Creationism in Schools?

[mothcorrupteth]

You can teach your child whatever you want. However, in a publicly funded educational system that is neutral to religion, no religion's bent should be taught, regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof.

This is an impossibility. The only reason why anybody even thinks it's possible is because of a watering-down of the definition of religion that has been shaped by the fragmentary philosophies of modernism and postmodernism. Religion is not a compartmentalized section of life. It is a worldview. It is an all-encompassing component of one's sensory-perceptual processes. I don't see the same flower as an atheist. For me, that flower is the end result of a Creative act that proceeded with many, many generations of Providentially guided reproductions. Is the fact that the pistil is the female reproductive organ of that flower true for both of us? Yes. But that fact is imbedded in a web of perceptions about reality. This is a fundamental difference between the classical Christian view and the modern secular view: we are educational holists. As St. Augustine put it, "All knowledge meets at the top." Or as some Reformed Christians would put it, "All of life is reformed." The very opinion that religion can be fragmented from other aspects of education is at issue in our conflict of worldviews. The fact that we reject the paradigm of compartmentalization is part of what you call our "religion." We reject neutrality.

Rich people don't pay taxes. Who are you trying to kid?

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say the rich pay taxes. I said that we have the custom in American culture of arguing for a "progressive" tax system on the grounds that rich people have a lot of money. But besides the fact that you're putting words into my mouth, yes, the rich do pay taxes, and they pay for a disproportionate amount of taxes--by which I mean (to clarify) that they pay a larger percentage of their income.

I agree absolutely 100%. Religion should absolutely be taught by the parents. Not by the publicly funded educational system that is neutral to all religions. If you want to pull the wool over your child's eyes on your own time, more power to you. Don't expect the system to do it for you.

You're missing the entire argument. I don't want the system to do anything, because there is no neutrality. The idea that there is neutral ground is itself part of a pluralistic worldview that gets implicitly taught in the public system. It suffers the same logical inconsistency as the postmodern culture that produced it: it condemns all metanarratives while being a metanarrative itself about other metanarratives. Yours is a worldview in denial about the fact that it is a worldview. "All of life is reformed."

 

[ElvenAngel]

Having experienced both private and public schools I have to say that neither is a good choice. Private schools have as much room for indoctrination and fanatic-breeding as public schools.

It's not really the school that makes for this nonsense, it's the people who are brought in to staff schools and the attitude of families to religion. Some kids are just brainwashed into being religious nuts because they had religious nut parents or teachers who gave them bad examples.

The problem needs to be dealt with at the root. It's people themselves who need to realize that religion is one of the biggest reasons for social shitstorms these days and therefore we need to stop fussing about it and just deal with each other's beliefs. I had the fortune of being raised in a family where religion is respected and taught, but where reason prevailed. We're religious but we don't go plastering it in people's faces or take issue with others.

As such I always find it hard to understand why people make such a gigantic deal out of religion.

Separating kids by religion would only serve to enforce racist attitudes, not alleviate them. People would get even more upset and start social wars because they never were exposed to people of other religion and learned to tolerate them. Creating a public school for each religion is frankly a rather far-fetched idea; it'd create social and economic stigma, not help things along.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Education should be completely privatized. Then you wouldn't have this problem.

No, you'd have a host of other problems. You'd be raising generations of people with even less in common. You'd be creating a larger gulf between the poor and wealthy. You'd be taking your first step back towards feudalism.

you'd get a lot of spoiled people running around claiming that education is a natural human right

How does education spoil people? If anyone would be spoiled by your idea of an education system, it would be to the people of privilege who are continuously granted greater opportunities than others simply by virtue of their birth. This already happens, and your idea would make it even worse.

health care is a natural human right

I would say that being denied help when the resources are there to save your life is a violation of your right to life.

Martin Luther's idea to introduce free public education so that more Germans could be equipped to read the Bible backfired on us in the long run. Big time.

That'd be because when people gain the ability to read the Bible on their own, it enables them to read and learn other things. And many people who do this realize that the realm of fact and science is not within the pages of the Bible, or any religious text.

Religion is not a compartmentalized section of life. It is a worldview.

Religion varies from person to person. For some people it dominates their entire perception, for others it does not. Not everyone is as shallow or uniform as what you claim.

You seem completely wedded to the western European, Christian viewpoint of dualism. It's us or it's them. It's right or it's wrong. It's black or it's white. Your worldview necessitates that barriers must be made and that viewpoints that differ from yours cannot coexist in a tolerant way. This is asinine. Human belief is a spectrum. There may be right and wrong answers, but there isn't one right answer.

Thankfully, that means your own worldview will never come to pass. If there's one thing I've noticed, it's that humanity will never all believe in the same thing.

 

[CassinoChips]

I don't see the same flower as an atheist. For me, that flower is the end result of a Creative act that proceeded with many, many generations of Providentially guided reproductions. Is the fact that the pistil is the female reproductive organ of that flower true for both of us? Yes. But that fact is imbedded in a web of perceptions about reality.

A flower is a flower. Whatever you perceive is just that. Your own perception. It doesn't change the fact that it's simply a flower. Regardless, it's immaterial. Even if I accept your argument that a religion is a mind-altering state, it doesn't give license to Christianity imposing its world view on the public education system. Because not all students are Christian and share the same world view. Moreover, this seems to put forth the concept that the Christian world view overrides that of any other religion. Or of a non-religious world view. It doesn't. So why do we not teach the Muslim world view? The Buddhist? The Native American? Those world views are just as important to each individual student who follows those beliefs as rigorously as a Christian student in a public school.

This is a fundamental difference between the classical Christian view and the modern secular view: we are educational holists. As St. Augustine put it, "All knowledge meets at the top." Or as some Reformed Christians would put it, "All of life is reformed." The very opinion that religion can be fragmented from other aspects of education is at issue in our conflict of worldviews. The fact that we reject the paradigm of compartmentalization is part of what you call our "religion." We reject neutrality.

Religion can be compartmentalized from education because the American public education system dictates that religion and education are two different entities. They can be blended or not. It's not difficult to divest the two. I can separate them in my mind. I will not be punished because you're not able to do the same.

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say the rich pay taxes. I said that we have the custom in American culture of arguing for a "progressive" tax system on the grounds that rich people have a lot of money. But besides the fact that you're putting words into my mouth, yes, the rich do pay taxes, and they pay for a disproportionate amount of taxes--by which I mean (to clarify) that they pay a larger percentage of their income.

Income and wealth are two vastly different things. The lower classes pay a disproportionate tax rate in terms of wealth, which is a much more accurate portrayal of many things than is income. Nowhere near the topic at hand though.

You're missing the entire argument. I don't want the system to do anything, because there is no neutrality. The idea that there is neutral ground is itself part of a pluralistic worldview that gets implicitly taught in the public system. It suffers the same logical inconsistency as the postmodern culture that produced it: it condemns all metanarratives while being a metanarrative itself about other metanarratives. Yours is a worldview in denial about the fact that it is a worldview. "All of life is reformed."

There is neutrality. It's built into the public educational process. Whether our society chooses to acknowledge that or not is where it becomes questionable. But the system itself is inherently neutral to religion. You stamping your world view on it and claiming it as your own does not remove that neutrality.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

This is a nonsensical retort. What, pray tell, is education? Education is the process of bestowing information to young minds that will equip them for life in the real world, all the way from learning to tie one's shoes in Kindergarten to learning how fit exponential decay equations to the behavioral data of an albino rat. Part of my adult life in the real world is my particular religious beliefs. Why on earth should this be excluded from the curriculum of a child? Because you don't like it, and therefore brand it "indoctrination" and "breeding intolerance"? Those are just buzzwords that people use to describe education according to someone else's worldview. It provides zero intellectual justification for why you or I have the right to say that someone else can't teach their child what they think is important about life. It's just namecalling.

Ah, well you see, in America we like to blame rich people for all our problems, so we propose to burden them with a disproportionate tax rate on the theory that they have luxury money. No one in my country bothers to think about whether the rich defend their luxury consumption by passing the cost of these taxes on to consumers in lower tax brackets, thus driving their standard of living in a direction opposite to that intended by the do-gooders who proposed subsidization.

Why?

That does not compute. The Christian religion commands that the children of Christians be educated in that faith. If your theory is applied, then no Christian could ever be allowed to practice their religion fully, and thus is an incursion into their beliefs. Your idea that there is some kind of tabula rasa neutral child who has the capacity to objectively and logically decide between religions is inconceivable to anyone who's worked with children for even five minutes. First, the mind does not even finish maturing until a person is in his mid-twenties; and second, everyone starts from ethical and logical presuppositions when judging between logical choices, and those presuppositions are very often shaped by the environment. You're basically saying that you'd rather that children in general, having immature brains, were pushed into their choices of religion by chance influences like those of peers instead of being pushed into those choices by the parents who are bearing the economic burdens of birthing and rearing the child. That's absurd! Why the heck should I, as a Christian who believes that he has the responsibility to educate his child in his own worldview, ever find your scheme a suitable compromise?

hello sum1sgruj etc etc

religion shouldnt be excluded. if youd read any of my posts you'd see ive said that already. teaching and preaching are two entirely different things. for instance if you go to one of these private christian schools i dont imagine theyd be saying "jesus may and/or may not be the saviour etc etc blah blah blah", theyre telling you. preaching. indoctrination. when they're preaching something which, so far, we've been unable to observe a basis in reality for ie a man in the sky pooping out dinosaurs then yes, we should be worried. if we allow people to run schools exclusively based on beliefs like this then it would be ridiculous to disallow things like the may the force be with you academy and unicorns exist high school.

yes people should be taught about religion and yes its possible for children to make up their own minds, i was a child myself, i dont have to "work with them" to experience what its like "mum. i dont like peas.". i made that decision all by myself.

personally i dont care how it is in america. your assumption, your bad. im not american and i dont disagree with the taxing system here. people who earn more should put more into the system.

the christian religion commands that. and yet we have christian scientists. blasphemers, are they? the christian religion has evolved alongside western culture so that it would be accepted. its ok to be black, its ok to be gay, its ok to have anal sex, its ok to be greedy blah blah blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

indoctrination often leads to extremism since religious texts are so ambiguous and vague. interpretations differ from one person to the next. if people wish to find comfort in a god/gods then they should be allowed to develop their own belief instead of having it forced down their throat by a)the government and b)their parents...assuming your religious leaders dont just think you're all weak minded sheep and will stray if given any freedom of thought? me no know.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

How does education spoil people? If anyone would be spoiled by your idea of an education system, it would be to the people of privilege who are continuously granted greater opportunities than others simply by virtue of their birth. This already happens, and your idea would make it even worse.

Read carefully. I didn't say that education would spoil people. I said that people who are already spoiled would demand public education. And they are spoiled because they think that their relative poverty entitles them to violate other people's property rights by taxing those people to pay for public services.

I would say that being denied help when the resources are there to save your life is a violation of your right to life.

And that gives people the right to demonize and steal from each other? I mean, where is the line drawn? Do I have a "right to padlocks" on the grounds that "the resources are there to save my home from burglary"? So now everyone in society has to pay taxes to the State so that it can supply us all with the means with which to protect our right to property. Do I have a "right to bread" because "there resources are there to save me from dying from hunger"? So now everyone has to pay taxes to the State so that it can supply us all with the means with which to protect our right to life. It's one thing to say that if you have the resources to help people, it's good to use them. It's quite another thing to say that people in need of help are actually entitled to it, to the point that they can do the equivalent of holding someone up at gunpoint and threaten the person with imprisonment if they don't pay for someone else's healthcare. Because that's what the IRS is.

Not everyone is as shallow or uniform as what you claim.

I made no claims that everyone is shallow or uniform.

You seem completely wedded to the western European, Christian viewpoint of dualism. It's us or it's them. It's right or it's wrong. It's black or it's white. Your worldview necessitates that barriers must be made and that viewpoints that differ from yours cannot coexist in a tolerant way. This is asinine.

And a society in which people are expected to not really believe what they believe on the grounds that it's "fundamentalist" isn't asinine?

Religion can be compartmentalized from education because the American public education system dictates that religion and education are two different entities.

Just because some lughead in the State says they can be compartmentalized does not mean that they can. It appears you have mistaken the sense of the word can in the discussion. I am not questioning whether someone can explicitly and consciously separate religion and education as two separate and distinct concepts. I am questioning whether they are, in objective reality, two separate concepts that impress themselves upon the human mind. They are not. Religion boils down to one's fundamental beliefs about the nature of existence. Education boils down to learning new things within the realm of one's existence. What one learns in education is meaningless outside of the context of fundamental beliefs. If my fundamental beliefs include the idea that there is not an objective physical world around me, that is going to change everything about how I take in the information that an educator gives me about protons. It's the same with everything else.

Besides which, the point at hand is that the Christian religion does not compartmentalize life the way that modern culture insists on doing. (From one end of the Bible to the other, human beings are treated as, not souls imprisoned in bodies, but indissoluble wholes.) Therefore, any claim that a compartmentalized education system is neutral is false from the moment that it tries to serve members of the Christian religion. The philosophy that guides the education system is itself antithetical to Judeo-Christian holism.

 

[CassinoChips]

Just because some lughead in the State says they can be compartmentalized does not mean that they can. It appears you have mistaken the sense of the word can in the discussion. I am not questioning whether someone can explicitly and consciously separate religion and education as two separate and distinct concepts. I am questioning whether they are, in objective reality, two separate concepts that impress themselves upon the human mind. They are not. Religion boils down to one's fundamental beliefs about the nature of existence. Education boils down to learning new things within the realm of one's existence. What one learns in education is meaningless outside of the context of fundamental beliefs. If my fundamental beliefs include the idea that there is not an objective physical world around me, that is going to change everything about how I take in the information that an educator gives me about protons. It's the same with everything else.

Besides which, the point at hand is that the Christian religion does not compartmentalize life the way that modern culture insists on doing. (From one end of the Bible to the other, human beings are treated as, not souls imprisoned in bodies, but indissoluble wholes.) Therefore, any claim that a compartmentalized education system is neutral is false from the moment that it tries to serve members of the Christian religion. The philosophy that guides the education system is itself antithetical to Judeo-Christian holism.

Your argument is circular. Christians in the educational system create a Christian education system that espouses Christian values, thus the outcome should be a Christian education system. The system itself is, by its very nature, neutral. It's when Christians (or any group) claim it as their own and put their values into it that it reflects the ethos of that particular group.

 

[Rapture]

...I'm so glad everyone has taken an interest in my thoughts and beliefs in this thread. Although, tbqh...I never planned on coming back here. However, since I feel pretty much everything I've said has been misconstrued....

Therefore, let me take everyone on a trip into what I learned about Evolution/Darwinism when I was in High School. Lets keep in mind that I am not 18/19 or in my early twenties like most of the people are on this forum with the exception of maybe a couple of handfuls of members that are active. I graduated High School in ohhhh 2001 so I took Sophmore history which taught Darwinsim about 12 years ago. When I was taught Darwinism there was a picture of an ape and a human next to each other and I was taught that we evolved from apes. So thinking about that apes would have to be, by deductive reasoning, here first before humans for us to have "evolved" from something. ...Which is pretty much against my beliefs. In MY EYES its an underlying way of the schools teaching me that we were created from apes. ...and I really don't want anyone to say ohhh it isn't like that and etc...I would be the only person who knows what its like to walk a day in my shoes so I really don't want to hear prove you were taught that way... because it is what it is.

Ari, I'm so glad you took that advanced Bio class because you seem very well versed on the material. I have no doubt you are intelligent and researched on this subject quite a bit to have been able to elaborate on the information so well off of the top of your head. However, there are still holes that make Darwinism's 100% proof lacking. ... and while some parts of it may be true, I have obvious problems with some of the points it is trying to prove/make...namely life's orgins. If you can prove with it where we originated from then the theory all together would make sense....because things do evolve. However, that would mean changes in our genes and wouldn't it be a "fair" statement to make that when genes change they generally mutate..which produces a negative effect on it's host? Like Cancer, Down's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, Muscular Dystrophy, and etc??? You may have studied about fossils that have adapted or evolved that share various adaptations...but why don't we see things "evolving" or adapting in a more positive way today...since to me at least, most animals remain the same today and have been for the most part, at least 200 years. Or is it that everything has reached it's peak of evolution? -Another problem I have with Darwinism.

If you believe the teachings of a book with absolutely no evidence behind it over a plethora of studies conducted by extremely intelligent scientists/archaeologists then I'm sorry, but you are being quite stupid.

This is what I do have a problem with. I walk into this thread with the neutral view that I do... and I don't get how much more neutral one can get in this case (the question should Creationism be taught in schools)...and I've already said it twice I think...but I will say it thrice...is that I don't believe any form of creationism should be taught in the schools. No one religion is overlooked and everyone would therefore would remain happy...the ones who only support science (Darwinism), the muslims, and the Christians, for example. ...and expect to be met with such rebuttle...even be insulted. Stupid is an unnecessary blow at someone...and one that I personally would never use....is anything but an attempt at being respectful.

This is my opinion, that was the way I was educated in High School...and those are the reasons why I have a problem with Darwinism. If you don't feel the same, then I'm truly sorry you feel that way. The good news is my thoughts/beliefs on the matter will never affect any of you personally. ...So I appreciate the concern...and in some cases lackthereof...but, really?

 

[moogling]

Well, I apologize that you were so easily offended by that. I couldn't care less what you believe in, honestly. Once it starts affecting a huge population, and could affect me in the future, that's when I care. Like I said, when people are so ignorant as to try and force evolution out of a science class because it goes against their beliefs then that's when I get offended. Just because someone is a good Christian doesn't mean their beliefs should be everyone's beliefs. And no, I am not referring to you, or any one person in this debate in particular. Just like I wasn't attempting to call you stupid. The idea, from my biased point of view, that you would immediately decline any scientific idea on the origins of life (granted, like I said, evolution classes in school currently do not address the origins of life) because your parents shoved in down your throat from a young age, is stupid, yes. The people who started this Creationism in schools shite are the people who I'm referring to. If this applies to you... then I'm sorry, I'm not going out of my way to offend just you, it's just my opinion. Just like I can't change your faith, you can't make me not think this.

"Believing" evolution isn't being religious. Clearly, since you can be a Christian scientist and still "believe" in evolution. There are plenty of religious people who still see that when a new scientific discovery is made, granted it is a solid theory with overwhelming amounts of evidence in its favor (ie: evolution ), it does not have to interfere with your beliefs (although it should). Pope something-something made a statement about this, cba looking since you probably wouldn't believe that anyway.

Like TTT said before and I reiterated, evolution in school currently does not teach the origins of life. It will not, until a solid theory is established, I'm sure of that much.

When I was taught Darwinism there was a picture of an ape and a human next to each other and I was taught that we evolved from apes. So thinking about that apes would have to be, by deductive reasoning, here first before humans for us to have "evolved" from something. ...Which is pretty much against my beliefs. In MY EYES its an underlying way of the schools teaching me that we were created from apes. ...and I really don't want anyone to say ohhh it isn't like that and etc...I would be the only person who knows what its like to walk a day in my shoes so I really don't want to hear prove you were taught that way... because it is what it is.

... then again I took my classes more recently than you did, so perhaps the structure of the lesson has changed. Excuse my mistake of trying to bring another perspective into the debate.

that would mean changes in our genes and wouldn't it be a "fair" statement to make that when genes change they generally mutate..which produces a negative effect on it's host? Like Cancer, Down's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, Muscular Dystrophy, and etc??? You may have studied about fossils that have adapted or evolved that share various adaptations...but why don't we see things "evolving" or adapting in a more positive way today...since to me at least, most animals remain the same today and have been for the most part, at least 200 years. Or is it that everything has reached it's peak of evolution? -Another problem I have with Darwinism.

There is no "peak" to evolution really. It's a constant process that may come across periods of stability, but it never "ends". You may be confusing this because it's easy to believe humans are the ultimate goal in evolution - which we are not. We are far from perfect, as shown by these diseases we have yet to be able to cure. As for human evolution... things are different now. We have the ability to treat people who would normally die very easily were we primitive.

200 years is nothing. Something drastic usually happens in order to see a drastic change.

Natural selection is an extremely cruel process which I'm sure you can see. We get these mutations so the population can remain stable; whether or not your god has the ability to control which people die and which people live I can't answer. All I know is that genetics, for the most part, controls this. Environment does as well, perhaps that's why these diseases are becoming more prominent than they were.

Genes mutating definitely does not always result in a disability/disease. You'd have to have a very good understanding of genetics to understand this process so I won't attempt to explain the little that I do know.

The problem, I think, is that the people disputing evolution aren't very experienced with it. All of these "professionals" writing these crap articles have degrees yet I highly doubt they are in Biology. You need to be educated far beyond high school in Biology, and maybe a large focus on Genetics, to completely understand the process so perhaps that's why people have issues with it. No, I am not referring to you Stella, you are definitely a very smart woman, and I by no means am trying to make myself out to be fully educated, I'm just making an assumption.

I don't believe any form of creationism should be taught in the schools.

Well, good then. I apologize for not reading every reply in this thread, perhaps I should next time.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

And they are spoiled because they think that their relative poverty entitles them to violate other people's property rights by taxing those people to pay for public services.

Unless you want complete anarchy, that's how every government works. It doesn't violate your property rights to pay taxes - that's a duty as a citizen. Public services include the police, fire department, and libraries. Do you think those shouldn't exist either?

And you think poor people are spoiled if they get government aid? Have you ever actually been in poverty? Those services, like food stamps, are for everyone. Rich people don't always stay rich forever, and poor people don't always stay poor forever. This isn't an us against them thing like you're trying to make it out to be, it applies to everyone who needs it.

And that gives people the right to demonize and steal from each other?

How was I demonizing anyone? Are you assuming that I support a progressive tax and that I villanize wealthy people?

I mean, where is the line drawn? Do I have a "right to padlocks" on the grounds that "the resources are there to save my home from burglary"?

So now everyone in society has to pay taxes to the State so that it can supply us all with the means with which to protect our right to property.

You already pay for this - it's the police and the court system.

Do I have a "right to bread" because "there resources are there to save me from dying from hunger"?

Are you actually in danger of starving to death and you cannot afford food legally? Then yes, you should have a right to some bread.

if they don't pay for someone else's healthcare.

Do you hate the idea of taxes in general, or just for things like healthcare?

I made no claims that everyone is shallow or uniform.

You made sweeping generalizations about what it means to be religious or Christian. That's a rather uniform view and your idea of what it means to be Christian is rather shallow because you can only be Christian entirely and utterly, you can't have a bit more depth to yourself.

And a society in which people are expected to not really believe what they believe on the grounds that it's "fundamentalist" isn't asinine?

What? You can believe whatever you want, but there's a big difference between that and forcing others to believe the same things as you.

If my fundamental beliefs include the idea that there is not an objective physical world around me, that is going to change everything about how I take in the information that an educator gives me about protons.

That's nice and all, but your fundamental beliefs do not change the face of reality. The way protons function and that they exist is not going to change just because you internalized that information differently.

Besides which, the point at hand is that the Christian religion does not compartmentalize

life the way that modern culture insists on doing.

Your idea of Christianity may function that way, but it does not work the same for everyone else. You may think those people are wrong, but they have just as much validity as you in what it means to be Christian because the entire issue is subjective.

The philosophy that guides the education system is itself antithetical to Judeo-Christian holism.

Unless you believe the earth is only 6000 years old or something, the education system does not contradict anything your religion says. It is based in observation and objective things. You are free to internalize the information any way you want. But your beliefs should not be accommodated in a neutral, secular educational system when they completely contradict observable reality.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Its neat to see that this thread has continued, but none the less its still in my opinion that the idea of creationalism should be taught in school in a completely non biased way. For example some people believe in blah blah, others believe in blah blah.

The theory of evolution and big bang theory and creationalism I think should be seperated into different classes because it will clash otherwise. If you have a christian teacher than they will put much emphasis on it, if you have and athiest teacher than they will make creationalism subject to doubt from the very beginning, this is not how we teach children to make up their own minds, its how we control their beliefs, it needs to be fair.

The problem with teaching creationalism in schools with evolution is that its going to end up biased biased on what the teacher thinks. If a teacher thinks that evolution is the only way to think than thats the way he will teach it regardless of what the curiculum states, he may speak about creationalism but you can bet he is going to undermine it to his students.

Like I said I believe religion to be an important aspect to western society and world history, even though I am not religious I feel it a crime to not teach why. And if you think that all religions should be taught equally I disagree because Chritianity had a huge affect upon our country and its people, and I garuntee asian countries are not teaching western religions. Its best to place the most affecting religions to our country among the others.

These days it seems people complain more about religion being around than people who are religious complaining that people are losing their faith, I find it ironic. People left and right are bitching that religion is infecting our minds and are trying to push it away, it is become less of a nuetral decision every day, just as religious people put pressure on wanting religion to have more involvement, it is just too touchy to be teaching both in the same class I think.

I think we wold be neglecting our history a little if we were to leave creationalism out of the school all together, yet people are just going to cry tears if we teach it in school. I am not religious myself, but I was raised christian, and I had no problem making my own mind without others influence, I expect others can do the same even if they are taught both, we can not forget parents responsibility either.


Its not fair for anyone because people just won't let people be.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Cue massive paradigm shift...

I would contend creationism is science.

The concept that the universe and reality we experience were designed is a viable scientific concept. Statistically it makes far greater sense for the universe to have been designed than for multiverses and other statistical defeating mechanisms being necessary to explain the verifiable unlikelihood of current day reality.

I would contend that there is some atheistic and naturalist bias present in science, business, and political sectors which causes scientific research in these areas to be biased and flawed in favor of naturalist explanations.

I stand with Richard Lewontin who had this to say on the topic:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

I recognize many will rally around the modern day myth that there is no "evidence" for creationism.

That is why I'm posting this:

Scientific evidence for creationism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

[CassinoChips]

The problem with the finely-tuned universe concept is that there is no direct evidence to support it. It's basically the equivalent of saying "well it just has to be!" Yes, if things were different, things would be different. But that doesn't mean that something made things just so, especially when there is no evidence to support anything other than nature made it just so.

There are a couple things at play here, in my opinion.

1) It's kind of a chicken and the egg argument. Did something create these quantitative anomalies that have allowed life to exist? Or did the anomalies exist already, and then things naturally adapted to them? Ultimately that's a philosophical argument, not scientific.

2) I don't think human beings like to admit that nature is smarter than we are. As such, instead of observing nature in its magnitude and majesty, and allowing ourselves to simply be a cog in that wheel, we instead ascribe the inner workings of nature to the varying whims of a distant cosmological being (who, coincidentally, created us in his image, and how awesome are we?). In this way, we seek to further our dominion over nature. OUR god created you, nature. You didn't create us. Smacks of hubris.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

The problem with the finely-tuned universe concept is that there is no direct evidence to support it. It's basically the equivalent of saying "well it just has to be!" Yes, if things were different, things would be different. But that doesn't mean that something made things just so, especially when there is no evidence to support anything other than nature made it just so.

There are a couple things at play here, in my opinion.

1) It's kind of a chicken and the egg argument. Did something create these quantitative anomalies that have allowed life to exist? Or did the anomalies exist already, and then things naturally adapted to them? Ultimately that's a philosophical argument, not scientific.

2) I don't think human beings like to admit that nature is smarter than we are. As such, instead of observing nature in its magnitude and majesty, and allowing ourselves to simply be a cog in that wheel, we instead ascribe the inner workings of nature to the varying whims of a distant cosmological being (who, coincidentally, created us in his image, and how awesome are we?). In this way, we seek to further our dominion over nature. OUR god created you, nature. You didn't create us. Smacks of hubris.

There's no conclusive evidence to support any proposed explanation. This is an integral part of why its a controversial subject with a lack of consensus. A fine-tuned universe has as much supporting evidence as any theory which would presume to provide an explanation. This precedent does much to defuse criticisms which complain on grounds of evidence.

I think entropy is the deciding factor. The general precedent in terms of matter and energy is for them to become less complex over time. Complex things like BMWs, space shuttles, cities. Anything with a complex physical structure will eventually degrade to a less complex form. Whether its a BMW degrading into rust or a city eventually becoming a mound of earth. Energy and matter generally become less complex over time as opposed to the opposite.

This may suggest that the only explanation for life on earth and its precedent of gradually increasing complexity is one of design.

Its certainly a better explanation than suggesting an infinite number of parallel universes exist, and we simply live in the one where a number of statistically unlikely scenarios occurred in an effort to circumvent probability.

I'm not doing my point of view justice. Poopsy.

 

[CassinoChips]

A fine-tuned universe has as much supporting evidence as any theory which would presume to provide an explanation. This precedent does much to defuse criticisms which complain on grounds of evidence.

The "evidence," though, is indirect. Because to prove a fine-tuned universe, you'd first have to prove design. Thus, you'd have to prove the existence of a deity. The fine-tuned universe, like most things involving "proving" something was the work of a deity, is simply retroactively fitting a square peg into a hole that vaguely resembles a square.

Complex things like BMWs, space shuttles, cities. Anything with a complex physical structure will eventually degrade to a less complex form. Whether its a BMW degrading into rust or a city eventually becoming a mound of earth. Energy and matter generally become less complex over time as opposed to the opposite.

Ideas don't degrade. Also, your BMW is a single item. Evolution works on a broader scale, as in multiple items interacting with each other over time. So does Creationism for that matter. So the analogy doesn't jive.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I would contend creationism is science.

Certain parts of the any creationist view are definitely science. Insofar as the claims they make can be tested or observed. The claim that the earth is 6000 years old, for example, can be disproven with evidence and observation. Just because it can qualify as "scientific" doesn't mean that it is sensible or accurate.

The concept that the universe and reality we experience were designed is a viable scientific concept.

It's not. It can't be observed, tested, and there is no evidence for or against the existence of a "design" or a "designer". It's a non-falsifiable question, just like the question of the existence of a deity.

Statistically it makes far greater sense for the universe to have been designed than for multiverses and other statistical defeating mechanisms being necessary to explain the verifiable unlikelihood of current day reality.

How does it make more statistical sense? What observations are you basing that off of? The probability of a designer can't even be measured. It can't make more statistical sense just because one sounds more plausible to you than another alternative.

I would contend that there is some atheistic and naturalist bias present in science, business, and political sectors which causes scientific research in these areas to be biased and flawed in favor of naturalist explanations.

What you view as bias, I view as rationality. Materialism is the perspective in science because that is what is observable, quantifiable, and testable. If it's not any of those things, then it is completely useless to make any attempt at an objective claim. Such questions that fall outside of materialism are the domain of philosophy. And, well, we already have philosophy - why shoehorn these things into science?

I recognize many will rally around the modern day myth that there is no "evidence" for creationism.
That is why I'm posting this:
Scientific evidence for creationism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

That's not evidence, though. All that those observations indicate is that the conditions for life (as we know it, anyway) hinges on a very specific set of conditions. That doesn't indicate anything.

To say that it is evidence for anything is a fallacy of false cause. The reason why is because the existence of a designer is not required for these conditions of life to exist as they do. It could simply be (and is in my world view) chance.

Yes, that chance may be or seem incredibly unlikely, but I counter with this (as this part is definitely a philosophical argument): It does not matter how low the chance of life existing as it does is, because we would not be here to observe or even question it if it didn't occur. The low chance is completely moot. In the measure of infinity, what is happening currently and what has happened is inevitable.

 

[Drachnon]

I think entropy is the deciding factor. The general precedent in terms of matter and energy is for them to become less complex over time. Complex things like BMWs, space shuttles, cities. Anything with a complex physical structure will eventually degrade to a less complex form. Whether its a BMW degrading into rust or a city eventually becoming a mound of earth. Energy and matter generally become less complex over time as opposed to the opposite.

Actually its not exactly true that things always become less complex if we look at the elemental table and our understanding of the universe we started of with just hydrogen and through nuclear fusion we got the other, more 'complex', stuff.

Also entropy is very reliant on the second law of thermal dynamics which only works in a closed system. And we don't yet know if the universe that we know of is a closed system.

On the subject of a fine tuned universe I always want to know: Fine tuned for what?

 

[Richard B Riddick]

The "evidence," though, is indirect. Because to prove a fine-tuned universe, you'd first have to prove design. Thus, you'd have to prove the existence of a deity. The fine-tuned universe, like most things involving "proving" something was the work of a deity, is simply retroactively fitting a square peg into a hole that vaguely resembles a square.

There is as much evidence for design as there is for no design.

If the alternatives to creationism are not conclusively proven you're creating a double standard by expecting more from one explanation than another.

Ideas don't degrade. Also, your BMW is a single item. Evolution works on a broader scale, as in multiple items interacting with each other over time. So does Creationism for that matter. So the analogy doesn't jive.

Data stored on a hard disk degrades over time. Ideas degrade as well.

Its not interactions which are important. But structure and complexity and whether or not they can reasonably be maintained over time.

A satellite having a stable orbit over earth for a prolonged period of time is an example of entropy being defied. Organisms propagating over thousands of years without their genetic code failing may very well be a bonafide example of entropy being defeated, which may imply design is a key element.

It's not. It can't be observed, tested, and there is no evidence for or against the existence of a "design" or a "designer". It's a non-falsifiable question, just like the question of the existence of a deity.

Not everything in science is required to be testable.

Dark matter was considered a legitimate theory when it couldn't be tested as were higgs boson, string theory, and any number of things.

As said, the alternatives to creationism generally cannot be tested any more than creationism can. Therefore to suggest otherwise creates a double standard.

How does it make more statistical sense? What observations are you basing that off of? The probability of a designer can't even be measured. It can't make more statistical sense just because one sounds more plausible to you than another alternative.

It helps if you understand multiverses.

The statistical probability of the universe occurring the way it did is so ridiculously unlikely the best materialist leaning scientists have been able to manage is to say that there are an INFINITE number of parallal universes. Therefore the number of universes being infinite a number of unlikely if not impossible scenarios must have played out in one of said infinite parallel universes. The one we live in just happens to be said one.

Its more probable statistically and feasible from a probability standpoint to simply say: it was designed.

But considering the tendency for people to bend facts and statistics to suit their own beliefs and self interests. It is quite possible atheists in science are willing to sacrifice their academic and ethical credibility to ensure that the facts are suppressed in favor of their own belief system.

What you view as bias, I view as rationality. Materialism is the perspective in science because that is what is observable, quantifiable, and testable. If it's not any of those things, then it is completely useless to make any attempt at an objective claim. Such questions that fall outside of materialism are the domain of philosophy. And, well, we already have philosophy - why shoehorn these things into science?

Then what's the point of politics or economics if they apparently cannot identify or recognize an imminent global economic catastrophe until its 24-48 hours away?

Its possible you have an unrealistic expectation that everything in the world should conform to a standard of hard empirical science. Unrealistic at best.

That's not evidence, though. All that those observations indicate is that the conditions for life (as we know it, anyway) hinges on a very specific set of conditions. That doesn't indicate anything.

Why does it not indicate anything?

Be specific please.

To say that it is evidence for anything is a fallacy of false cause. The reason why is because the existence of a designer is not required for these conditions of life to exist as they do. It could simply be (and is in my world view) chance. [/font]

The conception that a designer is not necessary is an urban myth.

Substantiate it please.

Yes, that chance may be or seem incredibly unlikely, but I counter with this (as this part is definitely a philosophical argument): It does not matter how low the chance of life existing as it does is, because we would not be here to observe or even question it if it didn't occur. The low chance is completely moot. In the measure of infinity, what is happening currently and what has happened is inevitable.

The probability of a satellite orbiting the earth in a stable orbit for a prolonged period of time is very unlikely from a statistical perspective.

To simply say that it occurring is a justifiable substantiation in and of itself is unreasonable and lacks proper explanation. A good scientist would never be satisfied with not being able to explain precisely why such a thing occurred.

To suggest that its of no importance perhaps shows bias and an intrinsic need to bend facts and statistics to suit preconceived notions.

Actually its not exactly true that things always become less complex if we look at the elemental table and our understanding of the universe we started of with just hydrogen and through nuclear fusion we got the other, more 'complex', stuff.

Also entropy is very reliant on the second law of thermal dynamics which only works in a closed system. And we don't yet know if the universe that we know of is a closed system.

On the subject of a fine tuned universe I always want to know: Fine tuned for what?

Its not enough that we can identify: "some things become more complex over time". This says absolutely nothing in regard to whether design or an alternative explanation serves as the most likely cause of said precedent.

Abstracts such as closed vs open systems are relative. Is there a difference between a small closed system and an open system which is larger. The main differences deal with number of variables. Entropy can demonstrably function on a small scale. Does this precedent imply it cannot be applied on a larger scale as well? No. Why then this prejudice of entropy appearing only in small scale scenarios?

Fine tuned for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Apologies if I'm not being as crisp with my explanations as I would like.

I just woke up and feel woozy.

 

[Drachnon]

Well the wikipedia page you referred to claims its for life so lets look at that.
How much life is there in the universe? I personally believe there's other planets then earth that have life (intelligent or not) but if we look at the number of planets in total I think we can conclude that if someone/thing has "fine tuned" the universe for life it didn't do a very good job. And then we are not even looking at the space between all those planets.

The idea of fine tuning is that if you change one constant and not the others life/existance as we know it is not possible. There are two important things to keep in mind from that.
-One constant
-As we know it

If all constants vary between each dimension there are an infinite number of dimension if unique sets if constants while still capable of maintaining life.

Also while life the way we know it wouldn't exist it could and most likely would exists in another form.

Back to entropy, you claim entropy suggest that the complexity of life is one of design. However if entropy itself is not applicable to the situation its support for design also falls. A living creature is not a closed system, energy and matter are added to it during its life. In such a system entropy doesn't matter.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Not everything in science is required to be testable.

I didn't say it had to be testable, I said it wasn't testable in addition to not being observable and having no evidence indicating it.

Dark matter was considered a legitimate theory when it couldn't be tested as were higgs boson, string theory, and any number of things.

That's because those theories actually function on math and the operation of unobserved forces (though we can observe the effects of said things). You can quantify the amount of dark matter and energy in the universe based on evidence. Doesn't mean it's correct, but there you go. The idea that there is a designer is nothing more than an idea - it can't be quantifiably measured in any more sense other than "Was the universe designed? y/n" and even then there's no evidence to support anything more than a hypothesis.

As said, the alternatives to creationism generally cannot be tested any more than creationism can. Therefore to suggest otherwise creates a double standard.

I wasn't suggesting that any of them can be tested, actually read what I wrote.

Its more probable statistically and feasible from a probability standpoint to simply say: it was designed.

No, it's not. Statistics and probability are based on observation. The notion of a designer has nothing to observe, there is no probability to speculate over. A designer necessitates something completely outside every natural observation ever made about the universe. The low probability of things being the way they are does not necessitate the existence of an insubstantial alternative. Besides, it's a fallacy of false choice. "There's a low probability of these things occurring, so the only alternative is a designer". It could be something else hitherto not considered or one of the unlikely explanations.

to ensure that the facts are suppressed in favor of their own belief system.

There are no facts that support creationism to suppress.

Then what's the point of politics or economics if they apparently cannot identify or recognize an imminent global economic catastrophe until its 24-48 hours away?

What does this have anything to do with what I said? What are you referencing with that time frame, and how does that discount economics?

Its possible you have an unrealistic expectation that everything in the world should conform to a standard of hard empirical science. Unrealistic at best.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I said that science should conform to a standard of hard empirical science, not everything else. I even used a philosophical argument in that post. It's just that things that aren't science shouldn't be forced into science. Think what you will about non-falsifiable things, but get them the hell out of science. They belong in philosophy or religion.

Why does it not indicate anything? Be specific please.

All that it indicates is that our current parameters and life as we know it is unlikely. That's all. This does not necessitate the existence of a design and does not exclude the possibility of other forms or standards of life.

The conception that a designer is not necessary is an urban myth. Substantiate it please.

I can't substantiate it because it's non-falsifiable. Just like you can't substantiate that it is necessary.

Urban myth? No, Bloody Mary is an urban myth. Don't throw out buzzwords to attempt to discredit a point.

The greatest burden of proof lies on the person making a claim that something IS and the lesser lies upon the claim that something IS NOT. This is why the logical standpoint is disbelief, which is why I logically disbelieve the existence of a designer. Creationism/design relies entirely on the misinterpretation of data and the fallacies of false cause and false choice as well as the idea that if it isn't disproven, it must be true.

To simply say that it occurring is a justifiable substantiation in and of itself is unreasonable and lacks proper explanation.

The explanation is that, given a view of infinite time, all situations are inevitable (that's how infinity works). Things may have a probability of occurring, but once they have occurred it is pointless to try and invalidate them because the event has already passed. Retrospectively, it is inevitable.

A good scientist would never be satisfied with not being able to explain precisely why such a thing occurred.

That's well and good, but I even stated it was a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

To suggest that its of no importance perhaps shows bias and an intrinsic need to bend facts and statistics to suit preconceived notions.

What facts or statistics was I misrepresenting? It was a philosophical argument that I was making. There wasn't anything to bend.

The belief in a designer is a problematic one from any rational perspective. It is non-falsifiable, which means that, by its nature, the very existence of a designer can never be factually proven or disproven, making it outside the field of science. There are no facts to observe regarding a designer, so no theory can be formulated. Even if someone was to postulate observable conditions for a designer, this would not indicate the existence of one. I can provide observable conditions for the existence of wizards, but this will not prove their existence. A designer is an idea which, no matter how far and how well science explains the universe, the designer can exist outside of our observation because it is by definition greater than us.

It is for these reasons that this should not be taught as science. Religion or philosophy? Perfectly fine. But to try and place it within science is to misrepresent everything the field is.