The consequences of creationism.

[MacCoyle]

Also, the I think the standard interpretation of the first ammendment is way too broad. I do not think the way it is being used is what the founding fathers intended. But that is a whole nother can of worms.

Really, I think it is used to little.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe what one would begin to see, if creationism were at least discussible in public schools, a change in attitude of students about their education and what is expected of them.

It would be discussable if christians would be ok with letting other creation myths from other cultures to also be presented as part of a world religions course. The only thing that is stopping creationism from being taught in schools is that creationists insist that it be taught in science class, and that it be taught to the exclusion of other religious creation myths.

Also, creationism is freely discussed outside of government run schools. Last I checked, churches are not asking for a cover charge so kids already have free access to teachers who teach creationism.

In the 1950 and 1940's religion was at least discussible openly (especially around holidays)

Still is.

American education has not gotten better, because family relationships, respect, and personal responsibility has done down the tubes as the most important factors of education.

IMHO, things have gone down because in most cases both parents have to work in today's economy.

Scientists and doctors would still look for cures.

But they couldn't use the theory of evolution which is an indespenisble part of modern medical research. Bye bye cures.

Inventors would still work to fill necessities, and I'm very sure a few evolutionists would continue to seek for missing links.

What's wrong with the thousands of transitional fossils they already have? Of course they will find more because evolution is an accurate theory.

The reality is that no one on this planet ever died because they didn't know all about Darwin's thoughts;

Many people have died because incorrect scientific theories were used. For example, Lysenkoism directly resulted in famines in Russia while the correct application of the theory of evolution in the States and Western world resulted in bumper crops.

however, thousands of people die every year without one clue about where they will spend eternity.

Thousands of people die without ever knowing that there is no afterlife.

 

[LittleNipper]

If you expect that scientists will still exist and do science, do you expect them to use sound scientific principals to research and create cures for diseases, or do you expect them to kneel down in a prayer and expect God to see the scientist's devote love of God and then grant the solution to the scientist? Or should they look in the bible for the passage on how to cure aids or cancer?

Let me simply say that experimentation and research is not the same as "scientific" opinion. There are real issues with the theory of evolution. People never stop second guessing, but is that science? There is plenty to do without keying in on the monkey's uncle simply to make secularists content.

 

[LittleNipper]

It would be discussable if christians would be ok with letting other creation myths from other cultures to also be presented as part of a world religions course. The only thing that is stopping creationism from being taught in schools is that creationists insist that it be taught in science class, and that it be taught to the exclusion of other religious creation myths.

Also, creationism is freely discussed outside of government run schools. Last I checked, churches are not asking for a cover charge so kids already have free access to teachers who teach creationism.



Still is.



IMHO, things have gone down because in most cases both parents have to work in today's economy.



But they couldn't use the theory of evolution which is an indespenisble part of modern medical research. Bye bye cures.



What's wrong with the thousands of transitional fossils they already have? Of course they will find more because evolution is an accurate theory.



Many people have died because incorrect scientific theories were used. For example, Lysenkoism directly resulted in famines in Russia while the correct application of the theory of evolution in the States and Western world resulted in bumper crops.



Thousands of people die without ever knowing that there is no afterlife.

Nice try. But I know of no other "religious" groups aside from secular humanists and christians really doing any research in that regard. Moslems have started some, I do believe; however, Jews, Christians and Moslems-----all agree with the Genesis creation.

 

[Vene]

There are real issues with the theory of evolution.

Like what? That it goes against your creation myth?

 

[LittleNipper]

Like what? That it goes against your creation myth?

The fact is you cannot repeat the evolution episode. Unrepeatable----nonscientific.

 

[Molal]

The fact is you cannot repeat the evolution episode. Unrepeatable----nonscientific.

Evolution is on-going. It has been observed. Just like the theory of gravity. The actions of gravity can be observed today.

Both gravity and evolution are tested through observations made today. The experiments are repeatable.

 

[Vimes177]

The fact is you cannot repeat the evolution episode. Unrepeatable----nonscientific.

*Points out that "Intelligent Design" (Creationism) is inherently more unrepeatable than macroevolution, seeing as no one has god powers.

Also, would you eliminate astrophysicists, archaeologists, and geologists from the "scientists" category for having unrepeatable analysis?

 

[madarab]

In the 1950 and 1940's religion was at least discussible openly (especially around holidays) and I feel that at that time American public education (in general) was second to none.

If that was truly the case, why were the "backwards" Soviets putting satellites up in orbit. The early Soviet sucesses in space are what prompted our (now diluted) drive towards scientific education.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'll tell you exactly what will happen if America were to accept creation science. The Bible says that if you draw close to God, he'll draw close to you. God will surely bless this nation if it repents and comes back to Him.

Creation Science = God?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The fact is you cannot repeat the evolution episode. Unrepeatable----nonscientific.

Fine then -- While we're at it, you send up a prayer to the Man Upstairs and ask Him to cobble together something new in His Heavenly Workshop. How's that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe what one would begin to see, if creationism were at least discussible in public schools, a change in attitude of students about their education and what is expected of them.

But Creationism is discussible in schools -- I love mythology, and hope my students enjoy it too.

Actually, just today I finished a screening of Inherit the Wind for one of my classes, and they enjoyed it immensely.

They didn't enjoy the essay I assigned them for next week, but hey, that's life.

The reality is that no one on this planet ever died because they didn't know all about Darwin's thoughts; however, thousands of people die every year without one clue about where they will spend eternity.

And those with a clue or two -- whether right or wrong -- die all the same. Going to blame Darwin for Athelete's Foot while you're at it?

The sad things seems to be that there are many who have had opportunities to hear, but are far too busy care and feel it is none of their concern.....

They just don't think you're that important, nip. Deal with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact is you cannot repeat the evolution episode. Unrepeatable----nonscientific.

The evidence that these episodes produced can be repeatably experimented on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nice try. But I know of no other "religious" groups aside from secular humanists and christians really doing any research in that regard.

If we spent a thread on what you don't know we would swamp the server.

 

[Domenico]

If America only taught creationism, we scientists-in-training elsewhere on the planet will laugh uproriously and prepare to take American jobs.

 

[arunma]

What would America look like to the rest of the world?
what would happen to American business and industry if the flow of scientists were to slowly dry up?
would they just recruit from abroad?

You aren't a scientist, are you?

I'm a physics graduate student, and half of my class is comprised of international students, most of them from China. I'm pretty sure that you'll get similar statistics from most physics departments in the country. Not that I find anything wrong with having a bunch of Chinese physicists around, but it points to a deficit of Americans being educated in this particular science. Looks like the American flow of scientists has already "dried up," and this without government endorsement for creationism.

There are many things that I might blame for the lack of Americans in science: portrayals of science as "nerdy," undue emphasis on liberal arts in public high schools, the atheistic nature of the scientific community (I'm sure to get a lot of angry comments from this one!), maybe even football. But I don't see any justification for the whining about creationism that characterizes most of your posts.

 

[Vene]

If America only taught creationism, we scientists-in-training elsewhere on the planet will laugh uproriously and prepare to take American jobs.

And those of us who prefer science to superstition would move abroad to learn and work.

 

[RichardT]

If the US should decide to go over to creationism, what do creationists think would be the end result?

I don't know what the likelihood of that happening is, I don't know if the bulk of the American people
would allow it or if the American people are already in favour of it,
but I wonder if creationists have really thought out what would be the consequences if it did.

What would America look like to the rest of the world?
what would happen to American business and industry if the flow of scientists were to slowly dry up?
would they just recruit from abroad?

It's just a thought I had and I wondered if creationists might like to comment.

I expect this will be seen as a troll or a rant.

If Creationists became the majority of Geologists for example, they would need to use a flood model that predicted pretty well what they would find. And from the testimonies of a couple of Creationist Geologists working in the field that I have spoken to on the CreationTalk yahoo group, they seem to be doing alright currently.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If Creationists became the majority of Geologists for example, they would need to use a flood model that predicted pretty well what they would find. And from the testimonies of a couple of Creationist Geologists working in the field that I have spoken to on the CreationTalk yahoo group, they seem to be doing alright currently.

As far as I know the only oil explorer who actually claimed to use "Biblical Science" to hunt for oil was Hayseed Stevens and he is no longer alive. The creationist geologists who are working in the oil industry are still using real geology to search for oil and minerals. That is why Andrew Snelling "flood geologist" has written stuff like this.

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."


You do know what Myr means don't you?

Also consider this from Glenn Morton's story.

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.

 

[Logic_Fault]

As far as I know the only oil explorer who actually claimed to use "Biblical Science" to hunt for oil was Hayseed Stevens and he is no longer alive.

I'm sure this has probably been mentioned on the forums already but I thought I'd point it out anyway.

Given what passes as "Biblical Science" I suppose it could be argued that Zion Oil is giving it a try. Technically they're using, get this, a "Biblical prophecy" (Deuteronomy 33:24 to be precise) to find oil in Israel. Not surprisingly they haven't actually found anything and, as of Oct. 1st, their stock price had dropped by half.

More on topic of what you posted, it seems "Hayseed" was a fitting moniker for Mr. Stevens.

The creationist geologists who are working in the oil industry are still using real geology to search for oil and minerals.

For obvious reasons. Obvious unless you happen to be a creationist apparently, but obvious to the rest of us none the less.

Also consider this from Glenn Morton's story.

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.

I actually just happened upon and read this the other day. It's quite revealing about the validity of doing geology, or any other science, the creationist way.