Schools that teach creationism in the science class.

AV1611VET · Apr 16, 2015

Split Rock said:
Dirt?

Your evasiveness and willing to act like your reading comprehension is poor says a lot about how low you guys will stoop to be able to consider yourselves qualified to mock.

As long as you can get one little quip in, it's worth acting like animals, isn't it?

PsychoSarah · Apr 16, 2015

AV1611VET said:
According to that passage, who is Adam's common ancestor?

God, I suppose.

Wryetui · Apr 16, 2015

Papias said:

I am very surprised that in a country where the freedom word is everywhere, where progress and science are the idols of your culture and where the most proeminent atheist voices of our world live is not teaching evolution at school, but in my country, where we all 89% Orthodox Christians it has to be taught because the EU has stated an edict that entitles "The dangers of teaching creationism at schools" and many other things.

AV1611VET · Apr 16, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
God, I suppose.

You suppose???

AV1611VET · Apr 16, 2015

Wryetui said:
I am very surprised that in a country where the freedom word is everywhere, where progress and science are the idols of your culture and where the most proeminent atheist voices of our world live is not teaching evolution at school, but in my country, where we all 89% Orthodox Christians it has to be taught because the EU has stated an edict that entitles "The dangers of teaching creationism at schools" and many other things.

In eschatology, the Antichrist will come from the EU.

whois · Apr 16, 2015

Wryetui said:
I am very surprised that in a country where the freedom word is everywhere, where progress and science are the idols of your culture and where the most proeminent atheist voices of our world live is not teaching evolution at school, but in my country, where we all 89% Orthodox Christians it has to be taught because the EU has stated an edict that entitles "The dangers of teaching creationism at schools" and many other things.

the general american public is split roughly down the middle in regards to the evolution/ creation debate.

Wryetui · Apr 16, 2015

AV1611VET said:
In eschatology, the Antichrist will come from the EU.

Really? It's not the first time I hear that, could you explain it a little bit, please?

AV1611VET · Apr 16, 2015

Wryetui said:
Really? It's not the first time I hear that, could you explain it a little bit, please?

According to Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 (?), the Roman Empire was not defeated -- it dissolved into a future ten-nation confederacy, in which the Antichrist will come out of.

Jesus Christ will then show up and destroy it for good.

PsychoSarah · Apr 16, 2015

AV1611VET said:
You suppose???

Fact of the matter is, it is either god or dirt, but which it is isn't the point.

Subduction Zone · Apr 16, 2015

Resha Caner said:
This is a nice polemic against creationism, but it doesn't answer the question I asked. Creationism and ID aside, are you saying:

1) It is not possible to create an alternative hypothesis to evolution?

or

2) No alternative has been recognized by peer-reviewed literature?

Polemic is a rather loaded word. It should be avoided in a debate like this unless you can support your claim and since you are asking questions it appears that you can't.

1) Of course it is possible to create an alternative hypothesis to evolution. I never said or implied that one could not. What has not been done is for anyone to form a successful alternative hypothesis. And scientists that believe in creationism no longer even try. Now at best you will see articles that try to attack the theory of evolution. And most of those fail terribly. Also the followers of creationism use the false dichotomy that if it was not evolution then it had to be creation. To give evidence for creation they must do that. Attacking evolution does very little for ones own beliefs if one cannot form a testable hypothesis for them.

2) It is not just that "no alternative is recognized", It is that creationists cannot write a paper that has a testable hypothesis that is not riddled with errors. Peer review is not the be all and end all of science. It is only the first step in a new idea being accepted by the scientific community. Peer review only removes the most obvious of errors and creationists cannot seem to write a paper that even passes this relatively low hurdle.

I can't prove this since it is a negative, but I could be shown to be wrong by a creationist showing such a paper from a well respected scientific journal. I am still waiting to be shown that I am wrong.

Subduction Zone · Apr 16, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
You really need to distinguish what you mean by creationists. The term is not as black and white as everyone thinks. Creationism is the belief that God created the universe and from there it goes all over the place.

It is an abuse of the word "creationist" if you water it down to the point where the belief of a god making the universe is enough to qualify one as such. Usually "creationist" is applied to those that do not accept common descent. Whether they believe in a million small creation, where a god had to introduce every little change, or if one is a YEC, those are all easily shown not to have one bit of supporting evidence. For me that is a good enough of a definition of what a creationist is and those beliefs will die as more and more information is spread.

Now there always will be some deniers regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary. I don't think the belief will ever be totally eliminated. Look at how many people there are that do not believe that man went to the Moon. That 9/11 was a government plot. That think homeopathy works. There are all sorts of crazy beliefs that people pick up because they match their own personal prejudices. But in a generation or two creationism will be a belief on the same order almost everywhere.

My prediction, and my hope.

Resha Caner · Apr 16, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
Of course it is possible to create an alternative hypothesis to evolution. I never said or implied that one could not.

OK. So is it an acceptable part of science class for students to pose their own hypotheses? Or is science class just about learning the peer-reviewed theories of others?

sandybay · Apr 16, 2015

Resha Caner said:
OK. So is it an acceptable part of science class for students to pose their own hypotheses? Or is science class just about learning the peer-reviewed theories of others?

What would be the point of doing such a thing? can you give a reason how students would benefit from an exercise like that? Why speculate about what might have been when you can be talking about what is?

Resha Caner · Apr 16, 2015

sandybay said:
What would be the point of doing such a thing? can you give a reason how students would benefit from an exercise like that? Why speculate about what might have been when you can be talking about what is?

Maybe so they can get a taste of what it's like to be a scientist. Shouldn't those who want to be scientists practice science - part of which method requires preparation of a hypothesis?

I wouldn't want to hire someone who has read about a craft (or been lectured to about it) without ever practicing it. When I took science we were encouraged to create our own hypotheses.

Loudmouth · Apr 16, 2015

Resha Caner said:
OK. So is it an acceptable part of science class for students to pose their own hypotheses? Or is science class just about learning the peer-reviewed theories of others?

If you are going to be an explorer who explores new lands, shouldn't you first learn where other explorers have been and what they found?

Resha Caner · Apr 16, 2015

Loudmouth said:
If you are going to be an explorer who explores new lands, shouldn't you first learn where other explorers have been and what they found?

Sure. I never said evolution shouldn't be taught, if that's what you're getting at. To extend your analogy, should we stop teaching about Columbus because he thought he found the East Indies even when he didn't?

[edit] When I took physics we learned about Ptolemy. And, technically, the sun-centered cosmologies of Kepler don't fit current thinking in physics, which posits no center at all.

In engineering classes they use Galileo's equation for gravity, not Newton's, not Einstein's. When will the insanity end?

AV1611VET · Apr 16, 2015

Resha Caner said:
When I took science we were encouraged to create our own hypotheses.

If I had to create a hypothesis, I'd like to submit one that I have been rolling over in my head for some time:

Hypothesis: The sun was red before the Flood.

Support: Garden of Eden in China, Japanese flag depicts a red sun, water canopy (which I really don't adhere to) may have refracted sunlight into the red.

Another one would be:

Hypothesis: The universe, before the Fall, ran on perpetual motion.

Loudmouth · Apr 16, 2015

Resha Caner said:
Maybe so they can get a taste of what it's like to be a scientist. Shouldn't those who want to be scientists practice science - part of which method requires preparation of a hypothesis?

From my own experiences in grades 7-12, we did this a lot. For example, we tested the competing hypotheses of whether older pennies would weigh less or more than newer pennies. We used displacement and balances to test the hypotheses.

These were more about learning the basics of the method than challenging already existing theories.

I wouldn't want to hire someone who has read about a craft (or been lectured to about it) without ever practicing it. When I took science we were encouraged to create our own hypotheses.

I wouldn't want to hire a meteorologist who thought that Zeus caused thunderstorms, and that science didn't know how weather really worked.

AV1611VET · Apr 16, 2015

Loudmouth said:
I wouldn't want to hire a meteorologist who thought that Zeus caused thunderstorms,

It depends on when he thought Zeus reigned.

If he thinks Zeus causes thunderstorms today, his problem may be a theological one, not a mental one.

Loudmouth · Apr 16, 2015

Resha Caner said:
Sure. I never said evolution shouldn't be taught, if that's what you're getting at. To extend your analogy, should we stop teaching about Columbus because he thought he found the East Indies even when he didn't?

You should teach that Columbus thought he found the East Indies.

[edit] When I took physics we learned about Ptolemy. And, technically, the sun-centered cosmologies of Kepler don't fit current thinking in physics, which posits no center at all.

In engineering classes they use Galileo's equation for gravity, not Newton's, not Einstein's. When will the insanity end?

How is that insane?

Schools that teach creationism in the science class.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Chaotic Neutral

IC XC NIKA

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

rational

IC XC NIKA

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Chaotic Neutral

Regular Member

Regular Member

Expert Fool

Newbie

Expert Fool

Contributor

Expert Fool

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency