Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Hespera]

That's not the AZ salt flats is it? if it is, I can't allow that either, as a car enthusiast. Where will we do our land speed records?

no need for a res. they keep themselves in the 'parks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah AV! I never thought the day will come when you will openly accept the process of EVOLUTION! You do realise that what you have described is adaptation and that is exactly what evolution does!

Oh, my -- where have you been the last 5 years?

If you stick around long enough, you'll actually get to agree with me on a lot of stuff:

1. I believe in microevolution.
2. I believe Creationism should not be taught as science.
3. I believe the earth is 4.57 billion years old.
4. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
5. I believe the universe is expanding.
6. I call Intelligent Design a sham.
7. I claim there's no evidence for creatio ex nihilo.
8. I claim there's no evidence of a worldwide flood.
9. I claim Noah's Ark was not a ship.
10. I claim the Bible is not a science book.
    

It's just that 5% that I don't agree with science on that makes science rear its ugly head and show how intolerant it is to anyone who dares disagree.

 

[Skavau]

AV, the only thing I am intolerant of is your insistence that your beliefs which you admit are completely unevidenced should be taught as fact in history lessons in school. You are welcome to hold your non-evidenced, pro-faith ideals as virulently as you like but when you smear scientific understanding, insult all scientific fields and insist upon the right to have your believes favourably represented at the expense of others in educational establishments, people will and rightly comment.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Oh, my -- where have you been the last 5 years?

You forgot this one:

"11. I believe that science should be demonized"

 

[Greg1234]

No, since we define, for the purposes of terminology, a 'force' to be any thing that enacts a change in momentum.

A force is a general term. That wasn't the argument. What is being said here is that magnetic fields or the invisible force derived from the effect is categorized as factual and not classified as a future visible cause. In order to do so, you must assume that that invisible force exists and is not an unknown visible phenomenon.

 

[AV1611VET]

You forgot this one:

"11. I believe that science should be demonized"

I copied what I wrote, and didn't leave anything out -- thank you.

 

[Cabal]

A force is a general term. That wasn't the argument. What is being said here is that magnetic fields or the invisible force derived from the effect is categorized as factual and not classified as a future visible cause. In order to do so, you must assume that that invisible force exists and is not an unknown visible phenomenon.

This is the problem with religious thinking - you start thinking that certain concepts and constructs objectively and externally exist - meaning, purpose, morals, and apparently now, magnetic fields

 

[Cabal]

You forgot this one:

"11. I believe that science should be demonized"

No, no, it's usually more like

"Scientists are gifts from God"

But we're also Sadducees and antiChrist followers.

Go figure.

 

[Greg1234]

This is the problem with religious thinking - you start thinking that certain concepts and constructs objectively and externally exist - meaning, purpose, morals, and apparently now, magnetic fields

Magnetic fields do in fact exist.

 

[Cabal]

Magnetic fields do in fact exist.

What we call magnetic fields is a very accurate description of whatever it is that exists.

 

[Greg1234]

What we call magnetic fields is a very accurate description of whatever it is that exists.

And? The point is it is accepted as what it is and not attributed to a future visible phenomenon. You only assume that that invisible phenomenon is real. Visible scientists will look down on you and tell you "at least we're still looking for a visible cause for compass needle movement".

 

[Cabal]

And? The point is it is accepted as what it is and not attributed to a future visible phenomenon. You only assume that that invisible phenomenon is real.

I don't assume that there is nothing there, else nothing would be happening. There is something there, but I do not assume that it is necessarily exactly what I am describing.

Visible scientists will look down on you and tell you "at least we're still looking for a visible cause for compass needle movement".

I don't know any of these "visible scientists", care to list a few papers?

Or is this something you just created ex recto?

Edit: Oh, and also: what is your point? Still not seeing any scientific evidence for why we should believe in your specific deity, just a bunch of word salad and nitpicking.

 

[Upisoft]

Hey, don't blame Perry for HIV!

who? Perry the Platypus? I knew it!

 

[sandwiches]

This is the problem with religious thinking - you start thinking that certain concepts and constructs objectively and externally exist - meaning, purpose, morals, and apparently now, magnetic fields

Yep. We get things like the good ol' "Well, you don't know if something else, which we can't detect, is <interacting with/is involved> in your <brain/matter/energy/emotions/morality/death/life/anything>!"

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

<staff edit>

that's a pretty solid description

 

[Nostromo]

The point is it is accepted as what it is and not attributed to a future visible phenomenon. You only assume that that invisible phenomenon is real. Visible scientists will look down on you and tell you "at least we're still looking for a visible cause for compass needle movement".

Visible or invisible makes absolutely no difference, we 'only' assume that all detectable phenomena are real. There is no objective way to determine with 100% certainty that anything is real, whether you can see it or not.

That's why scientific processes are useful, they help us determine which decriptions of phenomena are likely to be accurate, in that they're consistent with our perceived reality. Your human mind and senses are not completely reliable.

 

[Hupomone10]

[/font][/size]

Yes, I would imagine if one questions radioactive dating to the tune of several billion years then all those isotopes must seem much more dangerous due to their higher activity.

Oh, and uranium isn't a lifeform, so "evolution of uranium" is a misnomer.



It could be, if you think is-ought fallacies constitute good reasoning.

I see why you're making a counter-point, but the issue here is that while belief in creation/creationism might not be a hindrance for some jobs, is it actually required? Do you need to be taught creation/creationism from high school level science and onwards to be a nuclear worker? It's not really an argument for it being on the course.

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.

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.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

FYI, evolutionary principles are very important in medicine and are taught extensively in medical school. At my school, I know some pretty dang conservative Christians but they all accept the reality of evolution and it doesn't seem to harm them one bit.

If you son ends up in medical school, he'll be in for a rude awakening and a lot of confusion during his microbiology, oncology, embryology, and anatomy coursework for sure. So you've essentially ill-prepared him.

Like I said, when someone is bleeding from a car wreck or needs cancer treatment, they don't particularly care whether man came from apes or birds came from dinosaurs.

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. 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.

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.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

Why are creationists hell bent on regressing the USA into the stone age?

Why are evolutionists?


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.

Blessings,
H..

 

[CaliforniaSun]

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.

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.

Blessings,
H.

With all due respect, you hold this point of view only because you have no idea why ToE is the best theory right now.