Creationism in Schools?

[CassinoChips]

But then what about separation of church and state? It does exist, right?

Certainly. However, teaching about Christianity (even at the exclusion of any/all other religion) is different than foisting Christianity on a student or forcing a student to participate in Christian rituals.

So if schools are handled at the state level, and separation of church and state exists, then it shouldn't even be teaching religion at all.

Why? Religion is a significant aspect of our world, and shapes 90% (opinion stat) of our world's views. It would be doing students a disservice to not be taught about one of the strongest forces in our world.

They can probably teach that the people in the Medieval ages believed in Christianity, and that their governments were based off of it, but I doubt they'd be required to teach more than what is necessary in order to know what Christianity is (that there is a central belief in a god and a savior, Jesus).

Depends on the class. If it's an survey type class, probably. If it's a Medieval history class, the Church and government were so intertwined you couldn't really understand one without the other. If it were a World Cultures type class, where one was taught about several different religions, there would necessarily be some depth to it.

But for a more significant example, take the Salem witch trials. You could say "women were accused of witchcraft and were burned at the stake because of it." Which is true and factual. But it's superficial. Without plumbing the depths of Christianity as to why they were so adamant about stamping out witchcraft, you can't really critically analyze the situation. Anne Hutchinson, same concept. Christianity, for better or worse (and I would agree generally worse), has played a large part in American history, and it necessitates more emphasis on it than other religions. Judaism, Islam, and other religions simply don't hold the sway over American history that Christianity does.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Certainly. However, teaching about Christianity (even at the exclusion of any/all other religion) is different than foisting Christianity on a student or forcing a student to participate in Christian rituals.

I can understand teaching about Christianity, and I can even understand why they would give it the most time (seeing as it's been the main religion shaping western society, and countless literature references it). But the entire problem, is that word "about."

People pushing for creationism in schools don't want to teach about Christianity, they want to teach it. I don't mind teaching about a religion in school (and think schools could stand to do more of it, but with a variety of religions), but once you start teaching one, it's indoctrination. A scary thought, regardless of legality.

 

[CassinoChips]

I can understand teaching about Christianity, and I can even understand why they would give it the most time (seeing as it's been the main religion shaping western society, and countless literature references it). But the entire problem, is that word "about."

People pushing for creationism in schools don't want to teach about Christianity, they want to teach it. I don't mind teaching about a religion in school (and think schools could stand to do more of it, but with a variety of religions), but once you start teaching one, it's indoctrination. A scary thought, regardless of legality.

I don't disagree. But I will just add that my post there was mainly in reference to Christianity being taught in a History class setting. I would agree that Creationism has no place in a Science class, other than a passing mention of "there are those who believe in Creationism."

 

[Roland_Deschain]

So you're saying you're not willing to consider other people's comments about your arguments or opinions?

I disagree that Christianity needs more emphasis in history; there are already more than enough ignorant Americans who don't know anything about the cultures outside of them, and it's a problem because they have closed their minds off to other cultures and other people's ways of thinking and living, and they probably don't care about these people; that's probably also why they're not even aware of what their own government is doing to other countries.

First of all I am an american who lives in a foreign country (china) and works here. Its my second time here and I have been here quite a while. I am open minded and aware of many things. You should read my profile before you assume how I think based off of one simple topic...Im not even a religious person! Yet I garuntee that in other countries when it comes to teaching a religion that they put focus on the religion that has affected their own country the most. Im am not saying we should force people to follow the religion, only saying that it would be good to know where the majority of america first stood on religion and where the meanings of many of our holidays come from.

Im willing to meet those who are agaisnt it halfway by saying perhaps a class should be made about teaching creationalism and make it an optional class and not a required credit, honestly if that were the case there would be plenty of time to teach other religions as well. Yet if we are talking about sticking it in a history class than hell yeah you have too focus on the religions that pertain to the countrys history before the ones that have almost nothing to do with it.

And saying that their are enough Iggnorant americans is a low blow stereotype and a pretty bold statment for someone who comes from canada eh? I mean I grew up in different parts of the country and I have never had beliefs forced upon me...and have met a vast variety of people who all think very differently. There is no way to stereotype us on beliefs because we have a great variety of different beliefs. Also you are dangerously close too dipping your toes in politics when talking about our government playing the game faul....because while it may be true...we are not the only ones =). And you should know that the goverments choice doesnt mean the peoples choice.

 

[der Astronom]

First of all I am an american who lives in a foreign country (china) and works here. Its my second time here and I have been here quite a while, I have been to other countries as well. I am open minded and aware of many things. You should read my profile before you assume how I think based off of one simple topic...Im not even a religious person! Yet I garuntee that in other countries when it comes to teaching a religion that they put focus on the religion that has affected their own country the most. Im am not saying we should force people to follow the religion, only saying that it would be good to know where the majority of america first stood on religion and where the meanings of many of our holidays come from.

Did I specifically say you were ignorant? No, so don't put the words in my mouth. I just said there are enough ignorant Americans, but that doesn't mean I think you're ignorant.

Im willing to meet those who are agaisnt it halfway by saying perhaps a class should be made about teaching creationalism and make it an optional class and not a required credit, honestly if that were the case there would be plenty of time to teach other religions as well. Yet if we are talking about sticking it in a history class than hell yeah you have too focus on the religions that pertain to the countrys history before the ones that have almost nothing to do with it.

As with what Jquestionmark said, it's fine so long as it's teaching about it, and not teaching it.

And saying that their are enough Iggnorant americans is a low blow stereotype and a pretty bold statment for someone who comes from canada eh? I mean I grew up in different parts of the country and I have never had beliefs forced upon me...and have met a vast variety of people who all think very differently. There is no way to stereotype us on beliefs because we have a great variety of different beliefs.

There are ignorant people everywhere. I just happen to think putting more emphasis on one's own history does nothing for the ignorance and misconceptions people have of other cultures.

And here's the difference between Canada and the States. In Canada, all cultures are accepted as they are. In the States, you take all the cultures and mash them into one--that's what they call the melting pot. So what ends up happening is that you get a diluted version of the original culture in the States, and I suppose the only way to get the original is to actually go there yourself.

Also you are dangerously close too dipping your toes in politics when talking about our government playing the game faul....because while it may be true...we are not the only ones =). And you should know that the goverments choice doesnt mean the peoples choice.

So what? That in no way absolves the foul things your own government has done. Just because Hitler killed a million Jews doesn't mean American governments haven't done anything wrong.

Here's the thing. We live in a democracy (or I would like to hope so), and we pick our leaders. So if you are being ignorant about the things your own government does to people, you can't make an informed choice. You cannot say anything against your government unless you know they are doing something you don't agree with, and being ignorant about it is not going to help.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

The bottom line is, and you can sit here deny and argue all you want, but the U.S. was built on religion. There's just no way around that fact.
This is f*cking blasphemy.

This is exactly why creationism should be taught in schools .

 

[der Astronom]

The bottom line is, and you can sit here deny and argue all you want, but the U.S. was built on religion. There's just no way around that fact.
This is f*cking blasphemy.

This is exactly why creationism should be taught in schools .

No it wasn't. The constitution was created to protect people's rights for freedom of (or from) religion. That it still persists is through bending of the rules.

And if creationism should be taught in schools, then I think people should have a closer look at the constitution in school as well. Particularly the parts about church and state separation.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

No it wasn't. The constitution was created to protect people's rights for freedom of (or from) religion. That it still persists is through bending of the rules.

And if creationism should be taught in schools, then I think people should have a closer look at the constitution in school as well. Particularly the parts about church and state separation.

Yeah, and maybe you should just go to school in general.

Here you go trying to hide behind an amendment because science has obviously gone way too f*cking far and should be questioned on. The amendment surely means to exempt animosity, and surely having it in base philosophy is not discriminate.

I'm a U.S. citizen, not a Canadian who happily hides from war while I am drafted into hell. Welcome to reality, bro. Amendments are majority, not rightousness. Don't try to quote this country.

Having creationism in study is not violating the amendment, but actually exemplifying it.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Well I apologize because I thought you were adding me to the grouping of iggnorant americans. And I agree there are ignorant people everywhere, yet I disagree that america is really that different from accepting people as they are. Its one of the main reasons we still have china towns in major citys. You will always be accepted for who you are and if you merge into one culture or lose your own than it is no ones fault but your own because outside of the laws that exsist there is nothing that forces you to change except for the enviorment around you, and if you bend your culture and habits to your enviorment than perhaps your own cultural habits were not as strong as presumed and maybe deep down you wanted them to change. I have seen many people of different cultures refuse to bend to change and many that changed halfway and many that were abandoned...the choice is always yours.

P.S A great movie for the meltingpot term you mentioned is an indian movie called "the namesake". Its a good example of how some people change and others just cant. I saw it the other night.

Yet it seems all along that I am on the same terms with almost all the things everyone else has said and that it has become mute and perhaps a little off topic.

The only thing I disagree with you at this point is that if teaching creationism is taught in a history class (In America) than I would still put the most emphasis on christian religions due to its affect on american culture and also other parts of the world. And yes you teach about it...but not forced to believe it.

 

[DKnight]

I may be a little late on the conversation since a bit of it has turned into how religions affects politics, but i did find the subject to be a bit interesting. I myself believe that it is a subject that should be taught in schools. It is a subject that is being discussed within certain scientific communities, and research is being done to find truth. A good number of the people that look to it as a possibility are not religious people at all. they are in fact agnostic. The subject of creationism is just as relevant as the subject of evolution.
And Yes evolution does have gaps in physical evidence. Even a proper anthropologist would admit this. They use theories tho fill these gaps, just as some scientist use theories to explain how the universe became organized instead of complete chaos.
There was once a time when evolution was not allowed to be taught in a class room, and now it is quite the opposite. I believe that it should at least be presented in general science classes, and allowed to be taught in a class that people can choose to register for.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I'm a U.S. citizen, not a Canadian who happily hides from war while I am drafted into hell.

No reason to make this into an "us versus them" thing. Just because someone is not a part of the group does not mean they can't criticize it. An outside perspective is important.

Amendments are majority, not rightousness. Don't try to quote this country.

The Bill of Rights and the amendments to them protect minorities from tyranny of the majority, so I'd argue that it's the opposite of what you're claiming. I view them as necessary, righteousness has nothing to do with it. I really have no idea what your last sentence means.

Having creationism in study

Studying it and teaching it are two very different things. We should promote study of every current religion, or at least as many as is feasible. But presenting it as anything other than what some people believe is foolish. There's no reason to go "Well, it could be possible...". If people want to believe it, they will. Otherwise we might as well preempt education of the moon landing and the holocaust with "Well, some people believe they didn't happen, so it's possible that they didn't."

The subject of creationism is just as relevant as the subject of evolution.

I agree with this, at least in part. They are both relevant, but they are not even close to similar things. Their origins and validity are quite different.

And Yes evolution does have gaps in physical evidence. Even a proper anthropologist would admit this.

To say that there's 'gaps' in the physical evidence for evolution would be to say that there's 'gaps' in the physical evidence for the theory of gravity because we haven't been able to observe every instance of gravitational force in the history of the universe. Nothing has gone against it yet, everything has conformed to it, so until something begins to contradict it there is no conflict. This is how theories work. They are ideas supported by evidence that explain observable phenomena. And if things were to contradict them at one point, then they would be modified to incorporate this new information or remade entirely. Beliefs founded upon faith do not work the same way.

There was once a time when evolution was not allowed to be taught in a class room, and now it is quite the opposite. I believe that it should at least be presented in general science classes, and allowed to be taught in a class that people can choose to register for.

In that case, do you think that people should have a choice whether they learn about history? Or mathematics? Geology? Do you think that someone who doesn't believe in plate tectonics should be able to opt out of a class that teaches it, because it conflicts with their irrational beliefs?

As an aside, though it's related to the discussion:

Why you believe something is even more important than what you believe. Even if what you believe is correct (or is found to be correct), that is meaningless if your belief in it was founded in irrationality.

 

[Emyunoxious]

And Yes evolution does have gaps in physical evidence.

NO.

Even a proper anthropologist would admit this.

No true scotsman fallacy as a mofo. They wouldn't, because they'd be wrong. We know how the processes of evolution work. We might not know every species that has ever existed.

But we also don't know every atom that has ever existed, and this is no problem for atomic theory.

Samesies for evolution.

There was once a time when evolution was not allowed to be taught in a class room [and creationism was], and now it is quite the opposite. I believe that it should at least be presented in general science classes, and allowed to be taught in a class that people can choose to register for.

There was once a time when chemistry was not allowed to be taught in a class room [and alchemy was], and now it is quite the opposite. I believe that it should at least be presented in general science classed, and allowed to be taught in a class that people can choose to register for.

See, when we have real science that takes the place of a myth, we don't do a disservice to students by teaching both sides: The right one and the wrong one.

We just teach the right one.

We teach evolution and chemistry, not creationism and alchemy.

 

[Hera Ledro]

There's no objective reality?

Then why even post? You can't know that anyone else exists.

Absolutely I know that other people exist; that's the entire point. Yes, there is a reality - or a person - which everybody can see, but we cannot see it objectively because of the fact that we are sapient, sentient beings. We have opinions, we have views, we have all of these things that remove us from the objective stance because we interpret them in different ways. It's called diversity.

No. In my worldview, I am much superior to you, and everyone else.

And that is your worldview. You will not see the world the way I see it and I doubt I can become so arrogant as to see the world the way you see it; again, this is diversity.

Well, that's true.

Just like Gravity.

And Germ theory.

And the Big Bang Theory.

And Cell theory.

Plate tectonics.

Atomic theory.

Kinetic theory of gases.

Theory of relativity.

String theory.

You know, if you look at the word "theory" long enough, it doesn't even look like a word.

All theories are unprovable.

That's why they're theories, buddy.

You seem sadly misinformed as to the nature of a theory. A theory is not unprovable in its nature - when a theory is proven it becomes a law, such as the law of gravity. Gravity is a law, not a theory; we can scientifically prove that it exists, in laboratory conditions or not. Theories are not necessarily unprovable, but once proven they change and become physical laws.

I agree with the analogy that religious people are deaf, dumb, and blind to large portions of reality due to the self-imposed blinders provided by their faith, but I haven't read your post, so here I hope that's what you mean.

...

Oh.

oh.

I really didn't want this to be where you were going with this.

So, you're saying that religious people have a ~*~MAGICAL SENSE~*~ that allows them to perceive a part of reality that other people are incapable of being aware of?

I know you're just sort of proposing this, but if you could explain how this works, I would much appreciate it. Is it like other senses? Because we can't just turn off our other senses, you know.

Are atheists born without this sense? Is atheism a disability? If so, I would like my special parking spot.

In a way, I suppose I am saying it is a magical sense. As for how it works, your guess is as good as mine; all I can say is that it is proposed by many theorists such as Quinn and Wainwright to establish a connection with the divine. And in no way are non-religious people born without this sense, but we are cut off because of our unwillingness to indulge in this sense. Theoretically, it could be established through conversion, and there have been cases where people who convert end up much happier and think that they are connected to the divine. Is it true? I don't know, and I doubt it, but there have been too many cases to ignore.

In order to make these two compatible, it requires a misunderstanding of both Genesis and the Theory of Evolution.

I never said they were compatible, I said that they would remain incompatible, but that people would not jump down each others' throats for it. And there are religio-scientific theories that combine the two with some degree of credibility; I will not claim to understand or agree with them, but for others they seem to work.

Thrice-damned? These are not the cities of Gorol, the first of the akuma, the first of the fallen exalts. These are human societies, and I, myself, can stand as a testament to the fact that humans will never get along. I am right. They are wrong, and I will fight any invaders who would attempt to change these values.

I will never exist in peace.

Well, to go a bit off-topic and more personal, I pity you then; you are limited to the people you can socialize with due to your arrogance. I have no such limitations; I may not believe what my friends believe, but I can still get along with them because I don't think their culture matters, it's the person that matters. Religions are only as evil as the people who use them for evil.

"This assumes that there is an objective reality, which is something it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on. For the purpose of this discussion, we cannot so arrogantly assume that there is an overlying reality that all people experience; the world is viewed through subjective eyes, and how you perceive the world (as evidenced through our differing opinions) is not necessarily how I see the world, nor necessarily how the majority of the world feels."

There is an objective reality.

What you are talking about is perception of an objective reality- that can be subjective. You little example makes no sense- just because the child can't see the ball doesn't mean it isn't there.

And that is exactly my point: just because we cannot sense something, or because we choose not to engage in sensory perception of that something, it does not mean that it is not there. We have our choices, and if we choose not to engage in the necessary sensory perception then we can neither prove something is there nor prove that it is not. It is external to our allowed abilities, and therefore we cannot prove it one way or the other.

If we're going to say all of reality is subjective, since in my subjective reality all of you are projections of my desire to be entertained, I may as well stop posting. No one outside myself actually exists (and since reality is subjective, and not objective, that is true), so I don't have to feel bad if I steal, injure, or kill.

No, we don't all receive identical information about the world, but this isn't reliable evidence that reality is subjective. This is just evidence that we all have different sensory organs. It doesn't imply inherent subjectivity in the source, just in our perception of it.

You have misinterpreted my post. I am not saying that other people do not exist, but rather that all who exist cannot possibly view the world in an objective fashion. See the above replies in this post for what I hope is a clearer statement of my belief. To elaborate a little more and to entertain your misinterpretation, just because existence is questionable does not mean we cannot go about our daily lives thinking others are there. Are you sitting at your computer reading this post? I have reason to believe so, since you have made a reply to a previous one. In essence, I do not believe for a moment that other people don't exist, but that I cannot delve accurately into the way they view the world nor separate myself from my own view of the world for, as a human, I have set notions about how it works. If some evidence that appealed to my current set of beliefs also rocked those beliefs and made me begin to think of the world in a different way, then who am I to say no? To pull this back on-topic, this is precisely the problem that creationists and evolutionists keep butting heads over: they believe that their way is right, whereas one is subjective in the extreme and the other believes that they are objective in the extreme (erroneously, in my opinion).

We're quite aware it's unprovable. There is no scientific theory that is unprovable. All of them in use (such as evolution) are just currently not disproven. Evolution is supported by evidence, though, which is not something we can say for creationism.

I agree, and that's why I favour evolution and atheism as my world views, but that's not to say that Christians or Taoists or what have you do not have evidence internal to their religion that supports their view on the origins of the world. Our evidence as scientists is internal to our senses, but (as I have elaborated on previously) religious people may have a connection to the divine that we do not have which puts them into contact with a more divine source. Whether it exists or not is questionable, but it has been proposed and should therefore be looked at with a critical eye. To be a bit more concise, evolution is scientifically supported, but that scientific support is only experienced by scientists; do not think for a moment that if you had read the papers and propositions on evolution that I have from my position as a literary and religious critic, you would understand the entirety of them. The metatheories and subtheories are incredibly complex, and if we think about just how precise evolution has to be it becomes even more complex. Much like the majority of Christians are to YHWH, I am not in direct contact with the scientific expertise necessary to understand evolution in its entirety, and so I like them decide to go along with the theory that seems best to me. This is all that is happening in religion; people are following the theory/myth/whatever that best appeals to their senses.

The problem is, the people with the senses that the child lack could simply be lying to the child. Maybe they don't really have the senses. Maybe there is no such thing as color. The example is interesting, and it is sad that the hypothetical child is unable to see, but if we're talking about her perspective, there's no guarantees that the information she's being given beyond her senses are accurate (especially if the majority of people are blind, which would be necessary to make the example relevant to having a "religious sense").

You are right, they could be, but the child has no way of telling. It is entirely up to that child to decide whether she wants to adopt the belief that there is a hollow red ball or not based on the evidence she is given. What if that person was somebody she'd trusted all her life? Then she would be justified in adopting an erroneous belief; she has no reason to think that the other person would lie to her.

This is interesting, but there was an experiment conducted in the 70s that points to religious experience being wholly unreliable. Basically, these "special" experiences are easy to create with powerful hallucinogenics (LSD/shrooms). Not to mention the majority of people with "religious experiences" could have simply been experiencing powerful emotional responses, or had hallucinations caused by deprivation of various sorts.

Yes, they are, but what about trances and other 'mystical experiences' which are not created by hallucinogenics or deprivations? What about the ones that have seemingly no external cause? We cannot ignore them simply because they are similar to something which is scientifically proven; the proposition is that they have not been created artificially, and we must take that into account if we are to challenge their validity and credibility.

What validity or credibility does creationism have? Or, to be more specific, does it have any above any other creation story ever, flying spaghetti monster included.

That depends on how well-fleshed-out the theory/myth is in its own practice; not how well-supported it is in its popularity, but how well-established it is within its own religion. Just because it is not valid to us does not mean it is not valid to others; again, I feel the hollow red ball analogy is appropriate. If a blind child is led to believe it and there are evidences described or demonstrated (e.g. "The ball is red"; the person holding the ball taps it and makes a sound) that she can understand, then she is justified in believing there is a hollow red ball. For other blind children who have been led to believe other things this may not hold true for them. Validity and credibility are, I suggest, subjective to the religions by which the belief is based out of.

Or it appeals to a world that doesn't exist. Why should we think that there's anything beyond this world? With all the insanely conflicting ideas of theoretical worlds which don't seem to interact with this one in a reliable or repeatable way, why should we think that any of them do exist? And why any specific one?

I couldn't answer this question with any accuracy if I tried. I have no reason to believe that Shiva will destroy and recreate the world, or that the Antichrist will come and so will begin the apocalypse or whatever. They do not coincide with my view of the world, but they do for others. In my opinion there is no afterlife, and there was no 'creation' of the world, but that opinion differs for other. I suppose I could ask you a question in lieu of the answer I could not possibly give: it is a fact that people choose their religions, so rather than ask why you or I should change to a specific view, should we not be asking all of them what made them change?

I have a hard time imagining a day in any future where religion and science will be considered of equal value. So long as the evidence we have remains similar to what it is now, and creationism remains religion, and evolution remains science, teaching children creationism will ALWAYS be religious indoctrination. This is not something we should ever condone in schools (not to mention, it's wholly unfair to all other creation stories).

I don't think it would be religious indoctrination if it was treated with the same nylon-glove objectivity that evolution is or should be. As long as it is brought out in the forefront in a religious studies class that this is a belief that is held by religious people with scientifically unreliable religious evidence, then the children could decide for themselves with their parents. I remember being pissed off to hell and back when I went to a mass with my school, and the pastor fabricated a Catholic vs. Atheist debate that demonized the Atheist and borderline deified the Catholic, and one of the arguments was that "I [the atheist] need proof to live my life, and cannot take things like the Creation of the World on faith". It was (not too subtly) being forced down our throats that atheism is wrong, and I think that this was the main cause of my vehement and unrelenting breakaway from the Catholic faith (which had been steadily going on for more than five years prior). If religious people think that atheists are so demonic, then I feel that I have to prove them wrong; we are people, not sacrilegious monsters. But, in my opinion, the same is true for the opposite as well, and it is why I feel that creationism is as internally valid to religious people as evolution is to you and I.

 

[Davey Gaga]

We were asked about this at Uni last year and the room of 500 people went in to uproar.

It is worth noting that evolution does not attempt to explain how life originated (science has a lot of ideas on that one, but there's no generally accepted theory on that one as of yet)

It does attempt to, there's just a difficulty in actually getting the evidence for it. At the very least, interpreting the evidence we have is difficult. I think the most famous theory is the whole "primordial soup" and the possibility of an RNA world.

I agree with the OP in that creationism and everything about it is not factual in any way, has religious background, and should not be in my science class. It annoyed me that it was even suggested. I'm studying biology, not ridiculous wishywashy beliefs of a higher being.

 

[der Astronom]

We were asked about this at Uni last year and the room of 500 people went in to uproar.


It does attempt to, there's just a difficulty in actually getting the evidence for it. At the very least, interpreting the evidence we have is difficult. I think the most famous theory is the whole "primordial soup" and the possibility of an RNA world.

I just wanted to point out that that isn't evolution; that's abiogenesis.

If abiogenesis were not true, it wouldn't in any way discredit evolution. That's why they're separate.

 

[Tmoo]

I may be a little late on the conversation since a bit of it has turned into how religions affects politics, but i did find the subject to be a bit interesting. I myself believe that it is a subject that should be taught in schools.(...)
There was once a time when evolution was not allowed to be taught in a class room, and now it is quite the opposite. I believe that it should at least be presented in general science classes, and allowed to be taught in a class that people can choose to register for.

my earlier post is similar to yours and i agree with you. unfortunately we've been drowned out by the debate raging on in this thread which is only tangentially related to the original topic (should creationism be taught in schools turned into evolution vs creationism). i figure this post too will be drowned by another 3 pages of quote battles soon, if not attacked by one of the frothing commenters for expressing my opinion.

 

[Emyunoxious]

Absolutely I know that other people exist; that's the entire point. Yes, there is a reality - or a person - which everybody can see, but we cannot see it objectively because of the fact that we are sapient, sentient beings. We have opinions, we have views, we have all of these things that remove us from the objective stance because we interpret them in different ways. It's called diversity.

So, you think there is an objective reality, but we perceive it subjectively?

Why didn't you just say that? Of course that's correct.

And that is your worldview. You will not see the world the way I see it and I doubt I can become so arrogant as to see the world the way you see it; again, this is diversity.

One day, I hope that you will come to know the majesty of my dark lord Satan.

You seem sadly misinformed as to the nature of a theory. A theory is not unprovable in its nature - when a theory is proven it becomes a law, such as the law of gravity. Gravity is a law, not a theory; we can scientifically prove that it exists, in laboratory conditions or not. Theories are not necessarily unprovable, but once proven they change and become physical laws.

WRONG.

A theory never becomes a law. Gravity is still a theory. A theory is the explanation of how the law works. A law is a simple explanation of what happens, while a theory is an explanation of why it happens. Even when we have a law, that law is not proven. Nothing is ever proven in science.

You are simply ignorant as to how these terms are used in scientific literature.

Proof only exists in math.


I can't go any further in my deconstruction of this post until you understand why you're wrong.

 

[Rydrum2112]

I just wanted to point out that that isn't evolution; that's abiogenesis.

If abiogenesis were not true, it wouldn't in any way discredit evolution. That's why they're separate.

der Astronom is right. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.

Sum1 you are nuts if you think america was founded on christian beliefs- just check the link I already provided.

"The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.' The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty."

Emyun is right, as I already stated the word theory, when used in science does NOT have the same meaning as in everyday language. The fact that you even argue that shows you aren't well read on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy#Arguments_relating_to_the_definition_and_limits_of_science

The word in science that means what you think theory means is hypothesis.

 

[Chivalry Augustus]

I don't have a problem with educating children about possibilities. But I don't really see the point of teaching creationism. I don't actually see the point of religious education in any form in schools. For me, it constitutes a waste of a serious amount of time that could be utilised in teaching children a more worthwhile subject, based in absolute fact, such as mathematics or one of the sciences. This might be controversial. But I feel that many children will simply be sitting in boredom, suffering under the revelation (within their minds) that every word being uttered is complete nonsense. Children nowadays seem to be inclined towards atheism, so why waste time trying to throw ideas they have already rejected towards them? Religion begins in the home, I feel. What people want to believe is up to them, and they can rationalise that as they grow older.

School is for developing the minds and social consciences of the future generations, not for throwing ideas at them. What will we gain by throwing these ideas at them? Are we hoping that they will stick for the sake of prolonging christianity? We should never teach christianity for christianity's sake, any more than we should teach any other religion. The positive benefits of having scientifically and mathematically minded children are clear. What are the benefits of having creationist minded children? I just fail to see the intent behind teaching creationism in schools. I fail to see the factual base for teaching creationism in schools. For what it's worth, I also don't see much point in promoting the theory of evolution in schools, beyond pointing to the existence of said theory.

The same applies to creationism. Let it be.

 

[Jquestionmark]

For what it's worth, I also don't see much point in promoting the theory of evolution in schools, beyond pointing to the existence of said theory.

What about the theory of gravity? Or germ theory? Or atomic theory? Should we leave all the theories out?

The bottom line is, and you can sit here deny and argue all you want, but the U.S. was built on religion. There's just no way around that fact.
This is f*cking blasphemy.

How is this blasphemy? What do you mean by that?

Yeah, and maybe you should just go to school in general.

This is a logical fallacy called ad hominem (not to mention it's a direct insult), as you are trying to imply that he hasn't been to school and that makes him inferior. I doubt you actually know if he's been to school or not, and either way, his lack of a formal education (if that was the case) would not make him wrong about anything he has said.

Here you go trying to hide behind an amendment because science has obviously gone way too f*cking far and should be questioned on.

It's only obvious to you. To most of us, science is well supported.

I'm a U.S. citizen, not a Canadian who happily hides from war while I am drafted into hell.

This is funny. As a Canadian, I'd like to point out a couple of things.

One: This is a direct insult (not that I'm actually insulted by it), which is against the rules of the board. Try to keep your insults to yourself, they don't need to be posted on here.

Two: Regardless of where you are a citizen of, it doesn't magically make your points valid, consistent, or logical. You have to do that, not your citizenship.

The subject of creationism is just as relevant as the subject of evolution.

What about evidence for creationism? They may be trying to find some, but that does not mean creationism is a theory: just a myth they want to back up.

Validity and credibility are, I suggest, subjective to the religions by which the belief is based out of.

I'd respond to the entire post, but I think this is where most of our disagreement lies. Validity and credibility in relation to an objective reality (I'm still not 100% sure if you think that reality is objective or subjective, but I'm going to assume you think there's an objective reality that we can only perceive subjectively, tell me if I'm wrong) are not subjective to religion: the religion is either wrong or right in relation to reality, period.