To Creationists: Where does it end?

[FSTDT]

Truly, I believe all view points should be taught, not just one or the other. This way one has a better comphrehension of both.

Because science and rigorous and precise, not democratic, you are only obliged to teach things which are consistent with science. It might be acceptable to teach many points of view about a topic like politics or philosohpy where certain conclusions cant be verified, but that isnt the way science works.

After all, when we learn that stars are really nothing more than big balls of gas, no one feels that we need to teach that the stars are positioned in a way to predict our lovelife.

 

[Matthew777]

By now I'm sure everyone here has seen the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy," a document which outlines the creationist organization's long-term goals. Turns out that they're pretty ambitious, and desire no less than to remake both science and American culture in their own image - they're just doing it one step at a time.

I have no problem with the wedge strategy as long as I play no active part in it. By the way, Intelligent Design theorists are not young earth creationists; there is a gulf between the two.

 

[Cassandra]

Wanna know something funny? I was just reading some examples of citations that one of my Professor's gave me, and one of them was,

Phillips, Dave. "Neanderthals Are Still Human!" Institute for Creation Research Mar. 2001. 5 Sept. 2001 <http://www.icr.org>. (This is a professional site)

This scares me a bit. 0.0

 

[Hydra009]

I have no problem with the wedge strategy as long as I play no active part in it.

That's an odd thing to say. Why would it be wrong for you to do and right for someone else to do?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Truly, I believe all view points should be taught, not just one or the other. This way one has a better comphrehension of both.

Are you aware that there are historians -- people with a Ph.D. in history from major universities -- who argue that the Holocaust never happened? While only a very tiny fraction of all historians share this view, should it be presented in public school history classes?

 

[USincognito]

Truly, I believe all view points should be taught, not just one or the other. This way one has a better comphrehension of both.

So in History class you advocate teaching Holocaust denial and that the Moon landing was a hoax? Keep in mind that "equal time" or "teach the controversy" means any old crank - like YECs get to have their views aired. Should Communism be taught as valid in Economics/Social Studies classes?

 

[USincognito]

What ?? Are you saying you don't believe EVERYTHING was created ??!

I don't know how you extrapolated what you quoted or bolded to arrive at this question. From what I have read, she does believe everything was created, but that God allowed his Creation to process according to science as he established it. You're trying to play sematic games with a fellow Christian that you really shouldn't.

God creating species, including humans, via evolution is different only from individual fiat creation in process, not in what one believes.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suspect the Crazy4Christ looks at Genesis a bit differently than you do, but reads the Gospels in an identical manner.

 

[crazy4Christ007]

All view points/therious/belief's should be at least mentioned. I understand that many will have conflict with each other. Without knowing the conflicts and understanding them how can one truly have a 'choice?' Accuatly communism, socialism and many other 'outlooks' were taught in my history classes. It wasn't taught valid nor non valid, it was the students choice. As a high school student I see how much time can be spent on this subject, a very long tedious time studying things we may find humerous or just plain absurd. But it gives us a choice to pick what we want to believe. Therefore I do believe that these views need to be looked at. For goodness sake at least the ten top views, such as evolution, creationsim etc...

 

[Nathan Poe]

By the way, Intelligent Design theorists are not young earth creationists; there is a gulf between the two.

At least that's what the ID proponents say. They know that as long as YEC-ists latch on to their cause, they'll pull it down like an anchor.

 

[Athanasian Creed]

I don't know how you extrapolated what you quoted or bolded to arrive at this question. From what I have read, she does believe everything was created, but that God allowed his Creation to process according to science as he established it. You're trying to play sematic games with a fellow Christian that you really shouldn't.

God creating species, including humans, via evolution is different only from individual fiat creation in process, not in what one believes.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suspect the Crazy4Christ looks at Genesis a bit differently than you do, but reads the Gospels in an identical manner.

She edited her post and added "...created BY God..." whereas before she did that it just said "created..." My question was an honest one. Another one would be is she a 'theistic' evolutionist ?? As she professes to be a Christian surely she would believe that God used evolution as His means of creation, therefore believing, in fact, everything WAS created by God. If she didn't, she would be calling God's Word a liar when it says He (Christ) is the Creator of ALL things !


Ray

 

[Arkanin]

PS: Did you know that there is a religion dedicated to Elvis Presley?http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdisco...eart_elvis.html I thought this was a joke, but after reading some more… I don’t think these people are joking.

From the website:

"For unto you is born this day in the city of Memphis a Presley, which is Elvis the King."

Gold.

 

[YellowStar]

The "Wedge Document":
Discovery Institute
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]March 1, 2004 [/font]

Click here to read the Discovery Institute response to charges regarding the "wedge document."

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The "Wedge Document"iscovery Institute March 1, 2004 Click here to read the Discovery Institute response to charges regarding the "wedge document."

I read it. It was good for a laugh, if only because of how well it shows that the Discovery Institute doesn't even know what science is.

 

[BananaSlug]

I think evolution should be taught in church on Sundays. Both for "equal time," and as an alternative to Creationism.

It would be interesting to visit a creatIon in Disguise class and listen.
"Ok kids, this is a picture of a cell. Look how complex it is! It must have a designer! Look how marvelous the eye is! There is no way it could arise by mere chance! Now we go to the banana..."
I wonder if the textbook will be edited by "Dr." Hovind.

 

[LittleNipper]

I think evolution should be taught in church on Sundays. Both for "equal time," and as an alternative to Creationism.

It would be interesting to visit a creatIon in Disguise class and listen.
"Ok kids, this is a picture of a cell. Look how complex it is! It must have a designer! Look how marvelous the eye is! There is no way it could arise by mere chance! Now we go to the banana..."
I wonder if the textbook will be edited by "Dr." Hovind.

You can talk all you want about bananas or anything. IF, however, you are goiing to ellude to an opinion that the banana is the byproduct of random chance combined with the survival of the fittest, then you should also be able to present an opposing view in ANY educational setting.

Churches are supported by donations. Evolution education is being funded and supported by tax dollars. Churches do not receive TAX money to educate in Doctrine...

 

[Loudmouth]

You can talk all you want about bananas or anything. IF, however, you are goiing to ellude to an opinion that the banana is the byproduct of random chance combined with the survival of the fittest, then you should also be able to present an opposing view in ANY educational setting.

Not in science class. The purpose of science class is to teach science, not religious dogma.

Churches are supported by donations. Evolution education is being funded and supported by tax dollars. Churches do not receive TAX money to educate in Doctrine...

Which is why they are free to preach whatever they want.

Freedom of Religion applies to citizens, not the government.

 

[And-U-Say]

... IF, however, you are goiing to ellude to an opinion that the banana is the byproduct of random chance combined with the survival of the fittest, then you should also be able to present an opposing view in ANY educational setting...

elude: to avoid or escape.
allude: to refer or suggest.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You can talk all you want about bananas or anything. IF, however, you are goiing to ellude to an opinion that the banana is the byproduct of random chance combined with the survival of the fittest, then you should also be able to present an opposing view in ANY educational setting.

Back to this...

...which means, of course, that holocaust denial should be taught in all history classes, flat earth should be taught in all geography classes, and not only the Christian creation myth, but EVERY creation myth anyone has ever come up with, should be taught in science classes.

Is that what you are proposing?

 

[USincognito]

All view points/therious/belief's should be at least mentioned. I understand that many will have conflict with each other. Without knowing the conflicts and understanding them how can one truly have a 'choice?'

You can call me closed minded, but I don't think Holocaust denial and Moon Landing Hoax should be taught in history class as equally valid. Cranks don't get entree into the classroom just because someone spouts off about it. In the case of YECism, Holocaust denial or the Moon Landing Hoax - there is no conflict, there is just cranks who object because of their agenda.

I'm all in favor of teachers introducing the crank ideology as a point of discussion, but they shouldn't be teaching it as if it had a leg to stand on.

Accuatly communism, socialism and many other 'outlooks' were taught in my history classes. It wasn't taught valid nor non valid, it was the students choice.

I really was referring to Communism being taught in a Social Studies or Economics class as equally valid as capitalism, market capitalism or (shudder) Merchantileism. Communism, theocracy, despotism, etc. as political systems should be taught in history class - along with their resultant social outcomes. This is quite different from what I'm getting at.

As a high school student I see how much time can be spent on this subject, a very long tedious time studying things we may find humerous or just plain absurd. But it gives us a choice to pick what we want to believe. Therefore I do believe that these views need to be looked at. For goodness sake at least the ten top views, such as evolution, creationsim etc...

If you're suggesting that high schools should be free to teach that a2 + b2 = c4, or the Holocaust either didn't happen or is overstated, I'm going to have to disagree. But I think we're crossing semantic wires about the difference between crank ideas being taught and them being mentioned in context.

 

[USincognito]

She edited her post and added "...created BY God..." whereas before she did that it just said "created..." My question was an honest one. Another one would be is she a 'theistic' evolutionist ?? As she professes to be a Christian surely she would believe that God used evolution as His means of creation, therefore believing, in fact, everything WAS created by God. If she didn't, she would be calling God's Word a liar when it says He (Christ) is the Creator of ALL things !

Sorry for coming late to the discussion. Why did you put the "theistic" of theistic evolution in quotes? God creating via fiat or evolution is still God creating as I see it.