View Full Version : Public Schools
My cousin was home schooled for quite some time, and is now, at the age of 16 going to a public school for the first time since kindergarten. Their English class, has a habit of swerving of subject and debating evolution creationism. I wish I was there, but I am home schooled myself(though I have spent most of my time in public school). I wish I was there, because these people don't know how to debate. Anger and such flies through he air like arrows. When I ask this controversial question, I ask that we all keep this in mind, a debate is not a chance to prove something by shoving it down their throat. Most debates end with both sides still believing what they did before hand. A debate is a chance to take the American right of freedom of speech, and use it wisely. This question is not meant to debate evolution vs creation, but it will probably end up that way. This question concerns the public school system specifically.
Here is the question:
What should be taught in public school concerning the origin of life, further more, but more a different question, should Christianity be taught in any way shape or form? Shoul teachers be so severely punished for quoting scriptures?
Here is my answer.
I am a Christian, but I feel at Americans spiritual state right now, it is not fair, and will get you no where, by saying Christianity should be the only thing taught. We are far from that. The public school system really has no business, in my opinion, in teaching our influential youth the origins of life. However, I find teaching strictly Evolution, which supports Atheism, and outlawing all others not only infuriating, but immature, and biased. Our government has no business in choosing what origins of life are to be taught. I say this becuase the origins of life are so closely linked with religion. There are two basic ideas, Evolution, and Creation. Creation come in many forms, and could be taught broadly, in my opinion, to start with. Tennessee allows public schools to teach both, why don't others? There is no reason, and this statement is for Christians, Evolution is the sole origin of life taught in public schools because we have sat around and remained silent If the scientists can voice it, and make a difference, why can't we? Start by being wise, start small. Get both to be taught, then move on. Evolution was slowly accepted to be taught in our public schools, sadly enough, I think Creationism is taking a long time to regain its rightful place, its fair place, in the teaching of origin.
So what do our Total War fans think? How, why, and what should be taught in our public schools concerning the origin of life?
If you are going to include choices;
Adam and Eve, Evolution
What about ...
Alien Immigrants, Re-incarnation, or other Origins of life.
A better subject, is teaching children how to research and make their own decisions.
If you want your children to learn what you believe, teach that yourself and not have the schools do it. I would not want schools imposing other peoples views on children. They are so impressionable.
Therefore, All origin of life theories should be excluded from schools, including christian.
An option would be a Religion Class period, where students could go to their local place of worship and study for an hour or so. If they have no religion, a science expert could explain evolution theory, a ufologist could explain extraterrestrial life, or have a free period where they go to the library and study.
Chris, I suspect your view is a particularly American one. In Europe, I don't think there is any significant scientific debate about evolution. That issue was sorted out over one hundred years ago. And to the best of my knowledge, most European Christians have moved on and don't believe their faith depends on the invalidity of a scientific theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.
What should government schools teach kids? (In the UK, we call our private schools public schools just to confuse folk). In science classes they should teach science and that means evolution, not creationism. Show me all the biology professors in Yale, Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford researching creationism and I might change my mind. But to the best of my knowledge, creationism more properly belongs in religious education, along with Allah, Buddha and all the other stories parents fill their children's minds with.
Not trying to offend, just my aetheistical two cents.
Creationism has no place in public schools. If people want to teach their kids anything they 'believe' they are free to do so, but schools should teach fact. Evolution, genetics, geology, all fact.
The Catholic Church suppressed science that contradicted their view or that threatened Christianity. This was a big mistake. We should learn from history and not make that mistake.
Creationism is a religious myth. The Hopis, Buddhists, every other culture in the world has their own creation myth. There is no telling which of these, if any, is correct, unless you base it on fact.
And the facts do not support the biblical version of events.
ichi
|OCS|Virus
01-27-2004, 03:12
If you are asking me personaly, I do not belive a teacher should impose there beliefs or try to sway them one way or another no matter how deep there belief is but sould be able to state there opinion so they will not be forbiden to talk about certain things. Because I think that would violate freedom of speech. But I do not think that the government should have any say in matters of evolution or creation. But I do think that it is imortant to be discussed at one point or another but only at an age were a person is capable of making choices for themselfs. For example college courses should be able to deal in such matters. I mean if people that are of age can not even talk about there views, then what is the point of having opinions on it at all? I do not believe matters of faith should be discussed in churches however the point of a church is that you have decided to go with one faith or the other. {dont know how that situation would come up but I'm just saying.} I would also would like to make the point that if you want your school to teach a certain religious perspective there are catholic schools or other schools that will teach school in a way more to the liking of people of a certain religion.
{this does not apply to the question but may I ask how you can stand to be homeschooled? I was homeschooled for about two years I was so bored it was rediculous how did you deal with that?}
Revenant69
01-27-2004, 03:58
Religion doesnt belong in schools in any shape or form whatsoever EVER. It has absolutely no place there. Humans evolve, so lets evolve past this whole Creation myth and start trusting our science. I rely on facts and not on John said to Jim that James had a friend ....
Oh, the fact that I am a scientist has nothing to do with my opinion.
If I were to take after the ancient Greeks and worship Zeus as a thunder god, would that be a reason to no longer teach that lightning is caused by static discharges in the atmosphere?
No, of course not. That would be patently ridiculously - seriously suggest at a school board meeting that the schools should teach thunder-god intervention instead of meteorology if you don't believe me, and watch them laugh you right out the door.
Despite what you seem to be implying, evolution isn't a religious issue. Nowhere in evolution do you find and there is no god - Theism and Atheism are both extraneous. The existence of Christian creation mythology doesn't make evolution a religious issue any more then Greek mythology makes lightning a religious issue. Religion is simply beyond the scope of the theory of evolution - god does not factor into it, just the fossil record and modern knowledge of biochemistry and physics.
For the record though, evolution vs. Christianity is an incorrect term - it's far from all of Christendom that's opposing evolution, as statements by the pope prior to John Paul indicate. If anything, the appropriate statement would probably be evolution vs. literal interpretation of Genesis.
|OCS|Virus
01-27-2004, 05:36
but that isnt a fair compairison, the idea of taking two things like the idea of creation and lightning and trying to contrast the two. Revnant you seems to be trying to bend others to think like you I dont know about others here but I dont appreciat that in the least. If we can not act in an adault matter twords the question that has been asked then it is better not to respond. if you think the idea is obserd then just state your opinion and leave it at that. sorry if that is a little harsh but seriously some people belive things that others may think obserd that does not make it right for you to critisize there beliefs. Because you are a scientist I understand that you would base things on fact but that does not give you the right to throw stones so to speak at others who believe in creation.
Ah, I misunderstood.
If you'll please explain to me how lightning and creation are dissimiliar enough to disqualify the comparison, I'd be quite grateful.
Lord Rom
01-27-2004, 06:42
Quote[/b] ]Creationism has no place in public schools. If people want to teach their kids anything they 'believe' they are free to do so, but schools should teach fact. Evolution, genetics, geology, all fact.
If only evolution was fact I could agree with that statement. Ichi, I highly respect your posts(and look forward to reading them m8) but evolution is a theory, nothing more. It is taught as fact in many places to people whom evolution is their own religion of a sort. Blindly ignoring the missing evidence and dogmatically stating that anything that disagrees is religious and cannot be put into the equation. Check out the post from months past where this same subject was thoroughly discussed. Lol there must have been a thousand replies Irriducible complexity is the new theory that creationists are wanting discussed in class rooms. It has good merit scientifically and deserves to be taught just as much as evolution theory. Beware of those who want only their side argued in the class room. Check out that older post...people there made a much better argument both for and against than I can.
Rom
Lord Xelous
01-27-2004, 07:13
1 Word question.. Dinosaurs...
If god exists.. and according to the Bibile existed in a 10,000 year time span, why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?
And one day jesus & the deciples were walking along the road, when all of a sudden their path was blocked by a giant brontasaurus, with a splinter in it's paw... and Jesus took the big beast and soothed his wounds...
I mean I'm not sure what's worse, the idea of no god, or the idea that if there is a god he created the earth in 6 days (what a botch job) and he put all this evidence of a hundred thousand million years of pre-historic live and evolution, just so when you get to heaven he can go
Did you believe in Dinosaurs?
Well yeah you'll say There were all these fossiles & sh*t
*Click*, whooosh.. You idiot... I was just F*c*King with you...
But it all seemed so plausible you scram as you hurtle off into the burning abyss.
And why do I say all this? So you realise it don't matter what the bible says, about home schooling, about debating about anything, it's what you think that's important.. and make sure you're not too influenced by fiction, modern or 1900 year old versions of it...
-- Comments Adapted form the Late Great William Hicks
It's better to have an idea than have beliefs, people die for them, kill for them, but an idea can be changed
-- Words from the mind of Kevin Smith.
Quote[/b] ]Chris, I suspect your view is a particularly American one. In Europe, I don't think there is any significant scientific debate about evolution. That issue was sorted out over one hundred years ago.
truth, only in america would people actually believe stuff like that, saw some u.s. kids earnestly debating that **** (can`t think of a polite word for it) on tv.
i didn`t know wether to laugh myself silly or cry my heart out that people are wasting their time on it, get a life
Irreducible complexity isn't a scientific theory. It's an objection to the scientific theory of evolution.
I would humbly request that from now on we differentiate between a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory, as they are simply not the same thing.
Lord Xelous
01-27-2004, 07:18
Also.. while my mind is on the subject, there are those who wish to play the Pascal's Wager.
In case you don't know, Pascal's wager was derived by the French Mathematician Blaise Pascal, and he said, that from all the evidence he'd have to assert there is no god, but just incase there was he would wager 1/7th of his week praising god and sitting doing nothing, just incase. But he was living in 18th century France, and saying there was no god might have gone with with a bit of a linching.
So if you wish to play the odds of there being an afterlife, a god and the slight possibiliy of the bible not being fos, then you can play Pascal's wager, and good luck to you... But I'm not a gambling man, pure fact & modern scientific proof will do me.
Pascal's wager isn't going to be very useful in a conversation like this anyway. The mathematics of it depend completely on assuming that Catholic Christianity is completely right, or that atheism is completely right. He doesn't bother to consider the possibility that both may be wrong - and if you include those logical possibilities, all of a sudden the mathematical favoritism for belief goes *poof*.
Consider only one additional possibility - that god does exist, but he sends Catholics to hell and Atheists to heaven. It's hardly a common thought, but given our complete lack of solid evidence on the nature of the possible divinity, it's impossible to rule out. That suddenly puts the Catholic and the atheist back on equal afterlife footing. Any other possibility you can come up with will have similiar reverse possibilities. In the end, no matter what you believe, you have exactly the same probability of getting into heaven or hell, and Pascal's wager ends up being an arguement for hedonism.
Lord Xelous
01-27-2004, 07:44
Like I said.. I'm not a gambling man....
Rom:
I could not agree with you more on several things: that to teach one thing and to ridicule all other views is inherently wrong; to blindly ignore missing evidence also leads to errors; and that other thread on this was full of posts by people much smarter than I.
Here is my position: there are several competing theories that attempt to explain all of evolution. These will continue to be tested and perfected, as science continually tries to test existing models and discard the parts that do not pass the test.
The genetic makeup of organic life controls the expression of that life. This genetic material is passed from parent to offspring. It can change over time. I know this all from personal experience (I have experimented with fly DNA - ya I know just like the movie), but so do you - look at different dog breeds.
There are life forms that demonstrate speciation. Look at salamanders in California, or squirrels on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon, for example.
So genetics is real, evolution is fact. There are also several theories of genetics, and several theories of evolution, but simply because we do not understand everything about everything doesnt negate that there are facts.
As stated, I have trouble believing the Biblical story of creation. But when I look at the delicate complexity of life and the world around me, I can't help but see a very deep beauty that could well be the result of a Supreme Being.
And what would you expect of a Supreme Being? Very high quality work. Nothing slapped together over a week, no I think not. As stated by others, evolution does not disprove God, Christian or otherwise.
This subject has been the source of many fights, and I do not savor the prospect of a fight with you. Reasonable men can disagree over reasonable things, and I look forward to hearing from you on this and other topics.
respectfully
ichi
my problem with teaching religion in schools is that religion seems to always try to force its followers to follow the doctirine of whatever that religion leader has decided. Religion against surgery? right then the follower has to die instyead of receiving some life saving operation. Religion says that every other religion is wrong, and we are the one true religion? cue jihads/crusades/ religion wars etc.
Schools should teach fact first of all, what are the current most likely scientific theories, what evidence backs them up, what evidence is against them, let the child come to its own conclusion.
Then there is morals, most religous schools seem to teach morals using a basis of religion. god says though shalt not hurt thy fellow man. So the only reason i shouldnt walk up and punch you in the face is because some deity that there is no evidence to suggest actually exists says i shouldnt. well i'll do it anyway...
Morals should be taught completely on their own, *WITHOUT* religion, You dont walk up and punch someone in the face because its not right, its not fair, and how would you like it done to you?
Give them a basic moral and scientific framework let them put the pieces together, and if they so wish to follow a religion, then they are perfectly willing to do that. Its not right to skew there beiliefs from the start though to make them more likely to favour a religion.
Somebody Else
01-27-2004, 11:03
I went to an Enlgish public school, there, we had to go to chapel every day, bar Wednesday and Saturday. Skipping said chapel was one of the few things my housemaster got worked up about... so you could say that religion was a central part of the school's ethos. However, that does not mean that we spent our science lessons learning a whole lot of nonsense about the Creation. I do know that at least one of the physics teachers was a fervent Chirstian, of some strange subset or something. That didn't stop him from being (apparently - I didn't do physics past GCSE) one of the best physics teachers in the school.
The story of the Creation was a good attempt to rationalise our existence, but now that more information is available, those views are somewhat outdated... I mean, making a woman out of a man's rib?? (Talk about a waste of resources http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif )
Count Fudgula
01-27-2004, 13:16
Schools in France are entirely secular and they are not allowed mention religion whatsoever. This is taken very seriously and leads to situations like a Sikh teacher who was asked to resign because he wouldn't come to work without his turban, and more recently the protests regarding headscarves for female Muslim students being banned. (This last one is a bit strange for a country obsessed with scarves in general, cf. G. Houllier for a reference point for those familiar with English football).
Red Peasant
01-27-2004, 16:20
Evolution may be a theory but is is a scientific theory, arrived at using valid and rational scientific methodology. It may be wrong, partially if not totally, but then, most scientific theory is constantly *evolving*, constantly being qualified, amended, and challenged.
However, 'Creationism' is a matter of faith, usually unshakeable, in a particular religious dogma. If one believes in it then it cannot be amended, and it is not based on any kind of empirical, scientific methodology of any kind. According to the Bible, the world and humanity was created some 4,600 years ago.....no arguments.
The answer is simple: teach Christianity (inc. creationism), Islam, Buddhism, etc., in Religious Studies. Teach science in Science classes.
The problem in America is that it has a politically powerful *Christian* lobby that can force these surreal debates in a national forum. (*Christian* can include all and any wacko pseudo-christian sect and sub-sect, which seem to breed like flies in the States, it's just not an issue over here, except amongst a very small lunatic fringe).
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif
Quote[/b] (chris @ Jan. 26 2004,20:34)]My cousin was home schooled for quite some time, and is now, at the age of 16 going to a public school for the first time since kindergarten. Their English class, has a habit of swerving of subject and debating evolution creationism. I wish I was there, but I am home schooled myself(though I have spent most of my time in public school). I wish I was there, because these people don't know how to debate. Anger and such flies through he air like arrows. When I ask this controversial question, I ask that we all keep this in mind, a debate is not a chance to prove something by shoving it down their throat. Most debates end with both sides still believing what they did before hand. A debate is a chance to take the American right of freedom of speech, and use it wisely. This question is not meant to debate evolution vs creation, but it will probably end up that way. This question concerns the public school system specifically.
Here is the question:
What should be taught in public school concerning the origin of life, further more, but more a different question, should Christianity be taught in any way shape or form? Shoul teachers be so severely punished for quoting scriptures?
Here is my answer.
I am a Christian, but I feel at Americans spiritual state right now, it is not fair, and will get you no where, by saying Christianity should be the only thing taught. We are far from that. The public school system really has no business, in my opinion, in teaching our influential youth the origins of life. However, I find teaching strictly Evolution, which supports Atheism, and outlawing all others not only infuriating, but immature, and biased. Our government has no business in choosing what origins of life are to be taught. I say this becuase the origins of life are so closely linked with religion. There are two basic ideas, Evolution, and Creation. Creation come in many forms, and could be taught broadly, in my opinion, to start with. Tennessee allows public schools to teach both, why don't others? There is no reason, and this statement is for Christians, Evolution is the sole origin of life taught in public schools because we have sat around and remained silent If the scientists can voice it, and make a difference, why can't we? Start by being wise, start small. Get both to be taught, then move on. Evolution was slowly accepted to be taught in our public schools, sadly enough, I think Creationism is taking a long time to regain its rightful place, its fair place, in the teaching of origin.
So what do our Total War fans think? How, why, and what should be taught in our public schools concerning the origin of life?
I am surprised that that is happening at all. My wife is a high school teacher, English for 11th and 12th graders. One of the first things they tell teachers at both of the schools where she has taught, in Indiana and now outside of DC, is that under no circumstances is a teacher to bring up religious beliefs or personal political ideology. In fact the teacher's union won't protect you if you give a lecture on what people's religious or political beliefs should be. It strikes me as highly inappropriate that an English teacher is bringing up evolution at all - among other things an English teacher probably doesn't have much training in biology or at least not enough to be teaching it in school - and even if this teacher does then there is still no reason to discuss it in an English class.
As far as science goes a belief in evolution does not require you to be an aetheist. Nowhere in evolutionary theory is the de facto statement that god does not exist, merely that the account given by the bible does not reflect what we have deduced about evolution through the scientific method. One theory of religion that makes plenty of room for evolution and the existence of god is the idea of god as the great clockmaker. God puts the world together and then starts it running, intervening from time to time to adjust it when things go astray.
As far as the bible goes it is full of fail-safe statements along the lines of whatever contradicts god's word in the bible is false or misguided, so the bible is always right and if you don't believe that then you have been misled by evil, therefore the bible is always, without question, correct. A convenient system but one that does not allow for any rational deductions that stray from a text that was written thousands of years ago, has no extant originals, and has been translated and recopied thousands of times.
Revenant69
01-27-2004, 17:32
Quote[/b] ]Morals should be taught completely on their own, *WITHOUT* religion
I agree with Finn here, morals are what keeps humanity running (well one of the things) and, really, morals are just common sense knowledge. Bible just put them in the writen format and that is part of what made it so appealing (fortunately or unfortunately). Morals should be taught by parents to their kids, then when kids grow up and can think for themselves they can decide if they want to believe Jesus, Buddha etc etc...
I just dont like the idea of indoctrination. Besides I think religion was misused to such devastating effects that it isnt really funny. Just to remind you all that in Medieval times church was one very powerful financial organisation, if I recall correctly there was a 10% tax. Meaning that 10% of your profit went to the Church. I am not even mentioning the countles Holy wars here. To put it bluntly, it is my personal opinion that Religion was developed as just a tool, a tool to control large and sometimes unwieldy masses of peasants. A fear of something unknown will keep them in line so to speak. (although technically religion evolved from believes of early humans - hehehe couldnt resist writing this sentence)
PS I agree with Dhepee all the way.
PPS Oh and OCS Virus, I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone, if I did than I would be just as bad as those Jahova witnesses who try to ram religion down your throat. I expressd my personal beliefes, if you dont like them then, well, dont read them.
nightraven436
01-27-2004, 17:35
When I read your post Dhepee, I just had to speak up. A few years ago in Junior High School, my English teacher gave us a book on the Monkey Trial. A story about a teacher in America that taught Darwin's theory, not really thinking much about it. He was then taken to trial because of conflicting views with the church. This book obviously led us to discuss evolution and creationism. Maybe the teacher was just trying to force her own views on us. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (nightraven436 @ Jan. 27 2004,11:35)]When I read your post Dhepee, I just had to speak up. A few years ago in Junior High School, my English teacher gave us a book on the Monkey Trial. A story about a teacher in America that taught Darwin's theory, not really thinking much about it. He was then taken to trial because of conflicting views with the church. This book obviously led us to discuss evolution and creationism. Maybe the teacher was just trying to force her own views on us. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
That is different. The Scopes Monkey Trial was a historical event and to teach the trial does not require the teacher to push her views on the students. For that matter if you banned all curriculum that in any way involved religious or political viewpoints you couldn't teach any history or much literature. The issue is not whether something is taught but how it is taught. Is the teacher facilitating a discussion and adding context to a course or is a teacher telling students how to think?
It is permissible to teach about politics and to lead discussions on it as long as the teacher does not make a judgement on the relative merit of one system over another, and also provided that a student's comments in class are not disruptive. Disruptive in the sense that a statement of belief in the course of discussion either serves to condemn or hold in contempt the beliefs of others or to espouse a viewpoint that advocates violence, hatred, or contempt of others based on their religious, political, or ethnic affiliation.
In other words you can ask the class Who would you vote for in the presidential election but you cannot tell the class to vote for Dennis Kucinich, you cannot allow a student to say that someone is stupid for supporting a candidate or say that they support any candidate who will send all members of x-race to prison.
Demequis
01-27-2004, 21:59
Quote[/b] (Phatose @ Jan. 26 2004,22:32)]Pascal's wager isn't going to be very useful in a conversation like this anyway. The mathematics of it depend completely on assuming that Catholic Christianity is completely right, or that atheism is completely right. He doesn't bother to consider the possibility that both may be wrong - and if you include those logical possibilities, all of a sudden the mathematical favoritism for belief goes *poof*.
Consider only one additional possibility - that god does exist, but he sends Catholics to hell and Atheists to heaven. It's hardly a common thought, but given our complete lack of solid evidence on the nature of the possible divinity, it's impossible to rule out. That suddenly puts the Catholic and the atheist back on equal afterlife footing. Any other possibility you can come up with will have similiar reverse possibilities. In the end, no matter what you believe, you have exactly the same probability of getting into heaven or hell, and Pascal's wager ends up being an arguement for hedonism.
I think that is one of the better thought out posts I've seen in a while. I've never even thought about switching the rewards around. That's ingenious :) I always liked Pascal's wager, but when you put it in that light it does indeed seem like an argument to live for your life rather than any afterlife What a great take on his wager.
Just to clarify things if I recall correctly Pascal's wager is a precursor to game theory (I didn't see it actually posted above so here it is):
The subject is given a choice, be atheist (= agnostic for the game) or be faithful (= any god-fearing religion for the game). One of these choices is correct, with a certain probability for each choice to be the correct one. The rewards for choosing correctly vary depending on your choice however. If you believe in god, and god exists you go to heaven (for pascal's game), payoff = infinity. If you are atheist, and god does not exist, you enter the void, payoff = 0.
A rational participant would weigh each of these choices and whichever one had the highest expected payoff he would choose.
so....
Believe in god:
chance of payoff = .x
payoff = infinite
expected payoff = .x(infinity) = infinity
Atheist:
chance of payoff = 1 - .x
payoff = 0
expected payoff = (1- .x)*0 = 0
It's easy to see why pascal chose to believe. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
What's great about Phatose' post is that you use the exact same deal as above, and you get equal payoffs. Beautiful Too bad you can't hedge your bets and be atheist and god-fearing.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Oh and also, to the people degrading the importance of evolution because it's just a theory. Well, you should understand that like the theory of gravity (and many, many, many others) the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for phenomena that we do not understand. So far no data have been uncovered to disprove either of these theories, and so they can be accepted as the best explanation we have (and thus the best thing to teach our kids). The same cannot be said about creationism.
Quote[/b] ]Believe in god:
chance of payoff = .x
payoff = infinite
expected payoff = .x(infinity) = infinity
Atheist:
chance of payoff = 1 - .x
payoff = 0
expected payoff = (1- .x)*0 = 0
after the first fifteen years of life i chose the second option, deal with it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif
What is this doing here?
Will someone in authority please remove this crap from the board. This and all of the other bull that has nothing to do with the game.
Go post your educational theories on an educational BB. Check out the NEA site and really learn something for a change. Get a little variety. Learn something from somebody that is interested in that subject. I don't go to a marriage counselor for advice on politics.
Let's keep our eye on the ball boys and girls. It's TotalWar.org
This forum is a community. Think of it as an electronic village of like minded individuals. (i.e. they like Total War, as opposed to where they live.)
There was an even livelier debate on morals in another thread. Our moderators will keep an eye on any discussion out of kilter with forum rules.
welcome to the forum Kampfen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
don`t worry too much about threads like these, as kiwitt said, these threads are monitored on a regular basis, anyone who gets out of hand gets their wrists slapped.
as for removing them, i said something similar on a similar thread..... and was told that i was not being forced to read it (very true). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
so i don`t bother with that thread anymore, and i`m spoilt for choice on this site, plenty other stuff to keep me interested. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
vlad_demstra
01-28-2004, 00:13
I'm a pagan so I wouldnt want adam and eve slammed down my throat. I get enuff of that already. relagion, life, and the works, shouldn't be tought in school
Big King Sanctaphrax
01-28-2004, 00:19
Quote[/b] (Kampfen @ Jan. 27 2004,21:50)]What is this doing here?
Will someone in authority please remove this crap from the board. This and all of the other bull that has nothing to do with the game.
Go post your educational theories on an educational BB. Check out the NEA site and really learn something for a change. Get a little variety. Learn something from somebody that is interested in that subject. I don't go to a marriage counselor for advice on politics.
Let's keep our eye on the ball boys and girls. It's TotalWar.org
The entrance hall is open to all types of discussion, as it is the only place new patrons can post. The Main Hall is for MTW only. Hope that clears it up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
|OCS|Virus
01-28-2004, 00:32
Quote[/b] (Phatose @ Jan. 26 2004,23:07)]Ah, I misunderstood.
If you'll please explain to me how lightning and creation are dissimiliar enough to disqualify the comparison, I'd be quite grateful.
I havnt read past this part so if someone already said this sry. Lightning is something that is more or less tangable. Can you physicaly take me back in time and show me we evolved? of course not that is silly. Some people may argue the fact that dinosaurs prove that we did not evolve, but that is a flawed idea, is it not also possible that god indeed created them as well? I am not saying I belive in evolution in fact I do not, I was mearly saying that was not a fair compairison.
I can't take you back in time and show you how any particular piece of lightning struck either - and you have no guarantee that tommorow's lightning is the same as today's. Not a very useful approach - becomes impossible to know anything. Such an arguement makes all discussion completely meaningless - you can never know anything, and a second from now, you can't even know we had this conversation.
The moment it's over, any particular lightning strike is no more tangible then origin is. And given the rather short lifespan of lightning, that's not long.
I don't believe it to be an unfair comparision by any means - both are physical occurances, both have physical evidence, and both are quite done by the time we can investigate. And both can be dealt with in exactly the same form of study. Look at what you've got, form a hypothesis to explain it, make predictions, and test, test, test.
Dillinger
01-28-2004, 00:59
It is one of the Church's greatest weaknesses that it is absolutely paranoid about everything. Where in Evolutionary theory does it say that God does not exist? All Evolution did is disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis, not God himself.
|OCS|Virus
01-28-2004, 01:10
Quote[/b] (Revenant69 @ Jan. 27 2004,10:32)]PPS Oh and OCS Virus, I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone, if I did than I would be just as bad as those Jahova witnesses who try to ram religion down your throat. I expressd my personal beliefes, if you dont like them then, well, dont read them.
Perhaps I worded it wrongly, I was only saying use tact I understand your opinion {ironicly I agree with most of it} Your wording just seemed rude,
Quote[/b] ] Humans evolve, so lets evolve past this whole Creation myth and start trusting our science The idea of suggesting people to move past there personal beliefs is just plain irrational to expect of another person. would you move past your personal beliefs? like some religion sais 2+2 does not equal four are you just going to go with that? because someone sais they have proof that it doesnt? because to some people creation is there 2+2 {sry for the stupid metaphor I couldnt think of any other way to explain it}
{hehehe Those Jahovas whitnesses can be realy annoying at times, I have a story but thats for a different thread LoL}
Phatose: Yes I know that it is nearly hard to make an argument against that kind of thinking, thats why I said it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif . I am just saying that compairing somthing that you can see and touch {hopefully you wont touch lightning though =p} is very different from compairing something that is not possible to so much as see or hear.
Well just for the records I would like to say I do believe we evolved, but a higher being {god budah ect} put that source of life here. were ever that source of life may have come from. I have thought about it and it is the only rational way I can think it could have happened. Although I value religion I would not be so blind as to deny any other possibilities.
But it IS possible to see and touch origins, as much as it is possible to see and touch lightning. Just like we examine lightning, not by holding the lightning in our hands but by examining it's effects, we can examine origin by looking for it's effects. Heck, when you get right down to it the very act of seeing lightning is really just observing the light given off by the lightning. The evidence of origins is right there too - in the fossil record, in the speciation of our planet, in our cells, right down to our DNA.
Quote[/b] (chris @ Jan. 26 2004,19:34)] So what do our Total War fans think? How, why, and what should be taught in our public schools concerning the origin of life?
Hello, I, too, am a Christian, and live in the United States
I, personally, think that evolution is just as much a religon as anything else (Ex.: Scientists belive that the...). They take out our beliefs from people in school, but teach another religion.
IMHO
-Balmont http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
While I respect your view, Balmont, I must say that it rings of a conspiracy theory.
Wait, let me rephrase that.
Not a conspiracy theory, just similar to one in one aspect: there is no counter to its argument (just as a conspiracy theory, by definition, cannot be disproved).
When you (and others in this thread, and who generally believe that evolution/science is a belief, just like religion... really, not you personally) say that evolution is a belief, it leaves no room for criticism. There is no way for anyone to prove that evolution is *not* a belief. Without there being hard and fast evidence (evolution happening before your very eyes), evolution can always be called a belief, just as creationism can be called a belief in the same way.
Until one accepts that evolution as a theory is supported by evidence and *can be tested*, it is impossible to counter that argument.
In fact, there is evidence for evolution, and it can be tested, just as the conventional atomic model (atoms are made of protons and neutrons in a nucleus orbited by electrons) can be tested, but not observed.
That is why I believe in evolution, and furthermore, why evolution should be taught in science classes.
Quote[/b] ]In fact, there is evidence for evolution, and it can be tested, just as the conventional atomic model (atoms are made of protons and neutrons in a nucleus orbited by electrons) can be tested, but not observed.
No offense, but how exactly is this Evolution?
IMHO, if that is true then the seperation of bactera(they are A-sexual, meaning they reproduce by splitting) is also evolution.
My thoughts-
~Balmont
just how pervasive is this creationism stuff in the states?
in europe such views are only held by a small part of the lunatic fringe of society. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
Dillinger
01-28-2004, 02:54
We ARE the lunatic fringe, baby
More seriously, at least the people that are my age and that I know seem to believe in one form of Creationism or another, however, this is no great testament to Creationism's hold in the US, as I associate myself with 13-14 year olders.
Quote[/b] (katar @ Jan. 27 2004,19:46)]just how pervasive is this creationism stuff in the states?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
accually, not as much as you would like to think.
-Balmont
Quote[/b] ]accually, not as much as you would like to think.
then there`s hope for you`se yet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (katar @ Jan. 27 2004,20:02)]
Anyway, Katar, back to he atom thing, what exactly were you saying? I am very interested.
-Balmont
Can we keep this thread on Education in Schools about the origin of Life, not the actual validility of theories/facts. We could possibly start a new thread to discuss this in more detail.
Gregoshi
01-28-2004, 06:19
I'll second kiwitt's request to keep this thread more on topic.
Science is merely man's attempt to understand how the world and universe around him works based on observation and experimentation and therefore belongs in school. Creationism is based on faith/belief, thus falling outside these boundaries, and belongs in the realm of the church...unless someone can devise experiments for determining the existence of divine beings and their influence on the world around us.
Another difference is that as we come to better understand our universe, the current theories/facts change and are (eventually) accepted by most people. Witness the Big Bang theory vs the Steady State theory of the universe in the 1950's. Most people hear the facts/data, mull it over, say that's cool, accept it, and move on. There is a process that evolves and changes our views over time. What is taught today is our best understanding of how things work. It is with this platform that students-turned-scientists will use to expand our knowledge and change the way we understand our world. That is part of what school is all about.
This is not the case with religion. Many religions have been around for hundreds or thousands of years little changed during that time. There is almost no chance that evidence presented by another religion is going to result in something like oh, you know, you're absolutely right I'm converting. Likewise, you can teach the laws and beliefs of a religion, but that won't make someone believe in that religion. Any religious belief comes from something intangible inside that person's mind. That is best left to the individual to determine and the church to nurture, not the school to teach.
Well, that's my take on the issue.
Duke John
01-28-2004, 11:25
Good points, Gregoshi
When religion is being taught on school, you will only add trouble:
- Put 2 persons next to each other who are being taught with the evolution theory and nothing happens. Not because they're taught the same, but because they have accepted facts and not prejudices.
- Put 2 persons with one being a strong believers and you're bound to have more trouble. The believer will say that the other will go to hell, while the other will only ask why the other one believes.
What I am trying to say is that the evolution theory teaches that everybody the same, whatever they believe or what their skin colour is we are living creatures and the fact that we think differs us from the animals but that is all.
Religion teaches us that there are different people, atheists will burn in hell, believers from another religion will also go to hell. And people who go to hell should not be trusted and avoided.
Now, how can you seriously think that religion has a place at school? It will not certainly bring us more peace or on a smaller scale make people talk to each other without prejudices.
On a side note:
I was taught with religion, but I lost it when playing with my Lego. I was searching for a small piece and prayed to God to help me find it (I was really young). I couldn't find it, and I dismissed religion. Never had any proof of existence and I haven't missed religion since. My payoff is not having to sit anymore on sundays at a hard wooden pew.
Cheers, Duke John
Religion and science should both be taught in public schools, just not in the same classroom. A Survey course of US history is usually required in most schools, why not major religions? I would love to see it. But to bring religion into the science class debases science.
Yes, evolution is a theory but so is gravity, yet few expect to live when they jump off a cliff. We give gravity the term law because of this tangible cause and effect but scientists are still grappling with why it happens and in the future we may have a new insight into how it works that will change our view of the world.
Creationism seeks only stasis, the upholding of the status quo as put forth in the Bible. As science it's a dead end, the answers are known.
Which brings me to my last point.
Can God exist without evolution? It seems to me that you need evolution in order to have free will. Without it and the freedom it gives can you truly love god?
Gawain of Orkeny
01-28-2004, 17:58
Te statemeant that religion has no place being taught in public school is ridiculous and I find it hard to believe that schools inEurope dont mention it.Sure it is not part f science class.But how do you teach history without mentioning religion as it as drivin many of the major events.Also Im catholic and some of you make us sound like pagan worshippers.I believe that most christians believe in a combination of creatioisim and evolution.Who knows a hundred years from now eveolution maybe considerd wrong as far as the origin of life goes,I find nothing wrong with having all side heard in public school but both sides are wrong if they are intolerante of the others position.Calling people mindless followers or saying that if you dont believe what I believe you are going to hell are both wrong,There are certainly parts of evolution which cannot be denied but as far as it goes on the origin of life I havnt seen any proof.As far as the time thing goes there is no time frame for when god created the world.Does anyone here know what the bible means that on the first day he created this and on the second that.Was it a 24 hour day I doubt it.Lets all show some tolerance here for other peoples views and beliefs.I personally find it hard to belive that life on earth was just a big accident and that we are here for no other purpose than to just live and pass away,But that is my personal feeling and I dont care if others believe it or not.The reason maybe this is still a matter in the US is that we are the only govenment I know of that is not either a toatlly secular or toatlly religious one.We are told that our rights come from the creator whoever that maybe and not from man.If man gives you your rights then man may take them away not so here.There has never been a seperaton of church and state here as has been suggested latley.Only that the state shall not promote any religion over another to avoid governments like Irans where the government is run by the religion.All other governments I can think of are either relgious or secular but not a combination .This is in my opinion what seperates america from the rest of the world and helps make her great.Some people here now are trying to interpet freedom of religion as freedom from religion.I believe that when america losses its faith in the creator we will cease to exist as thats who gave us our rights in the first place.I put my faith in god not in man.If i am wrong nothing lost I just die like the rest of you.But if I am right I will be a lot better off than many of you.All of us should be free to believe what we like but lets be more tolerante of eachothers views and show eachother more respect
Red Peasant
01-28-2004, 19:06
Gawain, if you read most of the considered replies on this discussion I'm sure you will see that they advocate Science being taught as Science, and Religion being taught as a separate subject. You have a point in that Religion can be taught as a sub-section of history.
I am not a religious person myself (though brought up a Catholic like yourself), but I do find religion fascinating as a subject to be studied from a historical perspective. However, religious studies in schools have usually been nothing more than a cover for indoctrination, which is something incompatible, IMHO, with educating children to think for themselves. Conversely, good science-teaching encourages people to think for themselves, and all scientific/mathematical theory is just so much stuff to be challenged, changed, and superceded.
Religious dogmas such as *Creationism* are cast-iron matters of faith for their proponents, admitting of no questioning, and by definition, of no independent and credible scientific inquiry. Such dogmatic positions undermine the credibility of the faith of the vast majority of *reasonable* thinking believers, such as yourself. Ironically, *Creationism* is the one thing that draws together the extreme elements of all the major monotheistic faiths. Islamic Creationists are just as passionate as their Christian counterparts on this subject.
As for your comments on the US, you will not be the first to believe his country/people is the one chosen of God. Another dangerous ideology. If there is a Creator, and such a notion has not been disproven, I am sure that it will treat us all on merit and not whether we are 'chosen'. And lastly, as for tolerance, it does not behove a Christian, and a Catholic one at that, to lecture about 'tolerance'. Christianity is antithetical to tolerance of belief: by definition. Even a cursory knowledge of history will tell anyone this.
Good luck. Vale
edit damn typo
Mysterium
01-29-2004, 00:09
Quote[/b] (DojoRat @ Jan. 28 2004,07:02)]
I've got NO idea if this quote will work right:
Creationism seeks only stasis, the upholding of the status quo as put forth in the Bible. As science it's a dead end, the answers are known.
This, it seems to me, is the crux of the matter. Religion should be studied in schools. Note, not 'creationism', and not 'taught'. Religion as a driving force of history should be studied as such, and this is where a lot of people get caught up in a discussion such as this.
But what I would love to hear from someone is the curriculum of a course. Creationary Biology 101, if you will. I'd like a semester's worth of information from that class, without falling into religious dogmas or information not related to where humankind came from. Even a 1/2 semester: it could be split with Evolutionary Biology to give them both even time.
The problem is that there is little to teach about Creationism that is religion's take on humanity's origins, and not the religion itself. Religions offer Truth, and Truth brooks little editing after it's been Stated.
I'm all for the study of religion in schools. But those who want Creationism taught in schools, or any religion at all taught in schools, usually want THEIR religion taught in schools. And that's where things get sticky.
Gawain of Orkeny
01-29-2004, 00:55
I said nothing of religous studies in school anly as it has to do with history.You are lumping all christians into one big lump saying there is no room for interpitaiton like we sre all mindless fools we can think for ourselves.Sure there are fundemtalists in every relgion but dont act like we all think the same.And no where did I say that america was gods chosen people or even hint at it.Right s given to us by our creator covers a very large perception of a supreme being.And I suppose that according to you Christ was an intolerant person.All I asked was for people to be more open minded and you put down me and my religion very considerate of you.I do not think you have a clue what the average catholic thinks or believes.As for evolution teaching all paeople being created equal what do you think the bible teaches.I think most people will tell you the greatest thing in there is do unto others as you would have then do unto you.It even says love thy enemy.Dont get me wrong the teaching of theology definetly has no place in public school.
Oh one more thing for all of you hard core creationist.Have any of you ever heard of the eve gene?It seems that there is one gene that is present in every human on the face of the earth.This gene can be traced back to a woman who lived in africa who scientist call eve for some reason.So it seems that we all may have come from the same woman and that it is possible for both evolution and creationisim to be correct.
Gregoshi
01-29-2004, 08:57
Okay folks, let's be careful to not put words into each other's mouths as appears to be happening. This leads down a road none of us wishes to tread.
Let's also keep those chips off our shoulders. Not every comment is meant as a personal insult. If someone makes a statement you feel is a faulty generalization or perception, use it as an opportunity to correct that misperception using a friendly and informative tone, not a scolding or sarcastic one.
Unless I missed something, we all seem to be in agreement that creationism does not belong in school teachings about the origins of life, which was the original point of discussion. It is in other areas where the differences are happening and are perhaps served better as a separate topic.
Quote[/b] (Lord Rom @ Jan. 26 2004,23:42)]If only evolution was fact I could agree with that statement. Ichi, I highly respect your posts(and look forward to reading them m8) but evolution is a theory, nothing more. It is taught as fact in many places to people whom evolution is their own religion of a sort. Blindly ignoring the missing evidence and dogmatically stating that anything that disagrees is religious and cannot be put into the equation. Check out the post from months past where this same subject was thoroughly discussed. Lol there must have been a thousand replies Irriducible complexity is the new theory that creationists are wanting discussed in class rooms. It has good merit scientifically and deserves to be taught just as much as evolution theory. Beware of those who want only their side argued in the class room. Check out that older post...people there made a much better argument both for and against than I can.
Rom
As has been said here before there are many more just theories that are accepted as truth nowadays. None of the theories, that are widely accepted in scientific circles(evolution being one of them), hasn't got even a single observation up to date, that would indicate them being false. Anyone who understands how the scientific community works knows, that every scientist would prove instantly evolution theory as false if provided with evidence. Evolution is a simple theory and here I present a simplified version with three statements:
1.Genes affect the qualities of living creatures. TRUE
2.These genes can mutate(change into other genes). TRUE
3.Mutated genes can be inherited from parents. TRUE
1.2.3. -> evolution. That's essentially all you need to prove evolution theory right. Almost everything else that goes along with it are effects, NOT causes.
Irreducible complexity has no scientific merit whatsoever. Period. It doesn't predict anything, it is in contradiction with gathered data. Let's make an example:I don't understand why certain substances emit light when subjected to flow of electricity, that's why: Goddidit. Does that sound scientific to you? That is however the very foundation of irreducible complexity; I don't understand x, therefore y did it. Science has never been this easy.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
The discussion about whether creationism should be taught on schools revolves around the question whether it is scientifically (than it does) or religious (than it doesn't, or at least not in science class). So I'm afraid it is impossible to discuss this subject without debating the scientific status of creationism.
Creationism
The belief that God created the earth. The specific form of creationism under discussion (the one that should be taught in opposition to evolution theory) is the creationism that poses that the bible is literally true, and that any evidence that opposes this view (fossils, archeology, geologic dating) was caused by the catastrophic flood that God unleashed on the earth in the story of Noah.
My position
CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY
Arguments
1) Creationism is a pseudo science, despite adherents calling it 'creation science'. The science philosopher Popper stated that any hypothesis that can not be refuted is unscientifically. If such a hypotheses is still represented as science, it is pseudo science. I will represent his reasoning to prove it.
For hypothesis to be scientifically, it much contain information. It must be able to predict certain outcomes. If a hypothesis contains information, this information can possible be false. Thus, the hypothesis can be refuted: it can be proven false (falsified). If it does not contain information, and predicts nothing: it is a scientific dead-end and not scientifically.
Example: the hypothesis that the earth is flat is scientifically, because it predicts the existence of and end of the world. This can be falsified by looking at the earth from space or the possibility to sail round the world in different directions (east-west as well as north-south). The fact that the hypothesis is wrong, does not make it less scientifically.
The hypothesis that the earth was created in seven days, around 7000 years ago, is also scientifically, because it predicts that geological formations will not be older than 7000 years.
But the theory that earth was created in seven days around 7000 years ago, and than a large flood changed the earth so much that a lot of traces to these events have been garbled or removed is not scientifically. Because it can not be falsified: any evidence that opposes this theory is explained by the flood. It is a scientific dead-end: it is pseudo-science.
2) There is only little evidence for creationism. Some time back I did a school project about creationism. One of the things I found was that it appeared to have a mass of evidence on its side. However, closer inspection revealed that:
A) Almost all of the evidence contra evolutionism. There was very little evidence to support creationism.
B) There was no system in the evidence, it was just one large heap of hypotheses, experiments and quotes (I cannot resist to mention that among the arguments was that the theory of evolution was responsible for the moral decay of today's youth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif )
C) A lot of said evidence was out-dated, misinterpreted, incorrect or just plain stupid. I could spent two pages giving examples of this, but I will just mention an instance of the last: the frog-argument. One of the arguments against the evolution theory (although I don't think it is mentioned often nowadays) is that genetic research revealed that frog DNA is 100% identical to human DNA. The source for this was a certain Austrian or Australian researcher who had said this on a scientific conference. However, creationist do not mention that the researcher had added that his results were actually caused by tragic misfortune. The frog had been an enchanted prince.
The Eve gene Gawain of Orkney mentioned is an example of misinterpretation. I don't think it is called Eve gene (eve is a development-gene in the fruit fly) or that it even IS a gene instead of just a DNA sequence, but for clarity I will refer to it as the Eve gene.
Quote[/b] ]It seems that there is one gene that is present in every human on the face of the earth. This gene can be traced back to a woman who lived in Africa who scientist call eve for some reason. So it seems that we all may have come from the same woman...
Ignoring the inconsistency in claiming that the world was created around 7000 years ago and at the same time embracing the evidence that we all descended from a female which lived in Africa several tens of thousands of years ago, it is correct that there is a gene which is present in every human genome (in fact it the mitochondrial genome, but this is not important for the discussion), and there is so little difference between these genes from individual humans that we can assume it has evolved from one ancestral gene. However, there is a small variation in these genes, because over time genes change. The extent of this variation allowed us to determine number of generations it has taken to go from the single ancestral gene to the slightly variable genes we have today. It was determined that there was a single ancestral gene x generations back (50.000 or 150.000 years ago, if my memory doesn't fail me), when humanity still lived in Africa.
But, because journalists usually do not entirely understand science, they interpreted it as there being one single ancestral female (because the mitochondrial genome is transmitted though mothers only). That must be Eve, mustn't it?
No, and for two reasons; 1: it is perfectly possible, and even very likely, that there were more women with the exactly the same gene. We could have descended from all those. 2: Because of the time gap, we cannot be sure that it was one gene in stead off several genes which were almost identical: so identical that today, we cannot see the difference in the descendants of these genes.
Anyway, they also managed to locate the first ancestral man, but he lived several thousand years later than Eve. This is interesting as it might refute orthodox Christian positions about homo sexuality http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .
3) The basis of Creationism is incorrect. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the bible. However, the bible contains two creation myths (there are echoes of a third: God slays the world beast Leviathan, which is the Babylonian creation myth). Genesis 1 and 2 tell to different stories about the order in which things were created (first animals, then Adam and Eve or first Adam, then the animals and then Eve). The difference becomes even more marked if one looks at older bible texts. So the bible actually refutes itself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Therefor I say that creationism is not a science and should therefor not be taught on schools. Remember that I am discussion Creation science: the creation which is supposed to be an alternative for the evolution theory. However, I hope I have proven that it is not.
Gregoshi
01-30-2004, 06:34
Oh no... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_fainting.gif
Gawain of Orkeny
01-30-2004, 23:44
Havent proven that its not a theory to me and as long as it is taught as theory I have no problem with it.Certainly parts of it are undeniable but as for it showing how man came to inhabit the earth I do not think it can be called a fact just an educated guess.
Goofball
01-31-2004, 04:42
A debate is a chance to take the American right of freedom of speech, and use it wisely.
Since when is freedom of speech an exclusively American right?
I don't know, goofball
(Sorry I just wanted to say that...:wall: )
Bye now
sprints away
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Jan. 30 2004,23:44)]Havent proven that its not a theory to me and as long as it is taught as theory I have no problem with it.Certainly parts of it are undeniable but as for it showing how man came to inhabit the earth I do not think it can be called a fact just an educated guess.
I never said it wasn't a theory, just that it wasn't a scientific one, and as such it shouldn't be taught in a science class.
In the earlier posts, (I haven't been on in awhile,. i will catch up) several people spoke as Evolution as a fact.
This is to be read clamly, rattionally spoken
Since when was the Theory of Evolution officialy a FACT? The theory is tuaght to school students as that, a theory. Evolution was in my opion too easilyaccepted, and i dont belive i ever heard it being officiall a fact. Therefore, one cannot leave that to be taught alone. As a Christian i cannot help but feel we should teach it. In fact as a Christian, i feel that there a million and one reasons i will never send my kid to public school, unless DIRE AND I SAY DIRE surceumstaneses are at hand. However, as an AMerican living in modern day America, a Christian society is a far of dream. I go with, leave the origins of life alone, they are far to closely linked with religion.
If a man says i belive george washington was our first president this does not make him a an aethiest or a Christian. however if one says i do belive the Theory of evolution to be true, this man is not a Christian as the Book so tells us ot be. He is far more likely to be an aeithist, than the man who doesnt belive George washinton was our first president.
He could be a Catholic as well, let's not forget. It's not all of Christianity that has a problem with Genesis requiring interpretation.
Mysterium
02-01-2004, 11:45
There are those who are Christian, along with all that it entails, as well as believers in evolution, with all that it entails. The Christian side of them believes in Christ as a saviour, God as an almight Father who is still watching over humanity, and all the other trappings of religion that accompany these things. They also believe that oragnisms change over time, genes encode the data for visible and inherent characteristics in organisms, and the natural actions of competition for limited resources put pressure on populations of those organisms, causing them to change over time.
It is only fundamentalist Chrisitians - those who believe in the Bible as literal truth, not metaphorical or adaptable - who see evolution and creationism as irreconcilably at odds. I know various Christians, intelligent and otherwise, who view evolution as the means by which God brought various forms of life into being. So to say that a person who believes in Evolution cannot be a Christian depends not only on your views of evolution, but your views of Christianity. It know many people who reconcile believing in both.
Lord Rom
02-01-2004, 17:00
The point on complexity is this...in order for an amoeba or some slug thing to develop say an eye...what would it take to reach that goal. Consider all the complex parts...and the complex chemical and electrical interactions with the brain. One gene mutation at a time wont build anything close to useful or functional. The many parts have to all be created fully functional to have a useful eye. Our computers are similar...all the parts have to function together to have anything useful. They are way to complex for it to happen gradually because...even the most basic steps are really complex. People who think religion is mindless faith are assuming too much. I've studied the arguments of both...evolution between the same species, yeah I see the different sizes and breeds. But I dont buy the argument that anything new came out of the equation that wasnt already in the genetic mix already. We've got 10,000 years of recorded history and I have yet to read about a cat giving birth to anything but kittens. Maybe a messed up batch brings out siamese twins or en extra digit, but I chalk that up to glitch in the complex genetic cookie dough. Religion and science have to exist together for me. If my religion doesnt agree with what is actual and true then my religion is not worth believing. But I also know enough about man and his biases,propensity to lie, cheat and steal, that I dont take everything handed to me from a scientist as fact. Looking back thru history we see too many instances of what they thought was rock solid truth turn out to be fairy stories.
enough already lol I didnt mean to write a novel.
Rom
The catch with irreducibly complexity is that it assumes WAY too much. It ignores subtractive evolution completely. Not to mention that it rather blatantly assumes evolution is purposeful, which simply isn't the case. But more to the point, all it really says it I can't find a mechanism, I give up - without any real reason to do so other then that the mechanism isn't immediately obvious. Scientists have been working on this issue for some time, since the early 1930's at the very least, and their making some headway. It's well worth reading up on, if for no reason other then to get a better appreciation for just how complex and capable life is.
Quote[/b] (chris @ Feb. 01 2004,04:13)]Since when was the Theory of Evolution officialy a FACT? The theory is tuaght to school students as that, a theory. Evolution was in my opion too easilyaccepted, and i dont belive i ever heard it being officiall a fact. Therefore, one cannot leave that to be taught alone. As a Christian i cannot help but feel we should teach it. In fact as a Christian, i feel that there a million and one reasons i will never send my kid to public school, unless DIRE AND I SAY DIRE surceumstaneses are at hand. However, as an AMerican living in modern day America, a Christian society is a far of dream. I go with, leave the origins of life alone, they are far to closely linked with religion.
Chris, you are asking two questions here:
1) Why is evolution a fact?
2) Why is the theory that all life evolved a fact?
These two are quite commonly confused, even by people knowledgeable on such matters.
1) Evolution is fact. We have seen it happen. We have seen creatures evolve. We have seen fly species diverge from one ancestor into two separate species. The process of evolution can be seen even more clearly with simple, quickly reproducing organisms, like bacteria. Evolution is responsible for making the antibiotics 'wonder cure' useless. That is a stock-example. There is no serious debate possible about the existence of evolution, in the same way as there is no serious debate possible about the shape of the earth. Only people who haven't seen it can pretend it isn't there.
2) The theory of evolution is not a fact. And it never will be, despite the pretension of some scientists. It's a theory, and therefor can not be a fact. But it is a prediction (though one that predicts the past as well as the future) and a prediction can be true. We know that evolution takes place, and but that does not say that all current species have actually evolved. This is were irreducible complexity comes in. It says that life is way too complex to have evolved. Indeed, we cannot explain how a lot of things came into existence. But just giving up if you cannot explain it, is not the way to truth.
We are making headway with the explanation: the afore mentioned example of the eye has already been solved by a famous biologist (his name has slipped from my memory). Random mutations are not the only way in which the genetic material is altered and creatures evolve. In the past few decades, molecular biology has discovered several much more efficient ways to create genetic variability. We might not understand it now, but I think we will understand it in the future.
But I think this drives away the discussion from the main point: the scientific status of creationism. Even if you could disprove evolutionism, that still wouldn't make creationism a science. And that is the point under discussion.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.