Teaching Creationism in public schools

[Stoney McFried]

If any of this bullshit makes it into any schools my kids are in, I will pull them out and home school them.It is NOBODY'S prerogative but mine to decide whether or not religion is a part of my child's life, until that child reaches the age of reason.

So, our classes should give equal time to all religions and beliefs? Spaghetti Monsterism, Pink Unicornism, Satanism, Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, all of it? To be fair, if you let any in, you have to let them all in, so people can make an informed decision on which is the correct religion. I bet parents would raise a shit storm at that.

 

[tckfui]

haha
YouTube - Evidence that God = Spaghetti Monster!
couldnt find Mrs, Garisons explanation of gof, and evolution, its much better.

 

[undertheice]

So, our classes should give equal time to all religions and beliefs? Spaghetti Monsterism, Pink Unicornism, Satanism, Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, all of it? To be fair, if you let any in, you have to let them all in, so people can make an informed decision on which is the correct religion. I bet parents would raise a shit storm at that.

what the hell, let it all in (i would draw the line at scientology though, some things are just too bizarre). the more ludicrous the better to show how weird those mainstream religions really are.

 

[natrone23]

I'm lobbying for the John frum religion








google it

 

[ToastedFox]

Doesn't bug me, but shouldn't be taught as a science in science class, and Christianity should not be the only one getting the word in, all the other religions deserve just as much of a chance to be taught.

 

[cleatis]

the object of education is not to spoon feed decisions, but to inform so that our children will be able to make decisions for themselves. providing information is not the same as indoctrination.

And if religious people really are the nuts we both seem to agree they can be, then what will stop religious nuts from using government funds to indoctrinate? We already use school as daycare, school already makes shaves the corners off every square peg and follows the agenda of making them all good little extroverts.

churches are centers of indoctrination, schools should be sources of information. church attendance is voluntary, education is mandatory. are you getting the picture yet? while religion can be seen as a necessary nuisance and no business of those it does not touch, education is of prime importance for a society that wishes to succeed and excel.

Yes, churches are centers of indoctrination, and attendance is optional (To the parents at least) all the more reason to not make church beliefs mandatory for kids to learn. Most of the U.S. is religious, we all know that god zapped some mud and made a man, then took the rib and so on, we ALL know this, already. Evolution is what takes the education to understand. So even assuming that I agree with creation beliefs of at least tolerate them, I don't see why it needs to be on the education docket.

 

[hom36rown]

what the hell, let it all in (i would draw the line at scientology though, some things are just too bizarre). the more ludicrous the better to show how weird those mainstream religions really are.

to me, christianity is just as bizarre as scientology...they're all the same, fairytales

 

[Spitzered]

Well as far as I know the Evolutionary Theory is just that, a theory.

Search for proof is on going of course, and will continue.

But it is being taught as absolute truth, one could almost say it has become 'faith based'. The major advocates can conclude that it simply makes more sense. Mathematically it is almost impossible for it to happen. (if someone can link sites proving the mathematical possibilities, please do so).

The main arguments against religion is the people involved in religion and practices and history of organized religion, rather than the basic tenets.

But the theory of evolution certainly does not explain humans. Why would we lose all the basic life saving attributes apes have to gain the higher brain functions? Like we lost the ability to run as fast, climb trees, more susceptible to weather such as heat and cold weather so now we need to be covered? We would have to evolve in spite of our environment instead of adjusting to it.

 

[hom36rown]

seriously how can you argue with narual selection, ....do you not remember learning about the different finches on the galapagos in school....how do you explain cro magnon, and neanderthals

 

[hom36rown]

what part of this doesnt make sense to you

 

[NewGrowth]

what part of this doesnt make sense to you

YouTube - Americans are dumb "Idiocracy"

I don't get it cleatus!?

 

[Spitzered]

seriously how can you argue with narual selection, ....do you not remember learning about the different finches on the galapagos in school....how do you explain cro magnon, and neanderthals

I'm not denying the existence of Cro Magnon or neanderthals. It's where they came from that is speculation.
But the split between animals and creatures of higher brain functions. (I guess that means us).
But the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection, are just that, theories yet to be proven yet taught with all the same zeal as 'religious nuts' teach creationism.

Show me the proof of either, or else it is 'faith based' teachings.

But every other creature on earth evolved according to the environment, except man. Our feet didn't become wider because we lived in snow environments like the Siberian Snow leopards. We didn't become faster to evade natural predators, we didn't grow heavy coats to protect us from the elements. We would have to evolved in spite of the environment, not dictated by it. Higher brain functions would have to developed to make up for the sheer lack of natural physical abilities. Why? Every other creature on earth developed the physical abilities.

Natural selection dictates we would have died out.

 

[Spitzered]

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Theory of evolution - Conservapedia

Theory Of Evolution


http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/spontaneous-generation.htm

Spontaneous Generation

What about the spontaneous generation of the first life form? Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution only focuses on the mechanism for modification over time between kinds of organisms. Evolutionary theory still doesn't deal with the first organism that arose by chance on our so-called "primitive planet" - this is called "spontaneous generation."

Without outside input, "spontaneous generation" is really the only explanation for the first organisms on Earth. The concept goes way back to Anaximander, a Greek philosopher in the 6th Century BC, who proposed that life arose from mud when exposed to sunlight. Although Darwin's theory focused on the mechanism for evolutionary change between life forms, he also maintained that original life probably arose from a "little pond" where sunlight was acting on organic salts. In the 1920's, scientists Oparin and Haldane updated the basic conjecture of "spontaneous generation" by proclaiming that ultraviolet light acting on a primitive atmosphere of water, ammonia & methane produced a "hot dilute soup" of basic life.

As I continued my reading, I discovered an interesting theme. The general public and educational media seemed fine with these basic theories and conjectures. However, over the last couple of decades, the scientific community has grown increasingly uneasy. Whereas 20th century science and technology somehow removed the philosophical need for anything metaphysical, 21st century science and technology were revealing things that can't be explained through merely assumed physical processes.

• Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence. 1

Something wasn't connecting here - scientists across the board (whether atheist, agnostic or theist) were declaring that spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago! 2

In fact, evolutionary scientists themselves started looking at the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism (a bacterium, for example) could result from a chance combining of life building blocks (amino acids, for example). Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10100,000,000,000. 3

Sir Fred Hoyle, a popular agnostic who wrote Evolution from Space (1981), proposed that such odds were one chance in 1040,000 ("the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747"). 4

Francis Crick, an atheist and co-discoverer of the "DNA structure" in 1953, calls life "almost a miracle." 5 He couldn't rationalize the metaphysical implications of his DNA discovery so he devised his "interstellar spores" theory in the 1970s.

By the way, scientists from various disciplines generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 1050 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). Therefore, whether one chance in 10100,000,000,000 or one chance in 1040,000, the notion that life somehow rose from non-life has clearly met the scientific standard for statistical impossibility.

I think Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate George Wald shed perfect light on the whole situation when he declared:

• One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.6

 

[hom36rown]

Because we developed intelligence and opposable thumbs which allowed us to build and use tools and weapons, the smarter we became the less we needed physical strength

Proof, ok how about cro magnon...the finches on galapagos, the pepper moth...its pretty simple...traits are passed on through breeding, much like humans have bred dogs to have certain traits..doesnt it make sense to you that an environment could breed out certain traits that arent desirable and promote more desirable traits that are carried on...this is just basic logic....yes it is technically a theory, but so is gravity, should we start teaching that god holds us down to the earth? What proof or evidence can you show me for creationism, how can you apply the scientific method to such a ridiculous theory... you cant...

 

[hom36rown]

spontaneous generation or not, natural selection is still valid

 

[hom36rown]

if you want to say god made the first single celled organism, and natural selection did its thing from there on, Im fine with that, as long as you present the soup theory too

 

[Bongulator]

They've *seen* evolution. I can't remember the scientist, but he's had some bacteria growing for like 30 years. They eventually, after thousands of generations, developed a new trait (the ability to eat something that their kind had never been able to eat before). The fact that their kind *couldn't* eat whatever sugar or whatnot that they evolved to eat was one of the defining characteristics of the species...until they evolved around that limitation. The scientist had saved all the generations (in frozen form), so he was able to go back to the generations before they evolved the new trait and restart that line, to see if they'd evolve the same trait again. I'm not sure if they ever did, can't quite remember the rest of it. I don't think they did though.

Also interesting (it's starting to come back to me now) was that the new species *almost* died out. Not quite, but boy, it was close. The population of the bacteria that could now eat the sugar shrank almost to nothing...then exploded and overwhelmed the un-evolved bacteria, which didn't have such a ready source of food, and were quickly (in terms of generations) rendered extinct (within the confines of that jar anyway).

The amount of evidence that supports evolutionary theory is overwhelming, and spans all sciences -- physics, biology, anthropology, everything supports it. Oh, there may be a flaw here or there (like, it's not so much of an evolutionary TREE but rather more of an evolutionary bush), but the *overall* theory isn't questioned by many at all anymore, at least not by those with an education.

The foundation upon which evolutionary theory rests is as strong as that upon which the Theory of Relativity rests. There are flaws with both, but only in the details, not in the overarching theories themselves.

Creationism is not a theory. A theory is testable, and has repeatable results. Because there is no way to test the "theory" of creationism, it *isn't* a theory. Which means it isn't scientific. It's based solely on the faith that, yikes, stuff is complicated, therefore some omnipotent being musta done it. People of two hundred years ago would have looked at a Maserati and thought the same exact thing.

 

[Spitzered]

Proof, ok how about cro magnon...the finches on galapagos, the pepper moth...its pretty simple...traits are passed on through breeding, much like humans have bred dogs to have certain traits..

I'm sure you are not suggesting that we were bred to have these traits.

doesnt it make sense to you that an environment could breed out certain traits that arent desirable and promote more desirable traits are carried on...

Physical traits yes. But higher functions?

this is just basic logic....yes it is technically a theory, but so is gravity, should we start teaching that god holds us down to the earth? What proof or evidence can you show me for creationism,

I can't nor am I trying to.

I don't do organized religion well at all.

But life from nothing takes faith no matter which way you look at it, creationism vs evolution.

I can't condone teaching something that is unproven as fact as being a good thing. It is being done only to stick it organized religion.

Show me the money. Or just teach the truth, "We believe that this is more logical than creationism, can't prove it of course, and it is virtually mathematically impossible, it is what we chose to believe."

That wouldn't be so bad would it?

 

[Bongulator]

Also, evolution has nothing to say about the ORIGIN of life, and thus has nothing to say about religion. Evolutionary theory is solely concerned with the evolution of species. Maybe a God created the first life, maybe not. Either way, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with that.

And life from nothing is mathematically possible. Probability theory says that anything that is possible, given enough time, is inevitable. That's not to say that that's what happened. Just pointing out that probability theory GUARANTEES that anything that can happen, will happen, given enough time. If life from organic stew is possible, but hasn't happened yet, it will.

 

[hom36rown]

I can't nor am I trying to.

I don't do organized religion well at all.

But life from nothing takes faith no matter which way you look at it, creationism vs evolution.

I can't condone teaching something that is unproven as fact as being a good thing. It is being done only to stick it organized religion.

Show me the money. Or just teach the truth, "We believe that this is more logical than creationism, can't prove it of course, and it is virtually mathematically impossible, it is what we chose to believe."

That wouldn't be so bad would it?

I was trying to compare breeding dogs with the environment "breeding" certain traits. Why not "higher functions" intelligence is a trait like any other. If you want to say life couldve possible came frome god creating that first amoeba, whatever, that has nothing to do with natural selection.

if you cant condone teaching theories than well then school would be pretty basic