Typical. Somehow the big bang gets lumped in with evolution even though they are completely separate.

When you're going to get one thing embarrassingly wrong, you might as well try to go for maximum incorrectness.

The big bang is not evolution, I understand for sure, but its also a lie just like evolution as its taught by evolutionist regarding how man came about and other things.

I understand that there is evolution within kinds but not outside of kinds.

Outside of kinds evolution is what is taught as truth which is a lie.

The big bang is a lie also, the universe was spoken into being, now if you want to call that a big bang then thats fine, but the big bang as its taught as truth is a lie.......

So there's micro-evolution but no macro-evolution? ... So it's possible to walk
to the letterbox but Impossible to walk down to the shop down the street?

If we want to do something about this "teach Creationism in schools" trend, then we have to stop contending with it.

The real answer is to stop teaching "evolution" in schools. Instead, we need to teach elementary genetics. Or, "why you look like mommy and daddy."

We need to teach basic geology. Or, when the layers are on the bottom they are older than the layers on the top (unless this happens) and look what you can preserve when volcanoes erupt.

We need to teach The Theory of____ (aerodymanics, gravity, hydrodymanics). Or: here is what we see happen or can predict will happen and why we think it does that.

And we need to start teaching these things very early. Then we need to leave children alone to figure it out themselves. We need to tell them the most important question you ask is: how do you know? And then live with the result when they start asking.

In highschool those who wish to take advanced biology courses, can. And Creationism should be invited in, along with any other alternative theories, and also offered. It'll be a survey course. In the advanced course, you study what an index fossil is and how dating is done.

Truth is, the very best way to teach evolution is to never mention the "E" word at all. When you are in a tug-of-war, sometimes it's best to just let go of the rope.

This is my favourite post of all time. I mean seriously now, I might start looking at christians differently because of this.

I memorized my favorite post of all time and I've been posting almost twenty years now. It is:







I wish I knew what happened to him. I like to think he's playing high stakes online now.

what makes "the universe was spoken into being" true, and everything else a lie?

The truth of Gods word of course

Definatley.

Sigh.

Somehow people are now debating "Is Evolution true, or is Creationism true?"

That is 100% not the debate at all. It should be. "Is evolution science? Is creationism also science?"

If evolution is science, it should be taught in the classroom. Likewise, if creationism is science, it should be taught as well.

This makes no value judgment on creation being true or not.

Looking into the science of creationism, it's, well, just not there. There's no scientific method you can use to test if a creator exists, and even if order is found in creation, postulating that it is the result of an intelligent creator is not science, since the explanation can't be tested or falsified.

Again, in no way is or should this discussion be about the truth of a creator existing or not. The discussion is about the definition of what science is. If schools want to discuss the case for a creator, I say, great! Have those discussions. Have them in religion class, or philosophy, or ethics, or mythology. The existence (or not) of God could easily fall into any of those categories, but there's no reason whatsoever to discuss the existence of God in a science classroom.

Getting rid of the word evolution wont do anything. As long as little Johny comes home and tells mom and dad they are apes it doesn't matter how you dress it up, there will be a problem.

If you want to keep Creationsim out of schools, you are going to have to become much more familiar with the Creationist movement and stance. !st - they don't really talk much about God. Their stand is that they are an alternative scientific viewpoint. To this end, they recruit Christians who work in science to create some of the texts you see linked here and find online.


A court is going to define "science" as "what scientists do and say" and in fact, that's pretty much what it is. And one guy with a string of letters after his name is pretty much like another, courts hear from opposing scientists all the time. Under freedom of speech and the right to a public education, when you present something as science, and insist it be taught so as not to abrogate the right of other scientific viewpoints to be heard, courts will end up erring on the side of Constitutional protection. Esp when they hold their position by popular election.

Now, what you really should do, is go find all those guys you dismiss as "pseudo-scientists" and insist mediumship and psychism be taught in schools along with physics, by using the same techniques. Then you put the judge in the position of mandating "spiritualism and witchcraft" be taught along with ID.

The question y'all never ask is: where is all this money coming from for the creation of Creationism and it's attack on education? There's an agenda someplace and it ain't got nuthin' to do with God.

Are you talking about the Family that I referred to in another thread?

I didn't vote.

A few years ago, my answer would have been "yes." Now, I really can't say. I am an atheist and I think I probably have a more negative view of religion and "faith" (and creationism and intelligent design) than most atheists.

That said, I used to see teaching creationism (or intelligent design) as religious people forcing their beliefs on me or society at large; I thought that religion should have no place in government, etc.

It wasn't until I was exposed to voluntaryist ideas (though at the time they were loose considerations and I didn't know of any formal schools of thought relating to those ideas) that I began to see what is actually happening at a more basic level. Because of the nature of government as we know it, peoples' beliefs are always being forced on others.

The bottom line is that even if I think other peoples' beliefs are silly, I don't think I should be able to force them to do anything based on my beliefs.

***I want to note, however, that this gets trickier for me when I consider that I don't accept that people own their children in the same way they do inanimate objects. And if parents using force on their children in some way(as far as education goes) is to be considered illegitimate, then preventing that need not necessarily be considered illegitimate (although forcing the parents to pay for an alternative certainly is, I think).

The question now would be, "Given the current general state of society (a government that funds a public school system through taxation), should creationism be taught?"

I honestly don't know what to say. (EDIT: similarly, I don't know what to say when someone asks me whether I am for or against gay marraige) Maybe having even representation of the beliefs of society is what is "best" in this situation, rather than having an accurate representation of reality (yes, even in science class, since many people do believe creationism or intelligent design to be science in the same way evolution is). Again, I just don't know how to reconcile the current situation with my own ideal. The concept of "better" here is very tricky.

shhhhhhhh

I don't have a problem with kids learning about the different religions around the world. In fact I think they should learn that. They shouldn't be taught that creationism is what happens in the world when there's no evidence FOR that.

as a further explanation of what I am getting at...

Suppose that a man mugs Bob and Jim, taking $100 from each of them. This mugger though, intends to give the money to some cause. He will buy food for the homeless with the it or will buy cigarettes for the homeless with it of will buy some combination of the two. Bob would prefer that food be bought for the homeless, and Jim would prefer that cigarettes be bought of the homeless (in fact, they may have made their respective purchases and given them to the homeless if the money weren't taken from them).

What should we, simply as observers say would be "better?" Suppose we think that buying food, rather than cigarettes would be better for society as a whole. Is the mugger buying $200 worth of food for the homeless "better" than the mugger buying $100 worth of food and $100 worth of cigarettes for the homeless?

I honestly don't know which I should prefer. Should it matter that I think that buying cigarettes for the homeless is stupid or even immoral? If I accept that Jim should have the freedom to do it if he pleases, then should I prefer that his wishes be represented by the purchase given that his money is going toward it?

No, not even close.

Really, I'd like to explain further, but it seems so obvious to me that I don't know how to phrase this without being overly condescending, and I'm tired. Maybe you or someone else can get the ball rolling on this one. I'll be back tomorrow.

I just want to plug common sense with Dan Carlin- great podcast that has helped me form a lot of my opinions: http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/cs

I think you'll save a lot of time and more than a lot of headaches if you quit wondering what Bob and Jim should do, and just do the best you can do in the moment you are in with what you have.

Well, the situation actually isn't about what Bob or Jim should do...but anyway, I AM trying to do the best I can in the moment I am in with what I have. The issue is about where I should stand on the issue of creationism (in ID) in public schools, and I don't know.

I think the analogy is worthwhile (maybe not so much in exporing the issue, I'll admit, but certainly in explaining what I think is the dilemma that I face).

Although, I just made it up off the top of my head, so if you think it's not analogous in some relevant way, I'll certainly listen.

You need to resolve "belong to" before you'll get anywhere down this road. Once that is done, you need to resolve why it is the way you think it is... iow, why should I agree you have it right?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to. The Bob and Jim analogy or the creationism issue or both? Are you talking about money "belonging to" a person? or property in general? or something else entirely? I looked back through my posts and didn't see "belong to" anywhere.

Believing it is science doesn't make it science. I can go around believing that mugging is voluntary on behalf of the victims, but that doesn't make it so.

Science is based on a system of expert peers controlling eachother's work, and for work to be controllable it has to be observable, measurable and falsifiable.

Now people can whine about that being unfair, but if that is unfair then I demand the right to make claims based on old roman religions regarding open brain surgery, engineering, theology and banking that will be taught to children at a young age in whatever classes might be relevant.

Nobody believes the public knows best, that's just an excuse people make when they try to mix utilitarianism with the concept of truth. If you need your appendix removed then you're not going to let the general public do it.