toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[Flipper]

OOL is not a trivial problem - there are so many different possible factors including initial conditions, unknowns regarding the composition of the early earth, and possible environmental combinations, not to mention the fact that we are still learning about new and unpredicted properties of the most fundamental building blocks of organic chemistry, never mind the unexpected or unresearched properties of more complex molecules and reactions.

 

[Stripe]

. . . this seems to be another attempt at the . . . "you can't answer every possible inane question therefore goddidit" foolishness . . . yawn:.

Sounds like another attempt by Silent Punter to dodge the challenge. :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

So what was the last major scientific paper put out by creationists that shed any important light on a scientific topic while also supporting the creationist argument? What was the last creationist insight that didn't require appeal to non-biblical physical impossibilities? In what way has strict creationism pushed understanding of the world forward? When was the last really original piece of research carried out by creationists?

So I guess we shouldn't teach it in schools then.

Good question. Maybe there's a conspiracy in the scientific community to keep the 'truth' under wraps...

lain:

 

[Flipper]

Good question. Maybe there's a conspiracy in the scientific community to keep the 'truth' under wraps...

lain:

Well, it's certainly not out of the question - but I'm talking about content from their own publications. The last couple of years of papers (although these days ID/creationist proponents seem to prefer churning out books - far more profitable than scientific papers) from the Discovery Institute fellows and also its Evolutionary Informatics Lab have been pretty weaksauce efforts that are light years away from revolutionizing their own movement, let alone all of science. All AIG appears to do these days is produce editorials criticizing research done by proper scientists.

The most interesting work in the creationist world appears to have been done in the effort to systematize baraminology, and the only conclusion that can be drawn right now is that so far baraminology forces creationists to either draw some uninvitingly broad boundaries around the term "kind", or otherwise make highly arbitrary divisions to avoid evolutionary conclusions, divisions that are have no basis other than of personal taste.

I'm not addressing Walt Brown's In The Beginning because a) he hasn't really changed his basic argument for ten years and b) it still seems to require extrabiblical miracles to make it work. Although he updates his book on a continual basis, I'm not aware of any major structural changes to his argument that make it any more compelling.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Sounds like another attempt by Silent Punter to dodge the challenge.

. . . an honest "I don't know" is better than the christian evasive of "Science can't answer all of the questions concerning the origin of life therefore goddidit" polemic . . . :kookoo: . . .

 

[Silent Hunter]

Good question. Maybe there's a conspiracy in the scientific community to keep the 'truth' under wraps...

. . . really AB . . . a conspiracy by the scientific community to keep the "truth" that godidit "hidden"? . . . :squint: . . .

 

[Arthur Brain]

. . . really AB . . . a conspiracy by the scientific community to keep the "truth" that godidit "hidden"? . . . :squint: . . .

Well rather the age of the earth. There'd simply be no reason to fabricate such as an old earth/ToE doesn't disprove or impact on the existence of God one way or the other. It does in 'literal fundamentalist' land for some reason but hey ho...

lain:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well rather the age of the earth.

. . . :squint:.

There'd simply be no reason to fabricate such as an old earth/ToE doesn't disprove or impact on the existence of God one way or the other.

. . . the purpose of science isn't to prove/disprove the existence of anyone's deity . . . .

It does in 'literal fundamentalist' land for some reason but hey ho...

. . . fundamentalism has ALWAYS been the enemy of science . . . ask Galileo.

 

[Arthur Brain]

. . . :squint:.

:idunno:

. . . the purpose of science isn't to prove/disprove the existence of anyone's deity . . . .

Indeed it isn't, which is entirely the point.

. . . fundamentalism has ALWAYS been the enemy of science . . . ask Galileo.

And not just science either. Thankfully it's a minority who are so 'hardcore' nowadays.

:e4e:

 

[Silent Hunter]

:idunno:

. . . me . . . either.

Indeed it isn't, which is entirely the point.

. . . one must wonder why fundamentalists are so eager to use "bad science" then claim it IS . . . science.

And not just science either. Thankfully it's a minority who are so 'hardcore' nowadays.

. . . if TOL is any indication . . . the "minority" is a rather large one.

 

[Stripe]

. . . an honest "I don't know" is better than the christian evasive of "Science can't answer all of the questions concerning the origin of life therefore goddidit" polemic . . . :kookoo: . . .

When you can find someone who uses this method, please let us know. :thumb:

 

[Silent Hunter]

When you can find someone who uses this method, please let us know.

. . . all "reputable" scientists use the "I don't know method" . . .

. . . EVERY scientific discovery began with three words . . . "I don't know".

. . . EVERY stagnation in human knowledge began with three words too . . . "god did it".

. . . when fundamentalist christians "don't know" . . . they invoke . . . godidit.

. . . for someone who uses this method . . . one need look no further than . . .

:mock: Stripe.

 

[Bright Raven]

Yes it should be taught in schools.

 

[Stripe]

. . . all "reputable" scientists use the "I don't know method" . . .. . . EVERY scientific discovery began with three words . . . "I don't know".. . . EVERY stagnation in human knowledge began with three words too . . . "god did it".. . . when fundamentalist christians "don't know" . . . they invoke . . . godidit.. . . for someone who uses this method . . . one need look no further than . . .: ock: Stripe.

:rotfl:

:mock: Silent Munter

 

[Nick M]

:mock: silent hunter

 

[Silent Hunter]

:mock: creationists

 

[Silent Hunter]

. . . creationism ISN'T science . . . it is religion . . . religion has no place in public schools . . . see also The First Amendment.

 

[lucaspa]

If you ask a non-believer the answer would be obvious. If it were taught he would winge until your ears fall off calling it a non-science.

Well what is the Big Bang, evolutionism and all the other god-less theories out there? They too are a belief system. Being an atheist or agnostic does not automatically make a person without bias. They have their own and they have taken over the educational institutions, applying their bias like a rod of iron.

Whoa! I will agree that atheism is a faith. However, science and particular scientific theories, such as Big Bang and evolution, are NOT atheism!

Science is agnostic. That is a position of "I don't know" about God. Agnosticism is also not a belief.

There is a big difference between "creation" and "creationism". Creation is a theological concept "God created". Creationism is a very specific how that God created. It is also a scientific theory: a falsified scientific theory.

For us theists, this means that God did not create by creationism. Instead, since we believe God created, then Big Bang, evolution, and all the other processes discovered by science are how God created for us. God created the universe by the Big Bang and the diversity of species by evolution. That would be our belief as Christians.

The problem arises when you make the existence of God dependent on a particular method of creation (creationism). When creationism is shown to be wrong, then you think God is shown wrong. That is not what happens.

Should creation be taught? Yes. If you are going to teach the big bang and evolution, then intelligent design should also be taught. The schools are already teaching a belief system--A universe without God. If you allow one then you have to allow others.

Please document to me any public school where science is being taught as a "universe without God". I'm serious. I will bring that to the Nationnal Center for Science Education so we can get that stopped.

So, can we teach "creation" in public schools? Yes, as part of a religion class. Can we teach creationism/intelligent design in science class? NO! Or at least we cannot teach them as valid scientific theories and possibly true. We could teach them -- like geocentrism -- as scientific theories that have been shown to be wrong. Can we teach Big Bang and evolution as showing God does not exist? NO! We cannot if we are going to teach science correctly. Big Bang and evolution do not address the existence of God.

 

[Granite]

Why not roll out phrenology too, while we're at it?

 

[jeremysdemo]

whoever started the thread against the "resurrection of the dead" should take a good look at how old this thread was and when it died.

empirical proof of resurrection.

keep shinin

jerm