I guess I was wrong...

[HRoark]

OK, so most of us agree that its ludicrous to not teach evolution in school. My question then is do you think the latest permutation of creationism - Intelligent Design - should be given any time in a science class?

 

 

Way to go on the comprehensive poll, fucko. Evolution is a theory, and has been billed as such since I was a lad. I see validity in presenting BOTH creation and evolution theory - let the student decide what he believes.

 

teaching creationism in schools is tantamount to teaching religion in schools. it should be presented at home and the student can make up his/her mind there. there is solid evidence for evolution. it is more than a theory. specific evolutionary changes in specific species may be theoretical but the concept is not.

 

It is still a theory, as in, "the theory of evolution." Creationism is another view of how the world came to be. Why are you people afraid of an alternate view? Does it shake the weak foundations of your pathetic pseudo-beliefs?

[minx]

OK, so most of us agree that its ludicrous to not teach evolution in school. My question then is do you think the latest permutation of creationism - Intelligent Design - should be given any time in a science class?

 

 

Way to go on the comprehensive poll, fucko. Evolution is a theory, and has been billed as such since I was a lad. I see validity in presenting BOTH creation and evolution theory - let the student decide what he believes.

 

teaching creationism in schools is tantamount to teaching religion in schools. it should be presented at home and the student can make up his/her mind there. there is solid evidence for evolution. it is more than a theory. specific evolutionary changes in specific species may be theoretical but the concept is not.

 

It is still a theory, as in, "the theory of evolution." Creationism is another view of how the world came to be. Why are you people afraid of an alternate view? Does it shake the weak foundations of your pathetic pseudo-beliefs?

 

pseudo beliefs?? creationism requires faith in something that cannot be proven. that would strike me more as a pseudo belief than believing in evolution. evolution has plenty of scietific support for it. who decides when it moves from theory to proven fact??? have i missed the annual "this is still just a theory list"?

 

why are you so insecure in the realm of the real word that you need to insist that everyone have "faith"? creationism requires faith in some supreme power. it can not be proven and thus i do not find it believable.

[HRoark]

OK, so most of us agree that its ludicrous to not teach evolution in school. My question then is do you think the latest permutation of creationism - Intelligent Design - should be given any time in a science class?

 

 

Way to go on the comprehensive poll, fucko. Evolution is a theory, and has been billed as such since I was a lad. I see validity in presenting BOTH creation and evolution theory - let the student decide what he believes.

 

teaching creationism in schools is tantamount to teaching religion in schools. it should be presented at home and the student can make up his/her mind there. there is solid evidence for evolution. it is more than a theory. specific evolutionary changes in specific species may be theoretical but the concept is not.

 

It is still a theory, as in, "the theory of evolution." Creationism is another view of how the world came to be. Why are you people afraid of an alternate view? Does it shake the weak foundations of your pathetic pseudo-beliefs?

 

pseudo beliefs?? creationism requires faith in something that cannot be proven. that would strike me more as a pseudo belief than believing in evolution. evolution has plenty of scietific support for it. who decides when it moves from theory to proven fact??? have i missed the annual "this is still just a theory list"?

 

why are you so insecure in the realm of the real word that you need to insist that everyone have "faith"? creationism requires faith in some supreme power. it can not be proven and thus i do not find it believable.

 

I insist on nothing from anyone but myself. Creationism can be proven if you look for the evidence.

[catbirdseat]

Views and theories are not equivalent. A view is a belief. Beliefs are mental constructs that are not supported by observations in the physical world. They are supported by readings and testimony of other people who hold similar beliefs.

[HRoark]

You fuckers crack me up.

[minx]

"I insist on nothing from anyone but myself. Creationism can be proven if you look for the evidence. "

 

how? what evidence?

 

haven't people been trying to prove the existence of "God" for a long long long time?

[HRoark]

"I insist on nothing from anyone but myself. Creationism can be proven if you look for the evidence. "

 

how? what evidence?

 

haven't people been trying to prove the existence of "God" for a long long long time?

 

Nevermind, God told me you are going to Hell anyway, so don't bother telling her anything.

[minx]

"I insist on nothing from anyone but myself. Creationism can be proven if you look for the evidence. "

 

how? what evidence?

 

haven't people been trying to prove the existence of "God" for a long long long time?

 

Nevermind, God told me you are going to Hell anyway, so don't bother telling her anything.

 

yeah whatever. i'd have to believe in hell to be worried.

 

have a nice day

[Off_White]

My people believe that we all came from frozen balls of sweat in the armpits of the frost giants. What do your people believe?

 

--my favorite missionary conversation starter

[sobo]

My people believe that we all came from frozen balls of sweat in the armpits of the frost giants. What do your people believe?

 

--my favorite missionary conversation starter

 

Classic!

[HRoark]

"I insist on nothing from anyone but myself. Creationism can be proven if you look for the evidence. "

 

how? what evidence?

 

haven't people been trying to prove the existence of "God" for a long long long time?

 

Nevermind, God told me you are going to Hell anyway, so don't bother telling her anything.

 

yeah whatever. i'd have to believe in hell to be worried.

 

have a nice day

 

In general, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[minx]

[quote

In general, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

true enough. but usually there is a way to gain some evidence that it does exist. i don't believe in monsters under my bed and i'm sure they don't exist. hell falls into the same category-interesting fable, scares kids but has no basis in fact. then again, i'm posting on cc.com, wasting my time having this argument so maybe purgatory does exist.

[mothboy88]

I would argue that, since creationism has a strong footing in the market place of ideas, students are better off knowing the tenants of the arguments behind both sides. That way kids can learn to call BS on weak arguments. It could lead to great discussions of what is science and what is philosophy and/or faith.

 

If we make a concrete judgment that only reproducible, observable science should be taught, then we would also be saying that other very important, exciting ideas (E.g., string theory)have no place in the class room.

 

I remember learing about evolution in high school biology and comparing Darwin's theory to Lamarck's acquired traits. I think its pretty useful to compare and contrast the ideas.

[HRoark]

I would argue that, since creationism has a strong footing in the market place of ideas, students are better off knowing the tenants of the arguments behind both sides. That way kids can learn to call BS on weak arguments. It could lead to great discussions of what is science and what is philosophy and/or faith.

 

If we make a concrete judgment that only reproducible, observable science should be taught, then we would also be saying that other very important, exciting ideas (E.g., string theory)have no place in the class room.

 

I remember learing about evolution in high school biology and comparing Darwin's theory to Lamarck's acquired traits. I think its pretty useful to compare and contrast the ideas.

 

That's kinda where I was headed, mothboy.

[catbirdseat]

Teach creationism if you want. Just don't teach it in science class and don't call it "science", because it is not.

[HRoark]

Teach creationism if you want. Just don't teach it in science class and don't call it "science", because it is not.

 

In your stupid fucking moronic opinion. The Creation Theory, in all its iterations, deals with the origin of matter, life, etc. It is an explanation of how physical nature (to which science is focused) came to be. You're a fudgepacking fuckstick.

[minx]

I would argue that, since creationism has a strong footing in the market place of ideas, students are better off knowing the tenants of the arguments behind both sides. That way kids can learn to call BS on weak arguments. It could lead to great discussions of what is science and what is philosophy and/or faith.

 

If we make a concrete judgment that only reproducible, observable science should be taught, then we would also be saying that other very important, exciting ideas (E.g., string theory)have no place in the class room.

 

I remember learing about evolution in high school biology and comparing Darwin's theory to Lamarck's acquired traits. I think its pretty useful to compare and contrast the ideas.

 

i think comparing and contrasting ideas is an outstanding way to teach children. unfortunately, it seems to be the idea of many people that you can't present different ideas ie. evolution and creationism in the same classroom. it seems that they want to present one or the other.

 

i am opposed to teaching creationism in the classroom b/c i believe it crosses the religion in schools line. h/e i'm not opposed to comaring and contrasting different concepts (darwin v. lamarck) this can easily be done w/o dragging in "god" by presenting the idea and the evidence that supports it. comparing and contrasting is a great way to teach people to think critically.

 

ideas like the string theory have a place in the classroom b/c they are based on underlying fundamentals. the string theory wasn't pulled out of thin air. it was based on physics and mathematics. it is one possible explanation drawn from things already in evidence. it has some LOGICAL FOUNDATION and there is potential that enough data can be garnered to move it from theory to fact.

[cracked]

Teach creationism if you want. Just don't teach it in science class and don't call it "science", because it is not.

 

"Fudgepacking fuckstick??" HRoark, you're getting defensive because your arguments aren't solid.

[lI1|1!]

A resounding NO. Creationism is not science because none of it can be tested by observation or experimentation.

 

actually catbird, not to take the creationist stand (which i think is really silly BTW), but evolution cannot be supported by experimentation because of the geologic amounts of time involved. how would one do a controlled experiment in evolution? eh? i would have thought a scientist type like you would know that. tsk tsk.

 

evolution can of course be supported by observation, but it becomes a question of interpreting the evidense. any philosopher of science will tell you evolution is just a theory. better read up on your carl popper white boy.

[HRoark]

Teach creationism if you want. Just don't teach it in science class and don't call it "science", because it is not.

 

"Fudgepacking fuckstick??" HRoark, you're getting defensive because your arguments aren't solid.

 

No, I'm just getting mean because I feel ornery today. I haven't made any significant "arguments" on this thread.

[RuMR]

actually they can be supported by experimentation on species like fruitflies that have short life cycles...

[Dru]

You can breed new traits in in 10 generations of fruitflies or so but no one has yet evolved a whole new species in the lab.

 

However I note that due to the higher mutation rate of mice living on the Chernobyl site they apparently cannot interbreed with mice from outside the site now due to random genetic drift, making them apparently qualify as a separate species. Mus chernobylis

[catbirdseat]

Thank you Dru, I did not know that.

[Stonehead]

All of the posts I've read supporting the creation side are rather amusing. It stems from the misunderstanding the function of science and the use of the scientific method.

 

Intelligent design. Clever. So, the premise is that some omnipotent god outside of time and space created our universe (because this god would have to exist prior to his creation). He (or she or it) was lonely or bored so he created life (if we anthropomorphize his motives). If you follow the Judeo-Christian myth, then god didn't want his human creations to be conscious (they didn't have that faculty until later). But a fallen angel in the guise of a snake tricked woman into eating the fruit of consciousness (hmm, makes me wonder, if man was made in the image of god then does that mean god is not fully conscious of his ignorance). Woman tricked man. The punishment for transgression of the law (prohibition) was death (limited lifespan) and suffering (for man through work and woman through pregnancy).

 

I could go on like this but you get the point. These are creation myths. As metaphor, you could give the Hindu creation myth as much validity as the Judeo-Christian. In the Hindu myth, our universe, or phenomenological world, is the dream of Vishnu. Interestingly, Vishnu inserts himself into our world on Earth as various avatars including Krishna and Buddha, different versions of world saviors to show us the true state of being. But you can clearly see the role of these systems of religious ideas in their function as arbitrator in how society should operate. They are merely social contructs that support a particular view of how the world should function, in particular, a strict interpretation of Genesis envisions a patriarchial world where women are lesser beings.

 

Yes, I'm all for introducing the teaching of creation myths in anthropology and literature classes. Let's shed some light on the religions and see them for what they really are. I disagree with the function of religion to control people's potentiality, although religion serves wonderfully as such. Personally, if you view yourself as more than just an animal being that's fine as long as you also realize the limitation of holding a particular belief system exclusively and recognize that spiritual beliefs should be empowering rather than a tool of oppression.

 

There have been a number of different revolutions in our understanding of the world. The most prominent one was the displacement of the geocentric world view with that of the heliocentric system. This revolutionary belief shed considerable doubt on the literal truth of Genesis as a description of the world's (earth's) beginning. As myth fine (the earth's land was brought into being from the waters and later 'let there be light').

 

The Church fought the revelations as an erosion of their authoritative power and went so far as to condemn Galileo. We've seen successive revolutions in thought since then, such as the idea of a dynamic earth that has a very long history, changes in our mental perception brought about by the evolving nature of our scientific observations. To summarize:

• Copernicus--contrary to popular belief, the earth is not the center of the universe and everything does not revolve around us.
  
• Darwin--Contrary to popular belief, we have not been specially created, but are an advanced evolution of lesser life forms.
  
• Freud--Contrary to popular belief, we are not even very well evolved. We are not very much in control of ourselves. We do not much understand our own feelings nor why we have them.
  

The nature of the world today shows these observations to hold. It does not eliminate a higher being apart from ourselves. But perhaps, maybe life itself and intelligent life are emergent properties of the universe.

 

Explain to me why I should possess inconsistencies, absurdities, muddled and/or convoluted thinking when my goal is to see things as they are, clearly?

[HRoark]

Stonehead,

 

If you claim that the Biblical account of Creation is a myth, how do you prove it? You say that I cannot prove it IS true, how can you prove it IS NOT?