Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Try to get around Seperation of Church and State. I dare you...
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
darwinism, which is currently being taught in schools, is even more of a religion than Creationism is. darwinism is based on unproven, faith-based assumptions/speculations/imaginings.
If religion has no place in there, then neither does darwinism which is currently in there, therefore it must be removed.
If darwinism stays in there, then Creationism must be in there too.
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma, hence evolution is != religion. Evolution and Darwinism have already been proven in several instances, this one has been provided for your enjoyment and perusal as it is the only one I remember off the top of my head.
"Justice is the firm and continuous desire to render to everyone
that which is his due." - Justinian I
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
They have never been proven.
Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them. This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong. Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":
Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Sorry, again you must be confused, I just showed you evidence that it has been proven. There are numerous other instances but my aging brain is failing me this evening.
Drosophila - fruit fly mutants that died out due to mutations damaging them.You missed the point entirely. The particular article I cited shows that organisms evolve to adapt to their environments. It'd be like taking a human to the martian atmosphere and demanding they evolve immediately to compensate.
Again incorrect, please see above. And for the record:This proves evolution doesn't happen and darwinism is wrong.
Mr. Taylor is a complete and total joke and a farce, and has absolutely 0 business calling himself a scientist. I am familiar with some of his "work", and it flies (pun???) completely in the face of several proven tenants and theories. He's in the same category as Jack Chick, peddling dogma as if it were scientific fact. One final request, please don't go down the "it's just a theory" road, that's easily the most overused false cliche by creationists.Ian T. Taylor has an amazingly poignant quote about this matter in his book, "In the Minds of Men":
Pleasant evening to you.
"Justice is the firm and continuous desire to render to everyone
that which is his due." - Justinian I
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
That's not disputed by Creationists. And darwinism requires far more than that. darwinism requires lower forms of life to gain new genetic information which allows them to transform into completely different higher forms of life. There is no evidence of this ever having happened (because it never did) --- this is believed on faith alone, which makes darwinism a religion. The fruit flies remain fruit flies, and everything else likewise remains what it started as. Because each kind that God created reproduces only after it's own kind.
What you are describing, and all darwinists are ever able to describe with evidence, are either examples of loss of genetic information, or activation of previously-dormant yet already-existing genetic information. It in no way makes the case for common ancestry or that an amoeba 'evolved' into all life that exists.
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Uhh....there is plenty of evidence of organisms evolving into higher forms of life.
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
...Wait, what? Are you saying what I learned in Archaeology, and those Archaeologists who specialize in the Origins of the Human Race, are either all wrong or lieing?
Truth is that all species mutate, and modern humans aren't any special in that matter. Two hundred thousand years ago we were different. Not only that, we have proof. It's something called material culture. Two hundred thousand years ago there weren't humans like us but there were some species who had similarities with us, and proof comes not only through bones, which thanks to genetics, biology, chemistry, physics can relay us a lot of valuable information, but also comes through what those humans built back then (Stone tools, millions of tools; And these are available in such a number that Archaeologists could even classify them in specific group-types), which become gradually more complex and hard to make as time passes by, that coupled with biological evolution (Once again shown by bone material culture) ultimatly shows the human evolution in intelligence terms, when it comes to utilities. Fortunatly, we aren't the only species that is known to evolve.
BLARGH!
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
I want to throw "The Selfish Gene" By Richard Dawkins at you.
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.
Anyways, creationism shouldn't be in schools except religious theory class or whatever. Same goes for 'intelligent design'. But they shouldn't be taught as science or in science classes.
However, this should not preclude schools from teaching that darwinian evolution isn't a perfect theory, and going over some of the scientific gaps or contradictions in the theory.
Ideally, yes, but you need to take a look at the global warming thread...Dearest sir, you seem to be confused. Science is != dogma
Anyways, that's why I added that last paragraph above - we can't teach dogmatic acceptation of darwinian evolution.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", they need to be nuetral. You have the right to practice your religon to your hearts content, but state sponsered insitutions shouldn't be used as a veicahal . Thats not to say they can't be taught in a religon class. It just can't be taught as science, something which is based on quantifiable proving of hypotheises.Perhaps you could point out where that is in the constitution, hmm? The state should not interfere with religion, but religious people should have an equal opportunity to influence the state.
When it occurs to a man that nature does not regard him as important and that she feels she would not maim the universe by disposing of him, he at first wishes to throw bricks at the temple, and he hates deeply the fact that there are no bricks and no temples
-Stephen Crane
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Hence the creation of the 9th Circuit Court; religious matters and schools tend to butt heads severely when something gets involved in 9th Circuit, especially because it's entire foundation is to uphold the Separation of Church and State.
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
The various flavours of selection in evolution are probably too subtle for high schoolers to understand. Better to teach them the basics, which is the Darwinian explanation of evolution, then those who want to specialise can learn about its inadequacies in college or university. Darwinian theory gets one through life quite adequately, without the need to go into detailed genetics, sexual selection, and other explorations of his ideas. Similarly, Newtonian physics is inadequate once one gets past a certain point, but his basic theories will get one through everyday life, and those who want to specialise can learn about Einsteinian physics and others at higher levels.
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
I don't buy into this form of educational practice for contentious subjects, some admission of holes is necessary at least. If you use this approach with religion you invariably get an atheistic backlash from the student. I submit that papering over the cracks in Darwinism is behind the rise in Creationism.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Its interesting, as a society we've been valuing less concrete, more personal ideas, the whole post modernist, the interpretation is inside you, everyone's different kind of things. Yet at the same time we still have the rigid logic of the enlightenment drilled into us, look at some of threads we had about religon or even global warming. People demand hard facts and logic to back up everything. Its an interesting contrast, and weird to think that two opposites exist at the same time. That kind of double standard may be the reason why there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground. It seems that you either have to be a hardcore atheist or a complete religious fanatic these days.
When it occurs to a man that nature does not regard him as important and that she feels she would not maim the universe by disposing of him, he at first wishes to throw bricks at the temple, and he hates deeply the fact that there are no bricks and no temples
-Stephen Crane
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Creationism in my opinion has a place in schools but not in science lessons. Due to the fact it's religion it should be touched on in some sort of religious class. I'm not sure how the USA school system works but I guess if it's like ours over here you should have some form of religious education. Simply bring up the subject of creationism in these classes.
"A lamb goes to the slaughter but a man, he knows when to walk away."
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
The problem with Evolutionism taught individually is that you oversimplify the evolution of the genome and its role.
It's just like saying "Put a couple of dead branches and some mortar in space and let them assamble into a skyscraper".
Science teaches you the rules, Theology explains the meaning of these rules.
You can't survive without knowing the rules, nor without knowing the meaning of these rules.
No matter how much people would try, you can't mess with the genome like with a string of beads.Many functions of the DNA and ARN have been mapped but try building one out of simple aminoacids and you start getting headaches.
They coul'n't reconstruct the DNA of a Thylocene let alone build an entire chain of moleculesas complex as nuclear acids.
So by working through Evolution one can only grasp the silouetthe of a Creator behind all.
" If you don't want me, I want you! Alexandru Lapusneanul"
"They are a stupid mob, but neverless they are a mob! Alexandru Lapusneanul"
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Wow thats shocking , you mean that in a science exam you had to write about science not religion .But I had to acknowledge Darwinist views when I was at school, otherwise I would have failed my exams.
Whatever next , I suppose the cruel teachers would have failed you if you had answered a question on Shakespear with a piece about the ming dynasty
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Tribesman's bluntness nonwithstanding, I agree with him.
If I had to take an exam on world religions, I would have to learn about them and answer most of the questions correctly.
If I had to take an exam on science, I might have to learn about Darwinism, because Darwin's Theory of Evolution is science, and creationism is not. The only way you can possibly believe otherwise is if you are woefully uninformed, unfamiliar with the definitions of science and of faith, or you know it's true and are too stubborn to admit it.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Sure. If course, only when and if it's accepted as a plausible explanation by the majority of the scientific community, just like evolution is.
That's how science works; we teach what know now, and when something better comes along, we swap instantly(relatively) for the improved shiny thing. It's flowing, not set in stone.
That day isn't going to come, however.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools
Most western states separate church and state (except the UK, Denmark and a couple of others) wich doesn't entail more than a strict seperation between institutions as such. Many European countries have christian-democratic parties. From a strictly "democratic" point of view I don't see why opinions inspired by religious conviction should be considered inadmissible beforehand. But then again I never claimed that democracies always make for rational decisions.
Only a handful of states seperate religion as such from the state or even all public life- besides France and Turkey I can't think of any.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks