toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[Sherman]

That's pure denialism. It's clearly uncomfortable for you to realize that, not only were your ancestors apes, but you yourself are as well. As are all humans. You're also a primate, a mammal, a vertebrate, and an animal. These simple facts seem to bother a lot of people who wish to be more special, but that doesn't change the fact.

It takes more faith to believe that universe was an accident and you evolved from an ape, than does to believe that universe was created by God. There is mounting evidence that Man did not come from apes. I have several volumes in my library that discuss this very issue. One of the hard issues that challenge the theories around Man 'evolution' is that fully human fossils are being found buried deeper than supposed ape ancestors. In one cave they had that the 'ape men' had been hunted by humans that the humans had the apes for supper.

I am not convinced that we are an accident and the descendant of an ape.

 

[Alate_One]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 10th, 2011 09:42 AM

toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

Creation is taught in public school. It's called "Science Class".


If you're talking about particular types of creationISM, OEC, YEC gap theory, ID etc. I have no problem with them being discussed in a religion or philosophy course. In fact, perhaps they should be.

But science classes should include only studies of testable and falsifiable ideas, i.e. science.

 

[Alate_One]

It takes more faith to believe that universe was an accident and you evolved from an ape, than does to believe that universe was created by God. There is mounting evidence that Man did not come from apes.

The big bang isn't an "accident", neither is evolution. Mounting evidence humans are unrelated to apes? Which evidence is that? The genetic evidence is doing the opposite, the case is becoming stronger and stronger.

I have several volumes in my library that discuss this very issue.

Are they all authored by AiG affiliates?

One of the hard issues that challenge the theories around Man 'evolution' is that fully human fossils are being found buried deeper than supposed ape ancestors. In one cave they had that the 'ape men' had been hunted by humans that the humans had the apes for supper.

Some but not all. In general cranial size of fossil hominins gets smaller the farther you go back in time . . .

 

[Sherman]

Your chart has been falsified. Modern human specimins have been found buried in rock layers below the 'hominid apes' Charts like this don't mean a lot. As my husband often says. Statistics are lies and liars use statistics. Head size also does not have as strong a correlation to intelligence as these scientists claim. It is how the brain is organized that produces intelligence.

 

[Quincy]

As long as it's an elective class, go for it.

 

[Alate_One]

Your chart has been falsified.

Give me a citation for that.

Modern human specimins have been found buried in rock layers below the 'hominid apes'

Again, some but not all. In the oldest layers we find ONLY "hominin apes". Ancestors don't immediately go extinct when a new species arises so you will find some Australopithecines that are "above" more human-like fossils. (Why this isn't a problem has to do with the old why are there still monkeys fallacy) It's like asking how you can be alive while your great uncle is still around.

Charts like this don't mean a lot.

Only to people like you that deny reality when it's staring you in the face.

As my husband often says. Statistics are lies and liars use statistics.

Except statistics are what are used to determine what medicines and treatments are used to prolong life. Amazing how medical science can possibly work when statistics are all lies! We may as well just flip a coin then to determine whether you should have bypass surgery or chopping random holes in the heart.

Head size also does not have as strong a correlation to intelligence as these scientists claim. It is how the brain is organized that produces intelligence.

There is a certain limit to size that is needed. Children with microcephaly (they have brains about the size of a chimpanzee) don't turn out normally.

 

[quip]

Teach? There's next to nothing to teach...Goddidit... rinse, repeat as necessary.

There you go. :idunno:

 

[Sherman]

Give me a citation for that.

Ay citation I give you will not satisfy you. Remember you have a bias and only evolutionist science is valid in your eyes. Anything claiming a biblical source is automatically rejected by you.

Some books that discuss this very topic.

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong, by Jonathan Wells

Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No, Dr Duane Gish..

The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed, by Antony Latham

If you don't listen to Bob Enyart, who uses very good resources, then you won't listen to a layman like me.

People buy into evolution because

1. It makes them look smart. Believing this lie or not, really has nothing to do with IQ.


2. These theories don't require God. Without God there is no accountability.


I won't buy into the lie, no matter how scientific it claims to be. Each age has those that profess to be wise. In the end they will see how wrong they are.


Today we have kids killing themselves because they don't see any value in their lives. They feel worthless. Teaching a kid that he is a product of some accidental process has everything to do with this sense of worthlessness.

You may claim I am an denial, but when Christ returns I wonder what your tune will be then?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Inzl, Alate One is a Christian and a professor of biology. The idea that an old earth and the ToE somehow negate belief or the existence of God is what causes the biggest problems IMO. You make such an enemy of faith when in itself there isn't any confliction.

 

[Alate_One]

Ay citation I give you will not satisfy you. Remember you have a bias and only evolutionist science is valid in your eyes.

Are you totally unable to see your own bias? I've BEEN a YEC. I am still a creationist, an evolutionary creationist. I was able to make this change because of evidence and a realization that one does not have to be a YEC to be a Christian.

Anything claiming a biblical source is automatically rejected by you.

I'm a scientist and a Christian.

Some books that discuss this very topic.

I've read many creationist books in my day. Read the Genesis Flood many times, had two copies of it. It sounded great when I was younger, but as I learned more about the creation itself I realized they are written by people that do not actually know the science.

If you don't listen to Bob Enyart, who uses very good resources, then you won't listen to a layman like me.

Bob doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to science quite frequently. I've caught him on two gross mistakes and poor logic over and over.

People buy into evolution because

1. It makes them look smart. Believing this lie or not, really has nothing to do with IQ.

:squint: That's got to be the weirdest explanation I've ever seen. Have you ever thought that maybe the evidence actually supports it? Have you read anything on evolution NOT written by someone determined to convince you it is wrong?

2. These theories don't require God. Without God there is no accountability.

Science is by definition based on methodological naturalism. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist or is not required to sustain the universe.

Today we have kids killing themselves because they don't see any value in their lives. They feel worthless. Teaching a kid that he is a product of some accidental process has everything to do with this sense of worthlessness.

Do you think religious children of various stripes are incapable of feeling worthless? Evolution isn't accidental . . . Nor does evolution negate God nor negate the worth of a person.

Even the great evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould knew this:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example).

FYI I use this quote in my biology classes before I teach evolution. I make careful note of my position with regards to Christianity and evolution with my students. I pull it from my lecture slides every time I put it in a post.

You may claim I am an denial, but when Christ returns I wonder what your tune will be then?

Hello? Christian here . . . Perhaps it is your tune that will change . . .

 

[Yazichestvo]

I had a genetics final today. A few of the multiple choice answers were jokes, like "Multiple scintillating parlances" and other meaningless things. One of them was "Genetic drift doesn't exist, it was made up by evolutionists". Obviously, this would be wrong. Genetic drift exists- it is observable.

If I'd chosen it, I'd have gotten points off, and rightly so. People should be able to debate what they want in philosophy or theology classes, but in science classes, you can't just let everyone with an argument be right. You can't give a biological science degree to some moron who can't even explain the vestigial tail-bone he's sitting on during class.

 

[Buzzword]

In a word, no.

Except in the very specific context of comparative religion.

Outside of that context, creation has no place because it does not apply.

It is the school's job to prepare students for college, and last I checked every institute of higher learning worth its real estate requires Biology.
I just finished that requirement myself, and nowhere in it does "creationism" have a point or a place.

Science deals in hard, verifiable (or at least moderately conclusive) facts.
I.E., the complete opposite end from religious faith, which is literally "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
(Hebrews 11:1)

The theories which the scientific community, and hence educators, have accepted are the results of thousands of man-hours across hundreds of different disciplines by PROFESSIONALS in those disciplines.

Not the average joe who maybe has a high school diploma.


Of course, on top of all of that, isn't it the PARENT'S job to "train up a child in the way he should go"?

It seems a lot of rightwingers are contradicting themselves, screaming against "big brother government," while simultaneously advocating a government that does the job of teaching religion to their children for them.

 

[Four O'Clock]

Science deals in hard, verifiable (or at least moderately conclusive) facts.

I agree but read my earlier post...

 

[Cruciform]

Should creation be taught in public school?

Only in Pseudo-science 101. (I assume this refers to "creationism.")



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[bybee]

the history of religion should be taught
and
an overview of different beliefs should be included

it has been said that history cannot be understood without some understanding of the different religions

I agree. The history of man's relationship with the supernatural may be taught without getting into advocacy of specific practices.
This relationship is historic and apparently universal.
It is worthy of study.

 

[Nick M]

Inzl, Alate One is a Christian

Wrong. It is what comes out of you that defiles you. AO testifies against God and his word.

 

[DavisBJ]

These are not theories, beanie brain. Big difference between observable phenomena and a theory.

Tell me how many electrons have you actually seen?

Nobody ever observed an ape evolving into a man. That's just a theory.

No, that is a parody of a theory, since apes did not evolve into men. But I can point to a few hundred documented cases of evolution in the literature that were observed. Sorry your world is so limited.

I am of the opinion that they should yank evolution from the schools.

I tend to think that scientists are the best qualified to determine what science is, and therefore what should be taught as science in school. Tens of thousands of scientists disagree with you.

It's idiot theory, turning out a bunch of nitwits thinking they are part ape.

When the theory is distorted as you present it, yes. Try honesty for a change.

Kids are starting to act like apes.

You must be speaking of the kids you know. Not true for mine.

There's certainly no ape in my family tree.

But is it true you include a clod of mud as an ancestor, as told in the creation of Adam in Genesis?

 

[Alate_One]

Wrong. It is what comes out of you that defiles you. AO testifies against God and his word.

By posting pictures of fossils? (that is typically what gets me a neg rep from you) Apparently you think creation itself testifies against God. You are a very confused man.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9

 

[Selaphiel]

No, creationism should not be taught. It is not science, so it is not an alternative to the ToE, neither is ID.

Maybe it should be analyzed as a point of view in religion, then again it is a rather insignificant point of view within Christian theology as well, at least from a historical perspective. Critical thinking should be a part of education in religion as well, which means they could teach it and why it is a belief that is untenable in light of modern science.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Wrong. It is what comes out of you that defiles you. AO testifies against God and his word.

No she doesn't. She just doesn't blindly adhere to a fundamentalist interpretation of what Gods word says Nick.

If what comes out of you 'defiles you' then you might wanna start looking in the mirror dude. Captain mature you ain't....

lain: