Creationism in schools.

[Avatar]

Agreed. (Aaarg, not again!)

--Avatar

[The Pumpkin King]

It's sort of bittersweet that our two debating forums has a large majority of people that agree on most everything.

Cause I agree, too, with what he said, and can't think of anything better to add, because it reflects my opinions quite aptly.

[Cybrweez]

Step aside, religions; let science find out who is correct.

Hey Murrin, is this an arrogant statement? This is why evolution is so religiously defended, it helps scientists who believe this very thing, only science has the answers. As soon as they admit the supernatural, then maybe science doesn't have all the answers. Science can show how, but it comes down to if it can't show where it came from, if it can't define the beginning, anything found after that could be wrong. Anything. Its like building a house on the sand.

BTW, alot are talking about creation and having no evidence. Just spend some time looking it up, not just creation, but intelligent design. You'll find alot of evidence out there. If there is alot of evidence for any other creation account, then by all means, teach them all. To ignore the evidence for intelligent design or creation and say they shouldn't be taught b/c there's no evidence, is very disingenious.

[Loredoctor]

I really think you are missing my point, Cyberweez. Science is an act of discovery, not an encyclopedia of facts. It is like a tool to discover the nature of the universe, not a manual on what is.
Let me illustrate my argument. This is a true story. I knew two religious fellows. One, a Christian, claimed that despite the fact he couldn't prove that his religion was truth he had a 'sense' or 'intuition' he was right. Another, a spiritualist, claimed that despite she couldn't prove that her religion was truth, also had 'intuition' she was right. Now, let's add in a Muslim, Animist and, for good measure, a Scientologist. All claim truth. So who do I believe? Who is more right? Who has truth? Now let me introduce all of them to the scientific process. This allows them to tease apart the underlying workings of reality - and it does (physics, biology, etc . . . .). Let science find out which religion is correct, or has truth.
You tell me, what is wrong with that? Are you one of the people who believe science is really just a bunch of professors who write big books for others to follow? Or do you think that maybe a reasoned process will help us find God or creation? Is it arrogant to hope science will find the face of God?

[Loredoctor]

Step aside, religions; let science find out who is correct.

Hey Murrin, is this an arrogant statement? This is why evolution is so religiously defended, it helps scientists who believe this very thing, only science has the answers. As soon as they admit the supernatural, then maybe science doesn't have all the answers. Science can show how, but it comes down to if it can't show where it came from, if it can't define the beginning, anything found after that could be wrong. Anything. Its like building a house on the sand.

What are you on about???? What, that if something mysterious happens we should BELIEVE your description??? So, I see a ghost and say 'that was the spiritual energy of a departed person', then someone else comes along and says 'that was a demon', and another comes along and says 'that was a manifestation of the inner psychic forces'. Well, who is right? If no one can prove they are right, then what the hell do we do now??? Pick a side and hope it is correct?

This is what you don't understand: your view of how the world came to be is just ONE OF MANY. You must be arrogant to think YOUR view is more right than the others (and you call scientists arrogant). Well, my argument is - prove it. What tool is best used for working this out - well, science. Until then, at least have the courage to admit your belief is a theory - not a fact.

We can all believe in the supernatural (fairies, werewolves, ghosts, vampires, blah blah blah), but most of the world has not experienced such so does it make it real or false?

[Cybrweez]

Loremaster, don't get so worked up. I never claimed my view is the only view. It is arrogant to think one view is better than anothers, but is that wrong? You say your view, that science is the best tool, is better than my view, so you're just as arrogant. So since everyone believes their view is better (hence, ITS THEIR VIEW), we're all arrogant. I've never said my view is a fact, although I believe it to be true.

It reminds me of this silly notion of PC intolerance. If I believe you're wrong, I'm intolerant. Actually, the truth is, I just believe you're wrong, but, claiming that I'm intolerant is in itself saying that I'm wrong, therefore putting you in the same boat as myself.

To bring it back to this topic, there is a bunch of evidence out there related to the beginning of our universe. Bottom line is evolution takes that evidence and fits it into its theory, and creation does the same. The majority of scientists will follow evolution b/c science cannot explain the supernatural, so they discount a theory out of their realm, whether the evidence points that way or not. That's why even Michael Behe, who is not a creationist but believes in ID, is despised in the scientific community.

[The Dreaming]

My concern is that why bother teaching creationism? Honestly, it is a WASTE OF TIME. Why? simple really - too many theories. We have the Catholics who support evolution (someone has sense); the many many Christian demoninations who argue for Creationism - with their own views; oh, and we also have Islamic creationism, Buddhish creationism, Animist creationism . . . . so many. And don't tell me we should only teach the creatonist theory of the dominant religion. That's bad logic AND flawed. Using that logic, every school in the world should teach Islamic creationism since it's the dominant religion.
NONE of these religions can offer a satisfactory account of how the universe or the Earth came to be. NONE of the holy texts offer ANY explanation of how the universe REALLY IS. Where is reference to Atoms, gravity, stellar mechanics? At least couched in terms some could understand? NONE of them can possibly stand against the other - to argue otherwise is foolish in the extreme. Science is a PROCESS for discovering the universe. IF God exists, and Creationism is true, then science will find it. Step aside, religions; let science find out who is correct.

The Islam are "people of the book" and believe in the hebrew Old Testement. Buddhism itself hardly ever speaks of religion, and creation really is not important to its tenets. Animism? No one really cares about Animism. (JK)

Really, the hebrew creation story is the most universal story of creation in the world. In fact, it was actually stolen from the messopatamian/sumarian creation story. So to call it "one of many" is a bit of a stretch.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Loremaster wrote:
My concern is that why bother teaching creationism? Honestly, it is a WASTE OF TIME. Why? simple really - too many theories. We have the Catholics who support evolution (someone has sense); the many many Christian demoninations who argue for Creationism - with their own views; oh, and we also have Islamic creationism, Buddhish creationism, Animist creationism . . . . so many. And don't tell me we should only teach the creatonist theory of the dominant religion. That's bad logic AND flawed. Using that logic, every school in the world should teach Islamic creationism since it's the dominant religion.
NONE of these religions can offer a satisfactory account of how the universe or the Earth came to be. NONE of the holy texts offer ANY explanation of how the universe REALLY IS. Where is reference to Atoms, gravity, stellar mechanics? At least couched in terms some could understand? NONE of them can possibly stand against the other - to argue otherwise is foolish in the extreme. Science is a PROCESS for discovering the universe. IF God exists, and Creationism is true, then science will find it. Step aside, religions; let science find out who is correct.

Excellent. This is exactly why I call science the new religion...
Besides the fanatic tone, which can be explained by emotion.

IF God exists and Creationism is true, then science will find it....
boy that's a lot of faith there. Faith in the scientific method as being flawless... faith that rational thought, deductive reasoning, can give us all the answers to the universe.

Faith that the human brain, with all its flaws and biases, will be able to objectively (ha) analyze any data we get and turn it into universal truths.... that we have an infinite mental capacity for understanding simple phenomena... sure.

Right.

It's almost like you're saying that if we devote our lives to science..... that one day we will reach enlightenment? Or... solve all the worlds problems? Perhaps if we devote ourselves to rational empirical thought...we could bring about a 'heaven on earth'?
Heheh...
We simply have to have faith, of course. Faith that science is in fact narrowing in on the great answers. Faith that we're looking at things from the right perspective... faith that the theories we draw from the data we observe are not incredibly skewed by the human perspective.

As far as the holy texts not telling us how the universe really is... well....

In all my experience with human life, how my universe really is, as I experience it (apart from what I've read in the holy texts of the scientist),
really the best books for that are philosophy and holy texts...
I mean, I've never really had the 'hands on' approach with electrons... but I do have a whole host of experiences relating to the human condition....

[lurch]

Jem...just a note..concerning Science narrowing in on ...a point is being missed on that. For every discovery made by application of the scientific method, there are 10's of new questions created, at least. ..or as Crowley put it..!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!...FOR every answer there is another question raised. In that is the beauty of Science.
..True, a vaccine against Polio has been found. But , now there is the threat of resistant strains( in a general sense). The search for the origins of this universe,,going back to the Big Bang,,has discovered Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Nobody knows what those are. So,, the search continues. if there is an Orthodoxy to the new religon of Science,,that ought to be it,,not,,that Science will some day answer the Big Questions. The only thing that is constant, is change....MEL..ps..if one wants a hands on experience with electrons..for an Aletrnating Current experience,,seperate any power cord from any household appliance,,strip the wires to bare and seperate. Place one bare wire in either hand, then insert power plug into any live wall socket. Quick and easy, you are now experienceing a hands on event with electrons.
...for Direct current experience,,simply , while walking across a shag carpet, in leather shoes preferrably,,drag your feet. When across the carpet by 10 or 15 feet, touch something of metal, as in a doorknob or refigerater, or for real fun ,,a dog or cat or fellow human being. You will have a hands on experience with Direct Current Electrons. There you have it..............MEL

[Cybrweez]

Jemcheeta, very nice. I think you said it better than me.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence had a lot to say about the fact that every new theory creates a host of new questions..that it doesn't seem to be slowing, but instead increasing exponentially (the number of unanswered questions, that is)...

What happens, for example, if there is a phenomena that has multiple explanations, and no clear way to determine which explanation is superior?

[Nathan]

Then you should put forward the various explanations for the phenomenon and try to disprove each until only one remains.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

That's faith there, too. That's faith in the fact that you will be able to disprove the other theories.

What do you have that grounded on? Now I'm serious here, especially in this case. Can you not imagine a situation with multiple explanations that would equally apply?

Edit: further thoughts...

Also, you're setting up theories and then disproving them to find the right one... that's contingent on the fact that human ingenuity will be able to come up with the right theory.

[Loredoctor]

My concern is that why bother teaching creationism? Honestly, it is a WASTE OF TIME. Why? simple really - too many theories. We have the Catholics who support evolution (someone has sense); the many many Christian demoninations who argue for Creationism - with their own views; oh, and we also have Islamic creationism, Buddhish creationism, Animist creationism . . . . so many. And don't tell me we should only teach the creatonist theory of the dominant religion. That's bad logic AND flawed. Using that logic, every school in the world should teach Islamic creationism since it's the dominant religion.
NONE of these religions can offer a satisfactory account of how the universe or the Earth came to be. NONE of the holy texts offer ANY explanation of how the universe REALLY IS. Where is reference to Atoms, gravity, stellar mechanics? At least couched in terms some could understand? NONE of them can possibly stand against the other - to argue otherwise is foolish in the extreme. Science is a PROCESS for discovering the universe. IF God exists, and Creationism is true, then science will find it. Step aside, religions; let science find out who is correct.

The Islam are "people of the book" and believe in the hebrew Old Testement. Buddhism itself hardly ever speaks of religion, and creation really is not important to its tenets. Animism? No one really cares about Animism. (JK)

Really, the hebrew creation story is the most universal story of creation in the world. In fact, it was actually stolen from the messopatamian/sumarian creation story. So to call it "one of many" is a bit of a stretch.

Each have their own way of interpreting the world. The ones I mentioned were examples. Yes, creation is not important to the tenets - but again it is a religion that attempts to explain things. As for Animism - well, 5% of people in Asia follow it - to argue no one cares is a bit silly.

My point about one of many refers to not so much the creation element but to the interpretation of the world. There are even many views, even within Christianity, that exist. And again, I the religions I mentioned were examples - not all inclusive.

Cyberweez - I'm sorry, but again you fail to understand my point. I'm not arguing for science's dominance over religion - I'm arguing that a tool for working out how the universe works (and yes, it can be used badly) could be used for seeing if God exists, or how the universe came to be. Science has already proven itself to be a useful tool. If we ignore science, we go back to a dark age.

Jem - I find it incredibly ironic that you talk about ignoring a system of discovery and champion ignorance. Excuse me while I smile and you claim to have found truth. Do you think everyone is correct when they argue that they have 'felt' God's presence? Millions of people all over the world claim they have felt it and are therefore correct. Why don't any of them think something else may be going on? It seems people want something mystical in their lives. Like the UFO enthusiasts.
Finally, Jem please don't misread what I said. I never argued for science allowing a new age of harmony, etc. I'm trying to argue, and you Christians are missing my point, that it will help support religion. I'm NOT arguing that science is better than the belief in God.

[Loredoctor]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence had a lot to say about the fact that every new theory creates a host of new questions..that it doesn't seem to be slowing, but instead increasing exponentially (the number of unanswered questions, that is)...

What happens, for example, if there is a phenomena that has multiple explanations, and no clear way to determine which explanation is superior?

So we state one is superior? Isn't that arrogance? And how do you know there will be no clear way to determine which explanation is superior?

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Jem - I find it incredibly ironic that you talk about ignoring a system of discovery and champion ignorance. Excuse me while I smile and you claim to have found truth. Do you think everyone is correct when they argue that they have 'felt' God's presence? Millions of people all over the world claim they have felt it and are therefore correct. Why don't any of them think something else may be going on? It seems people want something mystical in their lives. Like the UFO enthusiasts.
Finally, Jem please don't misread what I said. I never argued for science allowing a new age of harmony, etc. I'm trying to argue, and you Christians are missing my point, that it will help support religion. I'm NOT arguing that science is better than the belief in God.

Nah, you're missing my point too... you said that the religions of the world should step aside, and let science determine the truth...
I'm not championing ignorance. I'm saying that the system of discovery might be inherently flawed. I definately never claimed I found the truth (really, I'd never claim such a thing).
It isn't that we want to find something mystical, although often we do. The fact is that for me and for most other humans, life is mystical. We're not looking for it: It's there.
Do you think I made some choice to be a spiritual person? Nah, sorry. I was faced with stimuli, and I responded accordingly. I found that I had focused so much on logic and rationality that I had reduced the human experience to a series of postulates and divisions. When I recognized the value in mystery, my life became a whole lot richer, and I became a whole lot wiser, too.

[lurch]

...Life is mystical..its just there. ..uuummmm, would it be proper of me to restate that as..Mans natural state is one of inquirey?..I mean,,if one is predisposed to ' search, explore"..then that prejudes the perception of Life,,to be as" mystical."...
...Interesting way of putting, finding a balance within one self there Jem. Finding that balance bewteen heart and mind is a goal for all of us. There are other counter weights to Sciences cold realities besides mysticism or spirituality..MEL

[Loredoctor]

That's funny, Jem, because as soon as I gave up my search for mysticism I found that the world was a better place. Following science does not necessarily mean one lives a cold and rational life - arguing otherwise is a cliche statement. And even if science showed there was no god, no point to the universe - why is that cold? why is that empty? Life is full of richness and beauty without needing religion to further us.

I don't mean any offense to you, Cyberweez, and co, but arguing that a belief is based on a mystical experience is weak; plenty of events have spawned myriad beliefs that ultimately have been proven wrong. Take the whole Alien Abduction phenomena. Like religion it offers an experience that is beyond ordinary - is essentially, mystical. Like religion, the Abduction experience and history is taken up, 'explained' in some way, and then argued as 'truth'. The Abduction phenomena is a sham. Likewise, plenty of prophets and figures were more likely mentally ill.

[Loredoctor]

I'm saying that the system of discovery might be inherently flawed.

LOL You say that while you type on a computer. Science has done more to discover the universe than religion - from the mechanics of stars to the mechanics of cells. Science, or rational exploration, has given us an understanding of many many things and delivered to us amazing technologies (i.e. the computer, cars, etc). How is that flawed? I admit there are alot of flawed theories, but the process is not flawed,

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Well, first off, I'm an atheistic existentialist, and I don't believe in any sort of a god at all.
What I'm talking about is an aspect of the human experience, a *wince* feeling of spirituality.
It's a mode of thought and appreciation. They can obviously coexist, and should. I'm just saying you can't just sweepingly say that science has all the answers, because it doesn't. That's just fanaticism, and blind faith.

Edit: Didn't realize we were typing at the same time, Loremaster.

Of course I love computers, I love the products of science, but that's not what we're arguing about. In fact, I absolutely enjoy rational thought and debate (obviously). I think that logical deduction is a very useful tool for acheiving goals. However, I do not think that there's any evidence to suggest that science will eventually provide all the answers. It's already shown itself to be a fairly clumsy tool to take to the question of love and relationships, or empathy and emotion. You can't ignore those aspects of life when you're evaluating science... people regulate those aspects away, they say "Well, they aren't scientific" and then you end up judging science based on itself, without anything to compare it to. It's like saying "Look, science is good at science!"

Curses, I wish I could stay and argue, but I have to go.