What would be achieved if ‘Creation Science’ replaced ‘Evolution’ in biology lessons?

[Bushido216]

Because science is man's fallible invention. We must look through God's, infallible Word, the Holy Bible.

Yeck.

 

[Micaiah]

Reading through this thread, I note there have been a number of sarcastic comments, comments intended to belittle those who subscribe to what the Bible teaches, and comments that are derogatory.

The degredation of American Schools.

Then the USA would no longer hold the forefront of scientific research in the world

What this would mean is setting the precedent of lying to kids in school on a massive scale. No good can come to any society when it teaches all kids a lie as though it is truth. Look at Nazi Germany teaching the lie of "Aryan Supremacy" or Communist Russia teaching the lie of Marxism.

It would be akin to replacing Astronomy with Astrology.

So, yes, it is better not to be associated with creationists. It's best to avoid that terrible theology.

Because science is man's fallible invention. We must look through God's, infallible Word, the Holy Bible. Yeck

Apparently these types of comments are okay on this forum, at least when directed against YEC's.

 

[Micaiah]

Official Reminder to All -

Your views and beliefs will be better recieved, appreciated, and respected, even by those who don't necissarily agree with you, if you stop treating those who disagree with you, like pieces of garbage worthy of disrespect. No one here is in any way superior to the next. We are all equals at this round table of discussion.

I have been quite lenient thus far. No one here has been issued any official warnings. (At least not by me.)

I will not tolerate ant further ad hominems, cheap shots or anything that shows disrespect towards other members. The knuckle dragging, club over the head method of discussion will cease. We are better than that. Any further such behavior, by any member, will result in official warnings.

This official warning was posted on another thread.

 

[ej]

Yes, it is easy to tell by picture. But you are not that atypical as a surgeon. Sorry, but the programs I have been associated with -- both general surgery and orthopaedic surgery residencies -- have had several women in them.

And about 60% of the medical school classes for the last 15 years I've been teaching at medical schools have been female.

I agree on the Medical School bit... I help run courses for schoolkids considering Medical School, and one one course, they were about 90% female! The Medical Students I teach (years 3-5) are between 60 and 70% female.

Surgery seems to be the last area of male-predomination here though, no femle Consultants, and training grades about 20% women, I'm the only non-blonde. Could be just that our city is old-fashioned in that respect!

 

[Dracil]

Apparently these types of comments are okay on this forum, at least when directed against YEC's.

You missed this one, which is where I got my lead.

How about teaching alchemy as an alternative to chemistry

But still, thanks for the heads up. Although unfortunately, this means I can't really answer this one with my honest opinion as the OP wanted... so I'll opt to bow out of the discussion instead.

 

[lucaspa]

Reading through this thread, I note there have been a number of sarcastic comments, comments intended to belittle those who subscribe to what the Bible teaches, and comments that are derogatory.

Micaiah, this is a Christian forum, so everyone here subscribes to what the Bible teaches!

Most of the comments you said were against an idea! Not a person or group of people. You must separate yourself from the idea. Ideas are independent of people. So, you can disagree with an idea, and even call the idea stupid, without calling the person "stupid".

The one possible exception is mine: "So, yes, it is better not to be associated with creationists. It's best to avoid that terrible theology."

I apologize. I should have said "creationism" instead of creationists. I slipped up. I meant creationism. Notice that the reason to avoid "creationists" is not because they are bad people, but because the theology of creationism is a terrible theology. Now, we can discuss my conclusion that the theology is terrible and the reasons behind it.

But if you argue that nothing "bad" can be said about an idea, then there is no discussion of anything.

What you are saying is that, unless we agree with you completely, then it is a personal insult. That isn't true.

Apparently these types of comments are okay on this forum, at least when directed against YEC's.

They are OK in any forum. If you feel any of the ideas expressed were in error, then discuss the idea. For instance, the statement was that, if creationism replaced evolution in science classes, then the US would lose its current status as a leader in science. Why isn't that true?

Let me help you direct your response: in the last 100 years, what major scientific discovery has been due to creationism? Or, what has creationism predicted we should find in the universe and we have actually found it?

 

[lucaspa]

Surgery seems to be the last area of male-predomination here though, no femle Consultants, and training grades about 20% women, I'm the only non-blonde. Could be just that our city is old-fashioned in that respect!

You're the only non-blonde? Boy, that ruins a lot of good dumb blonde jokes! In thinking about it, most of the female surgical residents have been non-blonde here. We have one now that can be described as a "dishwater" blonde, but not a real blonde! I can think of only one blonde female surgical resident. All the rest were some shade of brown or black.

So we get to keep the dumb blonde jokes, I guess.

 

[Dracil]

Micaiah, this is a Christian forum, so everyone here subscribes to what the Bible teaches!

Most of the comments you said were against an idea! Not a person or group of people. You must separate yourself from the idea. Ideas are independent of people. So, you can disagree with an idea, and even call the idea stupid, without calling the person "stupid".

The one possible exception is mine: "So, yes, it is better not to be associated with creationists. It's best to avoid that terrible theology."

I apologize. I should have said "creationism" instead of creationists. I slipped up. I meant creationism. Notice that the reason to avoid "creationists" is not because they are bad people, but because the theology of creationism is a terrible theology. Now, we can discuss my conclusion that the theology is terrible and the reasons behind it.

But if you argue that nothing "bad" can be said about an idea, then there is no discussion of anything.

What you are saying is that, unless we agree with you completely, then it is a personal insult. That isn't true.


They are OK in any forum. If you feel any of the ideas expressed were in error, then discuss the idea. For instance, the statement was that, if creationism replaced evolution in science classes, then the US would lose its current status as a leader in science. Why isn't that true?

Let me help you direct your response: in the last 100 years, what major scientific discovery has been due to creationism? Or, what has creationism predicted we should find in the universe and we have actually found it?

Hmm, ok, now I'm confused. What lucaspa said seems to make more sense and falls in line with policies on pretty much every single other forum I've been to. So, can we have a moderator here clear this up? Was Micaiah wrong, and the stuff we said acceptable, or was Micaiah right, in that the forum rules do differ slightly from other forums so this sort of thing is not allowed?

 

[ej]

So, can we have a moderator here clear this up? Was Micaiah wrong, and the stuff we said acceptable, or was Micaiah right, in that the forum rules do differ slightly from other forums so this sort of thing is not allowed?

Moderators do not decide who is right and wrong
They keep the discussion within rules of CF, and enforce the rules of each forum.

If you have any doubts, you should report the post, or PM a moderator of the forum

 

[lucaspa]

Hmm, ok, now I'm confused. What lucaspa said seems to make more sense and falls in line with policies on pretty much every single other forum I've been to. So, can we have a moderator here clear this up? Was Micaiah wrong, and the stuff we said acceptable, or was Micaiah right, in that the forum rules do differ slightly from other forums so this sort of thing is not allowed?

I've never gotten a warning from a moderator. I will continue to urge Micaiah not to identify himself, as a person, with the ideas he posts. There is only so far we can go with the kid gloves. If it is disrespectful to a person to disagree with the idea, then there is no discussion and no way to approach truth. Not all ideas are equally true.

We have to be able to discard ideas that don't measure up to scrutiny and testing. I'm hoping Micaiah will come to realize that the idea may be scrapped, but that he himself actually gains in that he moves a little closer to truth.

 

[Dracil]

Well, my asking right or wrong was about the interpretation of the CF rules... but since we weren't warned, and lucaspa has never received a warning either, I'll assume it's actually ok for now.

 

[Micaiah]

I'm glad you pulled us up on this issue Dracil. Like you I have some
concerns about how we should interpret warnings such as those given above. It comes from the following link.

http://www.christianforums.com/t75762&page=2&pp=20&highlight=Creed

about post 27. When I compare some of the comments posted in this thread with those preceding this warning post, I am puzzled.

Perhaps our forum moderators could clarify the situation. In particular, I'd be interested to know what precipitated the warning post on that thread.

If comments such as those listed above really concerned me I wouldn't post on this forum. It is clear however they are not in line with the requirements expressed in the warning post.

 

[lucaspa]

It is clear however they are not in line with the requirements expressed in the warning post.

Micaiah, they are in line with the warning post. The OP asks a question about what would happen if we would substitute creation science for evolution in public schools. IOW, what are the consequences of that substitution.

All of the replies you think are "disrespectful" address the consequences. None of them comment on the personality of individuals.

Bushido says American schools will be degraded.
Late_Cretaceous says that the USA would lose its lead in scientific research.
I say that the consequences would be even more far reaching in that we would destroy the trust between adults and children.

Yes, all the consequences are negative, but they are only "disrespectful' if you define "disrespectful" as not agreeing with your position. And the warning post doesn't make that defintion. We are allowed to disagree.

Again, Micaiah, you have to separate yourself from creationism, Creationism is the idea, you are the person. I can think the idea is very, very wrong, even dumb and stupid, but respect you as a person and that you have your reasons for believing this wrong idea.

Look at the exchange about ej's idea that creation science and creationism were two different things. Ej put forth the idea. Bushido and I asked her to explain, and I cited the definition of Creation Science (by creation scientists, not evolutionists) so that she would know where I was coming from. Late dropped in and made a sarcastic remark. One that I really did think was disrespectful. I called him on it and said we should wait to see Ej's reasoning before we jumped on her. I respect Ej that she had reasoning behind her idea, even tho I disagreed with it. Late decided to wait.

Ej looked at the evidence, decided that the idea was wrong, and admitted it. Idea and subject dropped.

This is how discussion is supposed to happen. Disagreement, but respect. A component of that is, of course, the Ej didn't think she was the idea. So she could admit the idea was wrong and move on. She recognized that our disagreement with the idea didn't mean thinking she was a bad person. Of course, our respect for her goes up because she was able to admit an idea was wrong.

Do you understand, Micaiah? We honestly think the consequences of substituting creation science for evolution would be catastrophic because we have honestly concluded that creationism is a falsified theory. It's wrong. My answer would have been the same if Tinbo had substituted phlogiston, geocentrism, or proteins are the hereditary material. They are all falsified scientific theories and teaching them as valid is lying to our kids. That's not disrespectful to you. You are not creationism.

 

[Micaiah]

To marry evolution and Christianity a person must apply a mode of interpretation that is plainly wrong. Genesis is a historical record of the beginning. Much of the gospel has its origins in Genesis, and to undermine the truth of Genesis is to undermine the Gospel.

1. You have not demonstrated that a non-literal interpretation of the how of Creation is wrong.
2. Genesis cannot be a historical record because Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 plainly contradict on several key points. You can't have a contradictory history. You can, however, have a contradictory history when the objective is to tell two complementary, but different, theological points.
3. None of the gospel has its origins in Genesis. All of Genesis could drop right out of the Bible and not affect the Gospel at all. What you need to be true in the OT is the Exodus, not a literal Genesis 1-11. This is where creationism gets in real trouble: illogically tying the ultimate meaning of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection to a testable, falsified literal reading of Genesis 1-11. It is as if creationists want Christianity to be shown to be wrong! Creationism goes out of its way here to try to make Christianity by wrong.

This is why theistic evolutionists end up defending Christianity from attacks by both sides. The last statement is actually one made by militant atheists! It is a militant atheist statement. Why do you want to do that?

How about this bizarre posts that clearly labels those who believe in the plain teaching of Genesis as 'militant athiests'

It appears to me there is plenty of scope to slander the other side, at least if you are a theistic evolutionist.

 

[ej]

How about this bizarre posts that clearly labels those who believe in the plain teaching of Genesis as 'militant athiests'

That's a common belief amongst those who cannot see evidence for the case presented by biblical literalists, if a slightly harsh one. Many believe that Genesis was never meant to be interpreted literally, and that to do so takes credit from the beautiful world which we study in an attempt to understand it.

It appears to me there is plenty of scope to slander the other side, at least if you are a theistic evolutionist.

We are here to discuss, not to slander.
As Lucaspa has pointed out to you, it is not YOU being attacked, but your theory which many find faulty.

 

[Bushido216]

How about this bizarre posts that clearly labels those who believe in the plain teaching of Genesis as 'militant athiests'

It appears to me there is plenty of scope to slander the other side, at least if you are a theistic evolutionist.

You have once again managed to completely miss the entire point of a post.

I commend you on your striking ability to do so.

(Yes, this one was a sarcastic remark.)

 

[lucaspa]

How about this bizarre posts that clearly labels those who believe in the plain teaching of Genesis as 'militant athiests'

Micaiah, look carefully at what I said:
This is why theistic evolutionists end up defending Christianity from attacks by both sides. The last statement is actually one made by militant atheists! It is a militant atheist statement. Why do you want to do that?

Again, I am discussing the idea, not the person. Notice the bold. The statement is one of militant atheism. It says nothing that you are a militant atheist.

It appears as if you are trying very hard to make you and the idea one and the same. And that is what I am saying is harmful of you to do.

Is the motivation for this that you can try to make your opponent be the "bad guy" and engaging in personal attacks? If that is so, it's a clever tactic, but not a valid one.

Now, if you think the statement is not something you want to be associated with, you may want to examine whether you want to keep making the statement.

 

[Micaiah]

That's a common belief amongst those who cannot see evidence for the case presented by biblical literalists, if a slightly harsh one. Many believe that Genesis was never meant to be interpreted literally, and that to do so takes credit from the beautiful world which we study in an attempt to understand it.

I think it is more appropriate to label it as a lie from the father of lies (satan).

Can we please have moderators comment on the following:

I'm glad you pulled us up on this issue Dracil. Like you I have some
concerns about how we should interpret warnings such as those given above. It comes from the following link.

http://www.christianforums.com/t757...highlight=Creed

about post 27. When I compare some of the comments posted in this thread with those preceding this warning post, I am puzzled.

Perhaps our forum moderators could clarify the situation. In particular, I'd be interested to know what precipitated the warning post on that thread.

If comments such as those listed above really concerned me I wouldn't post on this forum. It is clear however they are not in line with the requirements expressed in the warning post.

Like Dracil, I felt very tentative about what could be posted after reading the warning it its context.

 

[lucaspa]

"That's a common belief amongst those who cannot see evidence for the case presented by biblical literalists, if a slightly harsh one. Many believe that Genesis was never meant to be interpreted literally, and that to do so takes credit from the beautiful world which we study in an attempt to understand it."

I think it is more appropriate to label it as a lie from the father of lies (satan).

Notice you are talking about the belief, not the believers. You can label it a "lie", but have given no reason why you do so or why you think it comes from Satan.

Micaiah, you can look at any statement and yell "Lie!" That doesn't tell us anything. To further the discussion you have to tell us the reason why it is a lie. IOW, you must show how it contradicts the truth.

So, let me ask you a question: Is the comment's only intent to inflame? The poster just said what the belief is. You have made a judgement call that the belief is a lie. But you didn't give a reason for your judgement. Is your intent to start a flame war? Did you intend your response as an insult? Is that why you see insults everywhere, because you do so yourself and figure everyone else does the same?

 

[ej]

I think it is more appropriate to label it as a lie from the father of lies (satan).

Can we please have moderators comment on the following:

Like Dracil, I felt very tentative about what could be posted after reading the warning it its context.

See post 29.
And rest assured that the forums are moderated.