Religion forced into public schools

[Rekaar.]

The day I believe in your brand of evolutionism is the day you show me how matter was created, when time started, and you can explain how if matter is neither created nor destroyed and the law of entropy anything you think can be true.

You are using "infinite regression". <snip>

This form of reasoning is nigh impossible to refute, but does not allow you to build any meaningful logical constructs of your own without being hypocritical. I trust that you will view all of your own assumptions with the same skepticism.

Bravo, Arch. Well put. Everyone should be required to take basic logic in school.

It's extremely difficult to have a meaningful dialogue with someone who can't grasp the necessary consequences of their argument.

Most debates simply consist of trying to get the other party to see that their position implies other things they never thought of and would never agree to.

Of course, half the time they think you used some black magic to "twist" their words and fall back on blind faith in the end anyway. This is the number one reason I mostly lurk.

In case you missed it, my belief is that the topic will always be strictly a matter of faith. You can't prove your idea true and I can't prove mine. Evolution has supporting evidence, but it is no more conclusive for the random chance that had no beginning than for intelligent design.

You will never be able to answer the questions I posed. Your guess is as good as mine, and I have never labeled anyone that believes in darwinian evolution a crackpot. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

As to the original topic, why not include for reference competing mainstream theories on any topic in education? Shouldn't our children be educated on the topics and draw their own conclusions, rather than excluding relevant material? Evolution is purely conjecture and really it will always have that element. Isn't intelligent discussion vital to science?

I see no value in teaching either theory as absolute, but I do see value in teaching them both objectively for perspective. Similarly I think teaching about (not indoctrinating) the major religions should be essential. Proof that most are ignorant about them is abundant on this board alone

Edit: btw if the Creationism being taught is discounting evolutionary theory then I disagree. There are many different brands of Creationism and to each his own, but in a science class it should incorporate the science. Obviously this is why I choose private schools for my children.

[Tenuvil]

Btw, has anyone noticed that the only people here who screams about "creationism are the only way" and act like brainwashed cultists are some of the most avid Bush voters? (and yes, im positively surprised Midnyte )

Yes, there is certainly an observable correlation between hardcore fundamental Christian beliefs and rabid support of Bush. The funniest thing is that when pressed on the issue they scoff and call it a "myth."

[Siji]

The complete lack of evolution in the brain capacity of a number of people that visit this message board lead me to question the evolution theory.

I love the theory of God creating the world in a week. I also love how if you follow that theory, incest is how the human race got its start. Go go gadget religious dipshits.

[archeiron]

Edit: btw if the Creationism being taught is discounting evolutionary theory then I disagree. There are many different brands of Creationism and to each his own, but in a science class it should incorporate the science. Obviously this is why I choose private schools for my children.

Then we are in agreement. Educating children using Intelligent Design as an alternative "scientific theory" is not a proper move, and should not be covered in a science lesson.

Intelligent Design is a matter of faith, not science. It is not necessarily in opposition to evolution, in fact the two are quite compatible for reasonable, enlightened Christians. The problem arises when it is put forward as being on par with scientific theories as "fact" rather than "faith".

[Sueven]

You will never be able to answer the questions I posed. Your guess is as good as mine, and I have never labeled anyone that believes in darwinian evolution a crackpot. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

It is true that neither of us can prove our claims. There are some differences, however. There is some (not conclusive) evidence for evolutionary theory, and this body of evidence is being constantly evaluated and expanded. As more time passes, our knowledge of evolution becomes better and better. In contrast, there is no body of evidence backing up Christianity, there is no significant attempt to procure such evidence, and there is certainly no healthy skepticism regarding the validity of the doctrine. I wouldn't use the term 'crackpot' to describe you, but I would argue that your beliefs are objectively significantly less rational and reasonable than mine.

As to the original topic, why not include for reference competing mainstream theories on any topic in education? Shouldn't our children be educated on the topics and draw their own conclusions, rather than excluding relevant material? Evolution is purely conjecture and really it will always have that element. Isn't intelligent discussion vital to science?

Certainly I agree here. I disagree that creationism (or 'intelligent design' or whatever term you're using now) is such a 'competing mainstream theory.' First off, like I said before, evolution is a fact, not a theory. As Kelgar described it

Evolution does not explain nor does it attempt to explain the origins of life. Its key point has to do with adaptation/mutation. These 2 phenomena are easily and readily observable in organisms with short life spans(ie: viruses).

We have observed evolution. To the extent that anything can be considered factual, evolution is factual. Creationism is a myth which attempts to explain the origins of the universe. Evolution is basically the fact that organisms change over time due to mutation and heritability of characteristics. Saying "creationism should be taught as a theory which competes with evolution" doesn't make any sense because they don't attempt to explain the same things. If you want to teach the bible in English class or something, feel free.

I'm not really trying to criticize creationism. I just think this is a stupid argument because:

1. Evolution is a fact, not a theory, although many theories surround it.
2. Creationism has nothing to do with science and thus should not be taught in science classes, and
3. Evolution and Creationism explain different things and are not mutually exclusive.

[Sylvus]

Yeah, I have a bit of a problem with people using the argument that Evolution has no more basis in fact than Creationism. Evolution is a fact, regardless of whether or not we know the "patient zero" that started the evolutionary ball rolling. I'll give you that a big bearded guy in the sky could certainly have started it all in motion, I really don't know, but once it started things started evolving. It's asinine to try and say that evolution is not occurring right now all around us, and even more asinine to say that at one point, 5000 years ago or whenver, all species of animals were created at the same time.

That's what baffles me about Creationists.

[archeiron]

Yeah, I have a bit of a problem with people using the argument that Evolution has no more basis in fact than Creationism. Evolution is a fact, regardless of whether or not we know the "patient zero" that started the evolutionary ball rolling. I'll give you that a big bearded guy in the sky could certainly have started it all in motion, I really don't know, but once it started things started evolving. It's asinine to try and say that evolution is not occurring right now all around us, and even more asinine to say that at one point, 5000 years ago or whenver, all species of animals were created at the same time.

That's what baffles me about Creationists.

Evolution is a reasonable explanation for observable fact based upon over a century of research, scrutiny, revision, extrapolation, and clarification using valid scientific method subject to peer review and verification. As it is an abstract model used to describe the observable fact, it is not fact itself.

The qualification may seem unnecessarily to you, but often times minor semantics issues like this can be used against your position. You rassumptions and conclusions are essentially sound, but there was some loose structuring in your framework that was leaving you open to attack.

[Sylvus]

You rassumptions and conclusions are essentially sound, but there was some loose structuring in your framework that was leaving you open to attack.

From the clowns arguing the opposing side? I think not!

Sorry if I used the term "fact" a little more informally than I should have.

[Wulfran]

Evolution has supporting evidence, but it is no more conclusive for the random chance that had no beginning than for intelligent design.

And as previously stated by Animale, that is difference between theory and hypothesis: theory has some supporting evidence, hypothesis does not, but is believed to be a reasonable explantion. Creationism has no supporting evidence to make the step from hypothesis to theory.

Shouldn't our children be educated on the topics and draw their own conclusions, rather than excluding relevant material? Evolution is purely conjecture and really it will always have that element. Isn't intelligent discussion vital to science?

See above. If you want to share your opinions on various hypotheses with your children, that is your right as a parent (to share those thoughts with them personally or place them in an environment where they will be taught, but unless it has enough scientific evidence to support it even being a theory, it does not belong in a publcily funded science class. That you choose private schooling for your children is appropriate in this case but it still does not legitimize Creationism as a scientific theory.

There is no science to faith.

[archeiron]

Evolution has supporting evidence, but it is no more conclusive for the random chance that had no beginning than for intelligent design.

And as previously stated by Animale, that is difference between theory and hypothesis: theory has some supporting evidence, hypothesis does not, but is believed to be a reasonable explantion. Creationism has no supporting evidence to make the step from hypothesis to theory.

Shouldn't our children be educated on the topics and draw their own conclusions, rather than excluding relevant material? Evolution is purely conjecture and really it will always have that element. Isn't intelligent discussion vital to science?

See above. If you want to share your opinions on various hypotheses with your children, that is your right as a parent (to share those thoughts with them personally or place them in an environment where they will be taught, but unless it has enough scientific evidence to support it even being a theory, it does not belong in a publcily funded science class. That you choose private schooling for your children is appropriate in this case but it still does not legitimize Creationism as a scientific theory.

There is no science to faith.

Edit: btw if the Creationism being taught is discounting evolutionary theory then I disagree. There are many different brands of Creationism and to each his own, but in a science class it should incorporate the science. Obviously this is why I choose private schools for my children.

[Aabidano]

What surprises me is that the two ideas are not incompatible (evolution and creationism), but people insist on putting them at odds with one another because they insist on interpretting the Old Testament literally.

The more I learn the more convinced I am of god's existance. The odds against the chain of events that created us to ask the question happening are astronomical. I believe both, they aren't mutually exclusive.

On the flip side, if things hadn't happened they way they did we wouldn't be here to ask the question, but still doesn't invalidate either one.

Creationism isn't something that should be in a school science class though, I'll agree to that. Teaching kids that "poof, it just happened" removes the ability to think and reason out it for themselves.

[Jice Virago]

We have had this exact discussion before, regarding the odds of life comming into existance on its own. The universe is effectively infinite for all intents and purposes. The odds, no matter how small, become better and better the more times the dice are rolled. In actual fact, the odds are rather great that life exists/existed elsewhere in this same galaxy, to say nothing of the universe at large. We already know that organic life existed at one time on Mars, and that is just in our own solar system.

And for those who want to argue semantics, Evolution is a Law in science. Natural selection is the prevailing theory for why evolution occurs, much in the same manner that quantumn theory is an explanation for why the four forces (which we have observed and know with certainty exist) occur and interact as they do. Creationalism is myth, having even less validity than saying aliens designed all life to occur as it has on earth. The bible is so rife with verifiable inaccuracies, parable, and outright self contradictions, that it has no scientific value of any kind, beyond some cross referencing acounts of history. I have no issue with discussions involving the bible in the context of history, mythology, and sociology, but it has absolutely zero place in anything involving physical sciences.

And Rekaar, I am content and accepting of my role in the scheme of things, however small. I would argue that people who feel they need a set of superstitions guided by a poorly translated book from two milenia ago to guide them through life are the insecure ones. If you people had your way we would all be living like the fucking Amish.

[Neroon]

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean. The chief sources of confusion are between terms like "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, when something is “just a theory” they take it to be a mere guess, or that it is unproved; even thinking that it might lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. It is probably best to start by explaining what each of these terms means to a scientist.

1. Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. These are generally accepted to be true and universal, and some are expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are much like mathematical postulates, in that they don’t really need external proofs because they are accepted at face value--that is, axiomatic, based upon the fact that they are always observed to be true no matter where in the universe you might be.

A couple of examples of these laws of nature include the law of universal gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics.

2. Hypothesis: This one really is an educated guess, but it is a guess based upon observation. This rationally explains a single (or at most a few) events or phenomena, based upon observation. But (unlike a theory) it has not been proved. Hypotheses can be elevated to the status of a theory if they can be demonstrated by experimentation or continued observation, to have a universal truth.

3. Theory: This is more like a scientific law than is a hypothesis. A theory is a statement (usually in mathematical form) that explains certain phenomena, and predicts what related observations will be based upon an original hypothesis. Once an experiment has been preformed, and the observational results are consistent with the predictions derived from the theory, in order to be elevated to general acceptance, these results must be independently verified, multiple times, by different researchers from widely spaced locations. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only propose a hypothesis, and when observation shows this hypothesis to be accurate, the theory becomes part of the scientific lexicon. However, it is very important to note that a theory can--at any time--be proven to be false, if even a SINGLE observation demonstrates that it’s predictions are in error. Usually, the theory can be modified to account for the discrepancy, but this can only go on so long before the theory becomes "clumsy" and "inelegant". When this happens it can be (although this is rather rare these days) scraped and the scientific community begins the search for a new theory to explain the phenomena in question.

Evolution is most definitely a very *strong* theory. Creationism doesn't even qualify as a Hypothesis, as it is not based on any verifiable observations.

As for the "all-religions" class, I actually had one in high school (Catholic HS no less). It was extremely informative, and I would highly recommend it.

[Mplor]

Edit: btw if the Creationism being taught is discounting evolutionary theory then I disagree. There are many different brands of Creationism and to each his own, but in a science class it should incorporate the science. Obviously this is why I choose private schools for my children.

I agree with those who've said that Creationism and Evolution attempt to explain two different things and are not mutually exclusive. Frankly, the concept of existence's ultimate origins boggles my mind, and a Creator in the Deist sense is just as plausible to me anything else.

However, attempts to guess at an Unknown in the absence of any observable facts is not Science. It's superstition, spiritualism or, even worse, philosophy . Keep it out of science class, and definitely don't present it as a scientific alternative.

And Rekaar, I didn't mean my last post to be about you, but it definitely came out looking like that. Sorry!

[Rivera Bladestrike]

I suppose it was also apart of God's plan to create two complete retards like Kilmoll and Atokal and have them argue creationism on a message board. An idea that holds as much water as saying I shit the entire universe out after having a burrito from Taco Bell and washing it down with a gallon of gin. Face it, creationism has ZERO scientific back up. The Big Bang and evolution both have scientific back up. In fact nothing related to religion has scientific back up. Its all a very sad and humiliating section of humanity to senselessly believe in concepts that common sense can prove wrong. This is all merely because the people conveying these beliefs are too stubborn and afraid to admit that a large portion of their life's committment is just an elaborate millenia old unit of social control, a relic from earlier times.

[Thess]

I suppose it was also apart of God's plan to create two complete retards like Kilmoll and Atokal and have them argue creationism on a message board. An idea that holds as much water as saying I shit the entire universe out after having a burrito from Taco Bell and washing it down with a gallon of gin. Face it, creationism has ZERO scientific back up. The Big Bang and evolution both have scientific back up. In fact nothing related to religion has scientific back up. Its all a very sad and humiliating section of humanity to senseless believe in concepts that common sense can prove wrong.

I am sure it was much nicer before religions learned to not put 'heaven' on top of the highest mountain that had never been climbed.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

Think of where the commandments came from. A tall mountain, where surprisingly, no one else was around! And a strong number of "10" rules to convey what God wanted. Now, if you believe that God created us in a sort of hands off but through a means of creating the universe and to his liking we just turned out to be here, then certainly organized religion would have no basis at all!

If God just created us in a brilliant first try and it was his idea of evolution, then why did he have so much influence 2000 years ago and not any other time in the history of mankind? Why did he suddenly appear after billions of years to suddenly say, "Hey! Wait a minute, I got some rules for you now. And I want you to pray to me, and hey, heres my son, pray to him too. If you don't do what I say I'll make up some place to send you that's bad. Real bad. Really really bad. I'm going back into hybernation for another billion years, heres some priests to fondle your children's balls, listen to them until I get back. And don't kill my son!"

The word of God. Amen.

[Thess]

Think of where the commandments came from. A tall mountain, where surprisingly, no one else was around! And a strong number of "10" rules to convey what God wanted. Now, if you believe that God created us in a sort of hands off but through a means of creating the universe and to his liking we just turned out to be here, then certainly organized religion would have no basis at all!

If God just created us in a brilliant first try and it was his idea of evolution, then why did he have so much influence 2000 years ago and not any other time in the history of mankind? Why did he suddenly appear after billions of years to suddenly say, "Hey! Wait a minute, I got some rules for you now. And I want you to pray to me, and hey, heres my son, pray to him too. If you don't do what I say I'll make up some place to send you that's bad. Real bad. Really really bad. I'm going back into hybernation for another billion years, heres some priests to fondle your children's balls, listen to them until I get back. And don't kill my son!"

The word of God. Amen.

I am athiest, always have been and unless God comes and taps me on the shoulder (with possible witnesses and proves to me he actually does exist) I will always be an athiest. So you are preaching to the choir with me.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

As am I... though the public would call me a "hardcore" atheist. Like I'm some fanatic.

[Spang]

some of you should take a theology class. you don't have to be religous or even believe in God. just take a theology class. you'll learn some things.

[Xzion]

some of you should take a theology class. you don't have to be religous or even believe in God. just take a theology class. you'll learn some things.

Ive taken 6...whats your point?

[Aabidano]

And for those who want to argue semantics, Evolution is a Law in science.

Don't think so, we could find out next week we've been created from nothing by a giant space goat 100 years ago and our solar system is surrounded by a shell...

Evolution is still a theory, albeit a very strong one. How did it all start? You make a choice based on the best available evidence.

[Spang]

some of you should take a theology class. you don't have to be religous or even believe in God. just take a theology class. you'll learn some things.

Ive taken 6...whats your point?

to you, nothing. you've said nothing in this thread that has anything to do with my above post.

[Voronwë]

Evolution IS NOT a theory.

Natural Selection is a theory that explains the *fact* that over time organisms have changed.

there are many absolutely ironclad cases of organisms evolving, not the least of which are strains of bacteria that have developed antibiotic resistence in the last 50 years.

Those that had resistence to the antibiotics survived, and the others died. That's evolution.

[Sueven]

Thank you Voronwe.

Fact fact fact.

[Aabidano]

Evolution commonly refers to natural selection. No one is going to argue that things have changed. From that aspect evolution is a fact. That doesn't make evolution a law, but a term used in the description of another process.

How, why and even over what period of time is the point of contention.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Science and technology has always threatened all religion.

It will take a long time, maybe 100's of years before religion is in the history books. It is unfortunate and scary what people may do without a fear of a higher being though. That's the part that scares me. With the amount of homes with only one parent in it, increasing, it will only make it harder to instil a decent set of morals in the children. You think it's a frightening time we live in now, try when there is no religion.

[Fash]

Don't overlook the rule of law... the rule of law succeeded religion as the object of fear. I don't fear religion fading away, because it can't and won't happen in places without civilized rule. Not likely it will fade within the next 100 years though.

[Jice Virago]

I more, or less, agree with that statement Midnyte. In some senses, religion has proved a successful pacifier for the masses. Unfortunately, our modern culture is one of no personal accountability or responsibility, so parents are not instilling the moral and ethical guidance in their children that they should be. This is as true of the classic nuclear family as it is of the single parent units. A certain amount of respect can be ingrained from these kids teachers, but I think the ultimate responsibility lies with the parents. If the parents of the nation suddenly started fulfilling their role, there would be no more need for religion, pure and simple.

Heard this amusing version of Silent Night on the radio this moring:

Secular Night, Any Old Night,
Not a Cross, or Church in Sight,
No more Dogma about Saviors today,
No more virgins live in LA,
Civil Liberties Rule!
Civil Liberties Rule!

[Chmee]

Will Wilkinson had a good take on a similar case

http://www.reason.com/hod/ww121304.shtml

And he had some other thoughts here ...

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/ ... chers.html

[Lohrno]

I think separating people more into groups does not help things. People need to learn to cooperate and discuss things. Especially from an early age. We're already divided enough as a country, do we have to divide the schools along ideological lines too?

-=Lohrno