America goes backwards in time

[HedCold]

yea, those things were actually proven false and are still mentioned, and you are told a reason people believed it was because of religious backing (more so the center of the universe one).
meanwhile, creationalism hasn't been proven completely false yet, while ideas that aren't completely true are being pushed as absolute fact.

[Arpikarhu]

but creationism has no factual backing at all and is based on ideology. if it is taught as a historical basis then i have no problem . if it is presented as an alternative to evolution then i do have a problem. it is religious dogma and is therefore exclusionary and infringes on the religious rights of those who do not share the same beliefs if it is taught that way.

[Galt]

Arpi, you are acting on the belief that (as Sir O so wrongly previously stated) that creationism has been proven false. It's just not true.

Sure, many parts of the biblically produced creation story are wrong (like the earth is 5,000 years old and that Dinosaurs existed), but the more broad concept that mankind did not evolve out of a single celled organism has not been proven false. The parts are there that show that it's more than merely "probable" that humans did, but there are very major parts of the evolutionary chain that have never been discovered and therefore it's at least possible that those chains don't exist and somehow, someway, different species don't all go down to same starting point.

Objects at rest stay at rest, etc, so given a big bang creation of the universe, what was the catalyst? What was the energy source that started it? Science has been trying to explain why this happened forever, with no luck. An energy source/God would be a very clean answer as to the beginning. And until science can prove it another way (like the earth being flat, the atom being the smallest thing on the planet, and the sun revolving around the earth) why not at least offer it up as a possibility to students where they can decide?

I'm not talking about teaching the bible, the Arc and other myths to explain the earth. Take out the bible; take out the catholic church and it still remains a scientific discussion.

It's not merely priests and rabbis who think that some form of creationism is possible.



Edited By Galt on 1101236922

[HedCold]

in my 8th grade physics class, when learning about the solar system, i learned about the original ideas that eventually lead to scientific ideas. no reason why creationalism to evolutionism can't be taught the same way, with the proper wording, telling kids that creationalism has support among certain people and religions, while evolution has support among scientists, but even things they know are shakey.
go to the musuem of natural history and read the placcards

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.njit.edu/~jar5/placcard.jpg">http://web.njit.edu/~jar5/placcard.jpg</a><!-- m -->

if they are going to use wording like that with the things they teach about evolution, then there should be no problem

[Arpikarhu]

if you think the fight for creationism in classrooms is so that it can be taught that way, then you are the king of naivety!

[Keyser Soze]

i think our entire system of learning is flawed. i think kids should be given the tools to learn "how to learn" and then sent off to discover for themselves the truths of the universe. i dont think any theory, should it be evolution or creationism be sold to them as the truth.

i think the most valuable thing children can learn is critical thinking. once they are taught how to properly think for themselves, then present them with all the theories in the world for them to ponder and come to their own conclusions.

[Arpikarhu]

i think our entire system of learning is flawed. i think kids should be given the tools to learn "how to learn" and then sent off to discover for themselves the truths of the universe. i dont think any theory, should it be evolution or creationism be sold to them as the truth.

i think the most valuable thing children can learn is critical thinking. once they are taught how to properly think for themselves, then present them with all the theories in the world for them to ponder and come to their own conclusions.

isnt this where you start singing that whitnet houston song? "i believe the children are the future......"

yes this would be nice, but lets pretend you live in the real world where somebody always has something to say about how your children should be raised.

[Keyser Soze]

schools are pretty much run either at the state or local level, and how children are taught varies quite a bit from one area to another. it is not completely out of the realm of possibility to promote this type of learning.

if you are asking me to decide if creationism should be taught as a yes or no answer, i would say yes simply because i think all popular theories be presented. i feel that it is unfair that some not so popular theories would not be able to be presented simply in the interest of time it is not feasible. i think the way to work around this is to give the kids an assignment to do a reasearch report on a non-commonly accepted theory on "the basis of living beings"

i dont think this is really an outrageous idea.



Edited By Keyser Soze on 1101255302

[Mad]

Home school and say fuck you to public education, then you can teach your child whatever the fuck you want.

[Keyser Soze]

...and now for the wacko militia contingent perspective.

[Arpikarhu]

he is right

[GonzoStyle]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html">http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html</a><!-- m -->

[Mad]

I am not a "Christian", I'm more of a agnostic. I could careless what you do or don't do for your children. If you want to send them to strangers then so be, that's your problem. It will come back to haunt you.



Edited By Mad on 1101256983

[Galt]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html">http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html</a><!-- m -->

though I don't like to agree with God-psychos, they are correct.

I also agree with my Lord and master, Keyser

[Sir O]

schools are pretty much run either at the state or local level, and how children are taught varies quite a bit from one area to another. it is not completely out of the realm of possibility to promote this type of learning.

if you are asking me to decide if creationism should be taught as a yes or no answer, i would say yes simply because i think all popular theories be presented. i feel that it is unfair that some not so popular theories would not be able to be presented simply in the interest of time it is not feasible. i think the way to work around this is to give the kids an assignment to do a reasearch report on a non-commonly accepted theory on "the basis of living beings"

i dont think this is really an outrageous idea.

So what you're basically saying is that a theory with NO supporting evidence should be taught in SCIENCE CLASS and be given equal time with a theory with MOUNTAINS of supporting evidence?

Should the Hindu world-creation story of Shiva and Kali be given equal time? I would guess it should.

What about flat-earthers?

EDIT: And talking about Greek mythology? WTF? That was taught in LITERATURE class because, well, that's what it is. If science classes taught stories of Zeus and Hera as the creators, there'd be a problem. But since it's lit, there is none. I think if the creationist stories were taught in the same manner as Greek Myths - that we know this is all false, but these are stories that have shaped peoples' lives - there would be no problem.



Edited By Sir O on 1101868995

[HedCold]

the hindu world creation stories didn't directly affect science as much as the judeo-christian theory. early paleotology was religious based trying to prove things like the great flood. they were the ones with the money and had the people to spend time on this stuff. from their studies came other studies that showed differently.

and show me the direct evidence that shows that amphibians and reptiles and birds and mammels are all related and evolved from each other. there are similarities between the groups, but that could be because those similarities are best for survival.

i don't think the religious based ideas should be given equal time, but they shouldn't be ignored.

and because joobies is saying it much better than me:

JessicaKittie: the point is if something isn't fact, you have to show different sides to the story. You don't have to show all the sides, like a journalist doesnt include irrational views in a news article. You should show the most common viewpoints, and in the US that is evolution and biblical creation. If schools want to teach hindu views they can, but in general, american schools are doing their students a disservice if they don't point out that evolution is not what everyone believes because it is not a fully proven fact. and they dont have to teach about what creationism is to the same extent as evolution, they should just point out that because it cant be proven, some people instead believe whats in the bible

[Galt]

Sir O keeps saying that there is NO scientific fact to back up creationism. First. There would be no evidence of creationism. How could there be? Poof, there's life. A lack of evidence is what God-people actually cite is PROOF of creationism.

Second. The universe is ever expanding. There was a big bang. What was the catalyst to start that? Why couldn't there have been a creator to start that? What would be the other explaination? Objects at rest staying at rest and all. There had to be something to change the state of the mass which eventually exploded. A God is just as logical an explaination as anything else. Since no one officially knows what started it.

If science classes were teaching the story of Genesis, then I'd have a problem. Genesis should be taught (like Greek mythology) in literature class. But creationism does have scientific merit since there has been nothing to disproove it yet.

[Sir O]

But creationism does have scientific merit since there has been nothing to disproove it yet.

What has actual evidence? Dog-breeding supports evolution. The life cycle of the Mayfly supports evolution.

There's NO support for mythological origins other than well...myths,

[HedCold]

for future reference, if you want to use something to support evolution, try the horse

[Galt]

the fact that dogs evolved into better dogs etc supports a form of evolution. I don't don't think that even the nuttiest of God nuts disagrees that animals evolve in the survival of the fittest mold. But there is nothing. Not one thing. Zero ever. That shows even a single shred of hint of evidence that every living organism on the planet evolved from the same single cell. And since that can not be proven by science, then maybe it's wrong. ON the polar opposites of God creating everything and everything evolving from the same cell, I'd side with evolution.

But to say that America is going backwards to even consider some other alternative or a mixture of the two is just ridiculous and equally closed minded as those who rallied against teaching evolution.