Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Split Rock]

Lot's of ignorant rhetoric and not much else.

I haven't made my point very clearly. The point was that the evolutionists "drew first blood". Creation was only suggested and fought for because evolutionism was being forced on all children. Only one position, and all were indoctrinated into the party line, especially teachers.

Evolution has never, ever been legislated. Creationism, on the other hand, has been numerous times. Which is being forced, again?

[My point is that neither should be allowed or both should be allowed. So, if one is required, the other should be required. But neither should be. That's just my opinion.

In science classes, students should be taught science, not your narrow religious dogma. Guess who gets to decide what science is? Scientists do. Guess what it is that scientists do for a living? Science. Scientists use the theory of evolution, not creationism. Therefore, that is what should be taught.

You may be right; it might be that for 4 years of college he didn't need it, and suddenly at the entrance to med school they may require him to be a card-carrying member of the evolutionist party, but I don't think so.

More rhetoric. There is no "evolutionist party."

And having spent 15 years in a church with a fairly large percentage of people from the medical profession due to the location of the church who embraced creation instead of the evolutionary dogma, I'm not particularly worried for him.

Funny you should mention "church" and "evolutionary dogma" in the same sentence. It's the church that teaches dogma, not medical schools.

The importance of evolution is grossly, grossly, grossly overestimated. It is only important if the people in the educational system demand it; and if they do, they show their bias. They make belief in the philosophy of evolution the new membership card to their club.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

So now its a philosophy... I thought it was a dogma... or was it a political party? You're just throwing mud against a wall in the hopes that something will stick.. aren't you?

If there really are extra-terrestrials and they ever come here, evolutionists are really gonna make us all look like stone-age imbeciles, and will probably convince them quickly that no intelligent communication can be hoped for in this species.

Really? What do you imagine their reaction will be to a technology based society whose members believe they are descended from a man made from mud and a woman made from a rib?

In the evolutionary theory based on naturalism being behind all, there is no "best." Best or better is a subjective moralistic judgment. If there are no absolute morals, then there is no best, therefore there is no best theory, there are only theories. Creation by design is a theory, evolutionism is a theory. I'm sorry, a hypothesis.

Yes, best is a subjective moralistic judgement. It can also be a professional judgement. In the case of evolution, however, it doesn't really matter, since there are no scientific alternatives that explain the distribution and diversity of life and makes testable predictions that have never been falsified. And one more thing... we tell you what a theory is and what an hypothesis is, not the other way around. We don't tell you what Dispensation to believe in and you don't get to define scientific terms for us.

 

[Hupomone10]

Except there's no reason to, as they're not equivalent.

Creationism is religiously motivated assertion, and evolution is factual science.

Except that evolutionism is religiously and emotionally motivated assertion, and creation is factual science.

 

[Hupomone10]

I guess it's just ethically wrong to teach children that 1 + 1 = 2 as well.

Why would you think that?

To be honest, this response doesn't do your side justice. I know there are better responses to what I said from the evolutionary side than to change the subject or resort to exaggeration, but I will go with it...

If math were a theory instead of a law, and
If one theory was that 1 = 1 = 2, and
If you had another theory based on evidence to support why 1 + 1 = 3,
Then I would not be afraid for you to present your theory, and would not fight against your doing so.

Which raises to me an interesting question that unless it was missed, will lead directly to another point and another question I mentioned before and was never answered:

if creation by a designer is so narrow-minded, so blatantly wrong, so against 'true science', why are some of the people on here so against it being presented? Why not let it be presented side by side and be shown to be the nonsense that they say it is? Do they think their kids are so stupid and naive that they won't be able to see what you see, that they won't be able to look at both sides with an objective mind the way those on here are implying they looked at it, that they are so gullible that they have to be "protected" from any other theory being presented? If not, then what are they afraid of? Let it be presented. We're certainly presenting the homosexual lifestyle equally and as though it is an equally acceptable lifestyle to heterosexual, and doing that in the public schools in spite of much objection to it. It seems to me to be blatant hypocrisy to be approving or even indifferent toward schools discussing homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and then to be so emotionally opposed to even the equal presentation of ID.

 

[wensdee]

Which raises to me an interesting question that unless it was missed, will lead directly to another point and another question I mentioned before and was never answered:

if creation by a designer is so narrow-minded, so blatantly wrong, so against 'true science', why are some of the people on here so against it being presented? Why not let it be presented side by side and be shown to be the nonsense that they say it is? Do they think their kids are so stupid and naive that they won't be able to see what you see, that they won't be able to look at both sides with an objective mind the way those on here are implying they looked at it, that they are so gullible that they have to be "protected" from any other theory being presented? If not, then what are they afraid of? Let it be presented. We're certainly presenting the homosexual lifestyle equally and as though it is an equally acceptable lifestyle to heterosexual, and doing that in the public schools in spite of much objection to it. It seems to me to be blatant hypocrisy to be approving or even indifferent toward schools discussing homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and then to be so emotionally opposed to even the equal presentation of ID.

I agree with you, you should keep pushing creationism because it's the only way for the US to move forward, evolutionists would have the US go back to the dark ages, I say teach the controversy, after all what harm can it do to the rest of the world? move the US forward into the light for everyones benefit.

Evolution is a myth designed to fool educated people, what can educated people know that you don't know?
education is for fools so you listen to your pastor because only pastors know the truth.

Medical doctors are OK but creationist medical doctors are something else.

 

[Incariol]

Guys, Hupomone is just kidding.

 

[Gracchus]

Guys, Hupomone is just kidding.

 

[wensdee]

Guys, Hupomone is just kidding.

I hope he's not because I'm banking on him to spread the good word.

 

[Hupomone10]

deleted

Evolution has never, ever been legislated. Creationism, on the other hand, has been numerous times. Which is being forced, again?

"In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes."

"In 2000, Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution."
- Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE
Which is being forced? You tell me. To me this is legislation, but maybe not to an evolutionist.

In science classes, students should be taught science, not your narrow religious dogma.

"My" narrow religious dogma? You're just throwing mud against a wall in the hopes that something will stick.. aren't you? (evolutionists simply cannot discuss without resorting to personal slander and name-calling, can they?).

I think you attribute to me tremendously more power than I have. I do not have the power to force ANYONE to adhere to Hupomone's religious dogma. I find that reasoning with them is quite sufficient, which is why I argue for the freedom to present both positions, or neither. This country has been and is supposed to still be about freedom, and this includes the freedom for scientists to present their different theories without the government forcing them into silence.

Guess who gets to decide what science is? Scientists do. Guess what it is that scientists do for a living? Science.

I disagree. It is obviously politicians and appointed judges who get to determine. Why do you think the liberal agenda for decades has been about appointing liberal judges and justices to office?

Scientists use the theory of evolution, not creationism. Therefore, that is what should be taught.

Objective scientists use the theory of creation, not evolutionism. But I will not be so dogmatic as to say that this is alone what should be taught. So, I will ask you the question: who is being dogmatic here, you or I?

Other than that, I agree with you. Scientists get to determine what science is, both creation scientists and anti-creation scientists.

More rhetoric. There is no "evolutionist party."

It was a figure of speech to make a point, sorry you missed that.

So now its a philosophy... I thought it was a dogma... or was it a political party? You're just throwing mud against a wall in the hopes that something will stick.. aren't you?

Yes, to most. Do you wish for me to find where you use different words to describe your disdain for creation? such as one time it's rhetoric, another time it is dogma? Let's have a semi-intelligent and peaceful discussion, please, if it's possible. I'm sorry you continue to misunderstand that "evolutionary party" was a figure of speech and didn't refer to a political party. Your above response, in fact, your whole post here: isn't it rather like throwing mud against a wall in hopes that it will stick? Have you offered anything in defense of your position except accusations and belittling comments meant to demean the opposition and make the Self feel better?

Yes, best is a subjective moralistic judgement. It can also be a professional judgement.

Can be but isn't. I would merely suggest that as an evolutionist, if you are, you are being inconsistent to your own world view of chance matter energy and naturalism by allowing a moralistic judgment on this.

And one more thing... we tell you what a theory is and what an hypothesis is, not the other way around... you don't get to define scientific terms for us.

And we see how that worked out, didn't we. You define it as a theory, then by your own self-appointed authority and without supporting evidence to do so, you declare it a fact. Sounds rather like the Catholic Church of the dark ages, that told everyone at the end of the sword what to believe. Get off your high horse.

Who is "we"? Do you pretend to speak for all scientists, or do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Really? What do you imagine their reaction will be to a technology based society whose members believe they are descended from a man made from mud and a woman made from a rib?

I think their (aliens) reaction would be "given their assumption of an all-powerful all-knowing entity who was able to speak and create matter and energy, the theory of taking mud and forming and giving life to a creature is sound." I think they would reason, "On the one hand, we have a rather quaint story about a man being made out of matter and a woman being made from living tissue by this all-powerful entity,

"and on the other hand we have the theory that life spontaneously formed in a very violent and adverse primordial atmosphere and continued to become more complex and add more information and more information to its genome totally by millions of progressive accidents, without any designer behind it at all. Hmm. There is obviously a mixture of intelligent and non-intelligent life on this planet. "

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

I agree with you, you should keep pushing creationism because it's the only way for the US to move forward, evolutionists would have the US go back to the dark ages, I say teach the controversy, after all what harm can it do to the rest of the world? move the US forward into the light for everyones benefit.

Evolution is a myth designed to fool educated people, what can educated people know that you don't know?
education is for fools so you listen to your pastor because only pastors know the truth.

Medical doctors are OK but creationist medical doctors are something else.

I like your reasoning. Sarcasm, exaggeration, and creating of straw men. You are a credit to your belief system, and I mean that with all my heart. And may your method of apologetic increase. It's everything I've come to expect during my visit here today. You guys have not let me down.

(and please, if there are any creationists who argue this way, please consider arguing for the other side . )

.

 

[mzungu]

You do realize he lacks the capacity to do this.

He is in roughly the position of the 4 yr old (trying to get a lot of attention by) saying all grownups are big dummies.

The main distinction being that the 4 yr old could be corrected

I think that this is uncalled for. AV has insulted no one. Yes he has some very weird and many times crazy ideas but one thing he does not is insult fellow posters.

 

[mzungu]

Except that evolutionism is religiously and emotionally motivated assertion, and creation is factual science.

Must you taunt and mock us with lies? Are you purposely trying to infuriate us? Do you enjoy doing so?

If you insist on your claims then bring forth evidences lest you be branded a troll!

 

[mzungu]

Proving evolution wrong is a privilege reserved for Jesus Christ when He returns.

Evolution, in the meantime, will be strengthened by the Antichrist when he demonstrates abiogenesis by giving 'life' to an image.

Are you implying that the Antichrist is in league with God?

 

[Hupomone10]

Guys, Hupomone is just kidding.

a theory with more solid support than macro-evolution !

On a serious note, given the lack of real evidence for what you say, you shouldn't suggest that to them or they'll start believing it...

and argue that no other position of Hupomone should be allowed to be taught.

Blessings to ya.

Are U a 7th Day?

 

[Goodbook]

Hupomone, Amen!

God has a name for evolutionists - scorners.

Proverbs 1:22
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 9:8
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Actually, the truth is in the Bible, for those with eyes to look and ears to hear. We don't get our truth only from pastors.

evolutionists on the other hand, seem to get their truth from watching too many episodes of Star Trek.

 

[Incariol]

Hupomone, Amen!

God has a name for evolutionists - scorners.

Proverbs 1:22
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 9:8
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

That doesn't describe us, actually.

Actually, the truth is in the Bible, for those with eyes to look and ears to hear. We don't get our truth only from pastors.

Nobody said that, but some people are silly enough to try and get their science from their pastors.

evolutionists on the other hand, seem to get their truth from watching too many episodes of Star Trek.

No, from school. Some of us actually paid attention in high school and/or studied biology at university, you see.

Strangely, Creationists are never the ones who actually study science.

It makes me giggle, and I must admit, feel smugly superior.

 

[wensdee]

I like your reasoning. Sarcasm, exaggeration, and creating of straw men. You are a credit to your belief system, and I mean that with all my heart. And may your method of apologetic increase. It's everything I've come to expect during my visit here today. You guys have not let me down.

(and please, if there are any creationists who argue this way, please consider arguing for the other side . )
.

Hupomone10 you are a product of your envirionment and a credit to the US of A.

Please take my word for it when I say that most of the people outside of the US think American creationists are great and that museum you have says it all, it's a wonder Disney didn't think that one up years ago, their loss is your gain.

 

[Hupomone10]

Must you taunt and mock us with lies? Are you purposely trying to infuriate us? Do you enjoy doing so?

If you insist on your claims then bring forth evidences lest you be branded a troll!

It is interesting to me that you do not recognize your own tactics and see that 1) they are just as offensive to the one they are sent as they obviously are to you when they are merely reversed to you; and 2) my statements are just as valid as yours. They are not for taunting, but making a point. You are making bold statements without any corroborating evidence or proof for them. I have the right to do the same.

I mentioned at the beginning of my posts that i would read, post some, but haven't studied this in over 20 years; that is why I've stayed in the philosophical arena of this argument, which I believe is the starting point of it anyway and the only place where it will eventually be understood if it is ever to be understood.

You mention evidence. My visit here has confirmed a sneaking suspicion that's been growing, and that is that it is not with the evidence that this argument will be settled. For the evidence is interpreted by an individual's world view. Both sides have the same evidence, but how it is interpreted is determined by the presuppositions the person brings to the table. Everyone thinks they are being unbiased and objective; but we look at the same evidence and read it differently.

I can say for instance that comets only have a life span of about 500,000 years, and yet we still have and see active comets. Why, if the universe is billions of years old do we still have any live comets? But the person with a world view that the universe is matter/energy shaped by pure chance without a designer is not going to give up his world view based on a little evidence; he will find a "rescuing device" such as "well there might be such a thing as an Oort Cloud that creates new comets." I might say, "has one ever been discovered?" "No, but you can't prove there's not one either."
Comets' Oort Cloud
It does convince me at least at this time that it's not about the evidence, but about both groups' presuppositions by which they interpret the data. And these presuppositions are based on the world view they hold.

That is why God appeals to people to believe in Him and believe in His Son rather than appealing to them to try to understand Him and to understand all answers first. Salvation, the rescuing of a person from the plight they are in with this sinful nature, is not a matter of thinking you've evaluated the evidence correctly, for all of us think we have and probably none of us have. It is a matter of trusting a loving Creator rather than trusting in this fallen, finite, filled with prejudice and bias, Self.

“As long as we depended on our own resources, all we produced was sin; we hungered for life, and brought forth death. But in the midst of our wretched attempts to be delivered from the ‘body of this death’ (Rom 7:24), our faithful Father was teaching us what we had to know for our freedom in Christ: self is our greatest enemy, Christ is our only hope.. ‘For to me to live is Christ’ (Phil 1:21)”
- Miles Stanford, "The Complete Green Letters"

 

[Goodbook]

It makes me giggle, and I must admit, feel smugly superior.

Scorner.


? I've never heard a pastor teaching science. You have strange ideas.
Its not true that ALL scientist subscribe to ToE.
Otherwise you wouldn't get scientists (who study science) up in arms questioning Darwin's theories. Only because you live in such a narrow part of the world where you are indoctrinated into the Darwinist worldview. Didn't you think to question it?

I thoroughly questioned God before believing in Him - and he answered! Darwin, however, is dead.

 

[wensdee]

It makes me giggle, and I must admit, feel smugly superior.

Education and the gaining of knowledge does sometimes have that effect on people, it can also make them feel that they can help others less fortunate, is that why you're here?

 

[Incariol]

Education and the gaining of knowledge does sometimes have that effect on people, it can also make them feel that they can help others less fortunate, is that why you're here?

I'm certainly not averse to helping poor souls when I can.