Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If creationism is taught as a fairy tale like Grimms, I have no problem learning about it in a general religion class. The problem comes when a Christian teaches it. I had a college World Religion class and the professor, a Christian minister, constantly talked about how "none of the other religions make sense". It really needs to be taught by someone who doesn't have their own agenda.
How do you propose that children be educated, if their parents don't have the money to send them to private school, nor the time or skills to homeschool?
First, think for a minute, what would actually happen if there were no government schools? Would people all be idiots?
Would your children not know how to read if the government wasn't teaching them? Would they not know how to add and subtract? What would you teach them? What might your parents teach them? Or your friends? Or your church? Or whatever?
Before America even existed, literacy rates were already nearly 100% in New England. Why?
Do you honestly believe inner-city kids are better-off because they go to terrible government schools? In many cases, half of them drop-out, and many of the rest are "functionally-illiterate".
Government schools don't exist to educate. Don't be naive. They exist to teach people what the government wants them to know. And I believe wholeheartedly that not only would people be more-knowledgeable if they were abolished entirely, but I think they would become better people.
The public-school produces "youth-culture". Which is marked with entitlement, degeneracy, insecurity, violence, and immorality.
If the black kid in the ghetto wasn't being educated by the government, he would likely be educated by a Church, or by his family, and he would be infinitely better-off.
I don't think creationism will ever be taught in public schools because that would require a bunch of teachers who know how to present it without making it sound silly.
Who is pushing for creationism to be taught in schools?
The drive certainly does seem to have dropped in recent years, or at least become less vocal or less reported on. But that there is a community there trying this is hard to deny. The Discovery Institute certainly did not go away after their remarkable defeats, and the Dover Trials were far from a sole instance, but a smaller battle in a larger war.
Convicted criminal Kent Hovind, nonsense scientist Micheal Behe, or creationist dentist Don McLeroy are not isolated mad men. They are representative of a vocal and shrill minority. And people like McLeroy are not the only one trying to get themselves elected onto public school boards in order to modify education curriculums to come in line with their religions.
At one point there was even attempts made to redefine the very definition of science itself to open it up to the notion of Creationism. A definition so dilute and non-sensical that there was very little it would NOT open science up to. It really was that farcical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
This INCLUDES the Religion of Evolution which is a disproved theory
Except no it is not, not even a little bit. The scientific Theories (capital T) of Evolution and Natural Selection are as accepted in current science as they ever were. Alas, for you anyway, merely asserting something to be disproven does not magically disprove it.
But by all means tell me how and why it has been disproven. I have too much popcorn stocked up at the moment to miss the chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
But you accept Evolution taught to kids which is far more dangerous than teaching about God and creationism.
What "danger" is that exactly? Aside from the "danger" that you might actually learn the difference between a science and a religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
I believe there is some evidence that indicates a possible creator.
I would genuinely love to hear it. I have been asking for YEARS if anyone has any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that even BEGINS to substantiation the claim that the explanation for our existence is a non-human intelligence and intentional agency. And the reply I have gotten every time would make the sound of crickets in a football field sound as loud as a brass band in a cupboard. Total.... utter..... silence.
I am happy to keep asking. Maybe some day someone can try answering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.Bachlow
Call me selfish and sexist...but I want more grandchildren.
Yet no one is obligated to give you any, nor does anyone owe it to you. Once you realize THAT little fact.... then you can certainly wander about wanting whatever you like. Your wish is no ones command.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.Bachlow
People told me that because I was an artist with sporadic income that I should never have kids.
Then those "people" are judgmental and arrogant doofoids who pulled their nonsense out of an orifice that is not normally associated with communication.
With the possible appointment of Jerry Falwell Jr to head the Education Department, it makes me think we are going to see more attempts to get young-earth creationism into science curriculum in public schools.
The thing about this issue is that creationism isn't agreed upon even among most Christians. Most Christians, including mainline, Catholic, and moderate evangelicals have no issues with accepting evolution as the means in which God created the earth. It's only the far-right fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals that completely deny evolution and believe that the earth was created in six literal days, 6,000 years ago.
With that being the case, why do so many people think it's a good idea to teach that in public schools? Most people pushing for it use the line "teach both theories and let the students decide for themselves." Why teach something that is believed by maybe only a third of Christians alongside or instead of something that's actually agreed on by 99.9% of scientists and is a legitimate scientific theory?
They should teach both views. Practically all Christians believe God created the universe, and man, but only few believe in 6000 year/6 literal days view.
In what context? Certainly not a science room, anything being taught in science room needs to based on a foundation of knowledge. That knowledge may be faulty and incomplete but that is not a reason to go making stuff up to fill in the blanks.
In what context? Certainly not a science room, anything being taught in science room needs to based on a foundation of knowledge. That knowledge may be faulty and incomplete but that is not a reason to go making stuff up to fill in the blanks.
1. Explain the evolution theory. It is a theory after all.
2. Explain what creationism is
In what context? Certainly not a science room, anything being taught in science room needs to based on a foundation of knowledge. That knowledge may be faulty and incomplete but that is not a reason to go making stuff up to fill in the blanks.
Creationism can be taught in a philosophy class... in college where one pays for it.
If we teach judeo-Christian creation, equal time must be given to Shinto, Buddhist, Hindu, Olmec, Druid... as we see nothing else will get done and no one will have time to learn anything discernible of the thousands of creation theories (loosely).
1. Explain the evolution theory. It is a theory after all.
2. Explain what creationism is
I will answer that in 3 parts not 2, as I genuinely think the first part I will explain will benefit SOME people.
Explain Theory
Theory in Science is not the same as "theory" in the vernacular. In the vernacular "theory" just means a hypothesis. An idea.
In science "Theory" means something that is so validated by substantiation that...... despite the fact we never consider anything 100% "true" in science..... we genuinely expect it never to be falsified.
The word "Theory" is the highest accolade something can receive in the science lexicon. There is no amount of evidence for example that will ever change "Atomic Theory" into anything but "Theory".
Explain Evolution
Unfortunately that is too vague a question. It would be like saying "Explain Chemistry". You need pages, if not whole chapters of books, to answer it. However in short evolution is just the result you get when:
1) You have some kind of data or information
2) You have NEARLY but not QUITE perfect replication of that data.
3) You have some differential success between replications of that data in their own replication of themselves.
That is all evolution is and all you need for evolution to occur. When you have this simple setup then you inevitably have some traits become more prolific than others in the "pool". Some therefore die out, some are reproduced further, and some last many generations.
Evolution really is as simple as that.
Explain Creationism
Creationism as I understand it is the unsubstantiated hypothesis that the explanation for the universe, or life within the universe, lies in a non-human intelligent and intentional agency or designer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.Bachlow
BIG BANG...or LET THERE BE LIGHT...what is the difference?
Intent. One has it, the other does not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
