of Education in Canada.

    Here's what they had to say:


    "The Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada considers that "scientific creationism" has nothing to do with science or the scientific method. "Scientific creationism" does not belong in any discussion of scientific principles or theories, and therefore should have no place in a science curriculum.

    Science provides knowledge of the natural world in the form of evidence gathered by observation and experiment. Analysis of this evidence allows scientists to generate hypotheses that link and explain different phenomena. Scientific hypotheses must be capable of being tested by further research. If a hypothesis is found to explain many different facts, and even to allow accurate predictions of subsequent discoveries, greater confidence is placed in it, and it is called a theory.

    The theory of evolution by natural selection was first clearly formulated in 1859, and for over a century it has been tested and improved by the research of many thousands of scientists: not only by biologists and geologists, but also by chemists and physicists. From deductions based on abundant data, the theory has been developed to explain the changes that have taken place in living things over much of the Earth's history. In its modern form, it remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community.

    Science itself evolves, since it must continuously modify existing explanations to incorporate new information. The theory of evolution continues to be refined as new evidence becomes available. Only one thing in science is not open to change: its demand that every explanation be based on observation or experiment, that these be in principle repeatable, and that new evidence be considered.

    Scientific creationists adopt an entirely different approach in their attempt to explain the natural world. They accept either biblical or some other authority as overriding other kinds of evidence. They reject much of the accumulated scientific knowledge, and commonly deny the validity of deductions based on directly observable phenomena such as radioactive decay. This is because their philosophy is rooted in a different aspect of human culture. If their claim, that the Earth and all its living things were created only several thousand years ago, was correct, many of the central concepts of modern science would have to be abandoned. The methodology and conclusions of scientists and "scientific creationists" are therefore incompatible, and the term "scientific creationism" is a contradiction in terms, since it has no basis in science."
     
Loading...