Creation Science-- oppose or not?

freebird · 08-09-2008, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

But is discussion of religion in schools a reflection upon a society? Or a reflection upon a society's ability to school their children in accordance with their beliefs?

Well if the topic was "comparative religion" I would expect them to explain the major religions without endorsing one. If I happened to be Jewish and the teacher was a fundamentalist Christian I would not expect him to teach my kid that any one religion is "right" or "better" than another.

I don't see how they could discuss "creation" without mentioning that more than half the people on the planet believe that some kind of "Divine power" created the earth. It would be like teaching "The causes of WWII" without mentioning Hitler....

I think as far as this "separation of church & state" the courts are wandering into the absurd, they disallow any mention of religion in schools public building or whatever, and yet the senate can vote 99 - 0 to keep "Under God" in the pledge of allegience. Isn't that "promoting religion"?

JugBR · 08-09-2008, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird

{It has been advanced that the primordial soup was energised to give life by A.) Lightning B.) Cosmic rays C.) asteroids bringing organic matter from elsewhere.} We don't know which is true.

A and B corresponds to Oparin´s theory.

before oparin, people believed in the "spontaneus generation" theory. the life would generate spontaneusly where theres water, organic substances and a warm temperature.

for example: you have a rotten dead rabbit. since its meat is rotten, spontaneusly will born flies on that. in a lagoon would grow spontaneausly frogs from nothing...

it also was cientificly proved once...

but louis pasteur busted this experiment, proving what they tought was spontaneus life borning in a closed glass with water and organic substances,, was in fact microbian cultures, because the test enviorement wasnt clean enought(pasteurized).

Matt308 · 08-09-2008, 02:41 PM

The US was created on the shoulders of religion. It was inherent in the lives of the colonists and also served as the basis for the bill of rights. History cannot be denied. It can be revisited. But not denied.

freebird · 08-09-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

The US was created on the shoulders of religion. It was inherent in the lives of the colonists and also served as the basis for the bill of rights. History cannot be denied. It can be revisited. But not denied.

The founders were all christian, that is true - but the principle was toleance of all religions - should apply today as it did then.

You want to have a Christian or Muslim club or a Jewish club in school? fine. Whoever wants to come can do so. But to ban prayer or religious clubs or to prohibit any material that mentions god or "Divine Creation" is totally mis-understanding the intent of the "Establishment clause"

Matt308 · 08-09-2008, 03:22 PM

No argument from me.

machine shop tom · 08-09-2008, 04:59 PM

"Creation Science"

That in itself is a contradiction in terms. Creationism, by allowing for a non, or supernatural, influence upon nature, in fact disqualifies itself as a science. It should not be taught as a science or theory, because it is neither. It is a belief system that does not follow basic scientific principles therefore it should be taught in a philosophy or theology course.

tom

Matt308 · 08-09-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird

You want to have a Christian or Muslim club or a Jewish club in school? fine. Whoever wants to come can do so. But to ban prayer or religious clubs or to prohibit any material that mentions god or "Divine Creation" is totally mis-understanding the intent of the "Establishment clause"

So let's remind ourselves what the discussion is here. This is not a discussion about school prayer. Tom is spot on in refocusing the deliberation on creationism vs science.

Maestro · 08-09-2008, 07:48 PM

I don't know for you folks, but back in the day when I was in school there was a class of science and a class of religion.

Darwin was for science class and all the religious bullsh*t remained in the religion class. Couldn't it stay that way ? Science teachers don't have to teach religion and religion teachers don't have to teach science.

Oh and Freebird, you said earlier that science never contradicted religion... This is wrong. Remember the Arch of Noah ? Well, a few years back scientists made calculs... To put a couple of each species of animals in a boat (along with the food needed to feed them), Noah would have had to build a boat four times the size of the Titanic... And back in the day the boats were made of wood. Just try to find so many wood in a desertic country like Palestine/Israel.

freebird · 08-09-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machine shop tom

"Creation Science"

That in itself is a contradiction in terms. Creationism, by allowing for a non, or supernatural, influence upon nature, in fact disqualifies itself as a science. It should not be taught as a science or theory, because it is neither. It is a belief system that does not follow basic scientific principles therefore it should be taught in a philosophy or theology course.

tom

So if we are not NOW able to detect it then it cannot exist or be conjectured or studied? So then magnetism, gravity, electricity, cosmic rays were not worthy of scientific study or thought because in previous centuries there was no known way to detect them?

How can you say it is not a theory?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.Com

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

I didn't use the term "Creation science", but to discuss the origin of creation and to ban any mention ANY POSSIBILITY of supernatural origin is cencorship. Science cannot prove beyond doubt that cration was "random event" and not supernatural. Cosmologists cannot even agree with the supposed mechanism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

So let's remind ourselves what the discussion is here. This is not a discussion about school prayer. Tom is spot on in refocusing the deliberation on creationism vs science.

I only mentioned school prayer because it also falls in the same category of an activist court attempting to ban any mention of religion.

If we "refocus" on the original example in Dover, it is not about creation vs. science, but about whether reading material mentioning creation can EVEN BE MADE AVAILABE to students. I don't have a problem with the teacher instructing the class thet Evolution is the most logical theory, or that the scientific consensus supports it. My only question is on whether teachers should be able to refuse to offer students any alternate theories.

By supporting banning any non-conforming hypothesis the ACLU are following in the tradition of the Inquisition who banned any mention of an alternate theory for the shape of the world. Ironic isn't it?

If science is so sure that God does not exist, why object to any other theory?

freebird · 08-09-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro

I don't know for you folks, but back in the day when I was in school there was a class of science and a class of religion.

Darwin was for science class and all the religious bullsh*t remained in the religion class. Couldn't it stay that way ? Science teachers don't have to teach religion and religion teachers don't have to teach science.

Did you go to Catholic school in Quebec Maestro? Just curious because there was no "religion" class in any of our schools, you would have to go to University and choose to take theology.

OK, question. So the teacher's lesson is Darwin. Now, if a student asks was the origin of life & the Universe is "random" or "supernatural" - what should the teachers answer be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro

Oh and Freebird, you said earlier that science never contradicted religion... This is wrong.

My statement was {or should have been} that Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Belief in God does not mean that I have to reject Darwin's theory, and belief in Evolution does not make me an Atheist.

pbfoot · 08-09-2008, 08:03 PM

yes they were all theories but thanks to the unbiased sciences have all been proved true , there is gravity and magnetism
What the hell lets have teach instruct in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
I take my kid to church as much as it kills me and it does just to let them have the opportunity to decide for herself whether it is what she wants , I will not impose my views on a growing mind but expose her to as much as I can so she can find her own path .

freebird · 08-09-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

yes they were all theories but thanks to the unbiased sciences have all been proved true , there is gravity and magnetism
What the hell lets have teach instruct in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
I take my kid to church as much as it kills me and it does just to let them have the opportunity to decide for herself whether it is what she wants , I will not impose my views on a growing mind but expose her to as much as I can so she can find her own path .

No problem then, if someone offers a theory of "intelligent Design", let science prove it true or untrue.

I think that was my point though, the ACLU sued the school board to prevent them from making any material available that mentions "Intelligent design" so that they could be exposed to only one theory.

This is a very strange thread. How did I find myself the advocate for religion?

My main beef is the "censorship" aspect, I cannot see how offering books to those who want them should be banned. Bad precedent.

pbfoot · 08-09-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird

No problem then, if someone offers a theory of "intelligent Design", let science prove it true or untrue.

I think that was my point though, the ACLU sued the school board to prevent them from making any material available that mentions "Intelligent design" so that they could be exposed to only one theory.

This is a very strange thread. How did I find myself the advocate for religion?

My main beef is the "censorship" aspect, I cannot see how offering books to those who want them should be banned. Bad precedent.

I believe if you check it out a bit the book People and Pandas the book for intelligent design was a fraud as it was originally abook on creationism but was edited to remove that word and replace it with Intelligent design

magnocain · 08-09-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder View Post
I think you need to do more reading before you make a statement like that. While Christians and Jews both practice monotheism, there are a lot of differences between the two. I know. I was born a Christian and converted to Judaism. Conversion is not a quick, or easy thing to do. I spent 13 months studying and taking classes at a Jewish University to get the opportunity to be heard before a council of rabbis (Bet Din). They are not "pretty much the same".

Kinda late now but, of course I mean the Old Testament.

There was a movie about how schools and collages have no tolerance of Intelligent Design.YouTube - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer)

Maestro · 08-09-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird

Did you go to Catholic school in Quebec Maestro? Just curious because there was no "religion" class in any of our schools, you would have to go to University and choose to take theology.

No, it was the standard public school like what you can find in any area of the Province of Québec. This being said, our educational system has been "reformed" in the late 60s, so we no longer have the same system than the rest of the country... I was born in 1984, so well after the reform had started.

However I must say that I grew up in a small town and that the elementary school I went to was rather religious... Built right next to the church and the teachers were taking us there once a month to listen to the priest's delirium. Oh, how happy was I when I hit High School.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird

OK, question. So the teacher's lesson is Darwin. Now, if a student asks was the origin of life & the Universe is "random" or "supernatural" - what should the teachers answer be?

He should try to find a scientific answer. If he is unable to do so, he should simply answer "We still don't know."