Jeffrey Selman, a parent of a Cobb County student, filed the suit (along with the American Civil Liberties Union) against the school board. (On the other hand, it should be noted that some 2,300 parents had petitioned in favor of the stickers as a way to help counter the nearly $8 million worth of new curricula that pushed Darwinism unchallenged). Mr. Selman told the Toronto Star that he “was not prepared to live in a theocracy where the views of a militant minority are foisted on everyone.”
Mr. Selman went on to say, “I was terrified about the future of the country I have to live in and my child has to live in. From the Bush White House to the evangelicals on the school board, they were taking away our freedoms.”
Michael Manely, the lawyer representing the parents who were against the stickers, told the Toronto Star, “This is a great day in history and a great day for freedom in our nation.” He added that Cobb County students will now “be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma.”
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
I think that creationism should not be taught in science classes for the simple reason that Christianity is only one of many religions practiced in the US. Unless Buddhists, Hindus, Navajos, and people of other beliefs and religions also have their creation stories taught as truth in science classes, than Christianity shouldn't have theirs, either.
How would you feel, as an ardent Hindu, if you found out that your children had been taught the creation story from a religion you do not practice and believe in as a scientific truth in a public school that your taxes help pay for?
For that matter, how would some of you ardent Christians feel if the Hindu creation story, from a religion you do not practice or believe in, was being taught to your children as a scientific truth in a public school that your taxes help pay for?
I have no problem with creationism being taught in a comparative religion class or a humanities class.
I have no problem with it being taught in a private school, such as a Christian school.
But not in a science class in a public school paid for by the taxpayers, unless the other major religions also have their creation beliefs taught, alongside of evolution.
However, to theorize that the universe suddenly exploded into being from nothingness for absolutely no reason (reason would, by its nature denote intelligence), well, that just sounds silly to me. Where did the energy that caused the big bang come from? Since nothing existed in the space that existed before the universe did, would'nt that point to intentional creation? Therefore intelligent creation? If you can explain the creation of our known universe in any other way, again, I would be willing to listen.
I don't know if you have read up on the big bang theory but this will basicly sum it up for you. There was a particle, smaller that the dot on this 'i', with an extremely high density. Matter and energy existed within the particle. It exploded, hene the big bang, and matter went flying. Some of the material formed planets and some stars. Now we know the universe is expanding, there is an edge to it. With that we can give the start of the universe an aproximate date. And then by chance, some single cell orginisms evolved. And the rest is another theory.
My right hand is lightning and my left is thunder.
My eyes are flame.
My heart is ashes.
Look upon me and tremble.
Lurch-- An excellent point that, which school of thought regarding creation should be taught? The differences in views between various christian branches is another frequently discussed topic here. And also, I agree with your statement about the flexibility of a scientific method, which can be altered to acommodate newly observed facts.
Barad-- I would think that in this sense, reason denotes cause rather then intelligence. i.e. a glass in the freezer cracks because the contents expands beyond the containers ability to flex with the expansion.
Personally, I'm quite comfortable with the thought of the universe being random. And on the question of internal creation, it seems that you suggest that god is not seperate from this universe. In fact, I'd interpret what did occur (according to me anyway) as internal creation, and what you believe occurred as an external creation.
I think that Duchess offers a good alternative. If we're going to teach creation myths, make it a humanities class, and cover all creation myths, not only christian ones. I'd say have them all seperate for the various faiths, but personally, I think that everybody learning everybody else's views on the matter would be better for us all.
I agree with the duchess' idea as well. Keep science, however, based in hard, secular facts and theories.
There may be a place where alternative creation myths can be taught, but I don't think the place is in the science classroom. And if they are taught, a wide variety should be.
Go Godzilla, go!
Jurassic Lizard Superstar Hero
Go Godzilla, go!
For the people, for the planet!
Its seems some people may be confused. A leading evolutionist philospoher says evolution has become a religion, and on the other hand, there is evidence on the creationist side (unfortunately, so many are brainwashed by evolution, they will not accept anything contrary, despite claims that science is ever changing), and yet all I hear is that evolution should be taught in science, creationism in religion. Then when a public school puts a sticker on the science book to remember that evolution is a theory not a fact, the evo-fundies step up to make sure no one can know about their dirty secret. Let's face it, there is a huge push to make sure kids in public schools only hear about evolution, and that any problems are covered up.
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
National Geographic describes natural selection as the “natural culling” of “useless or negative variations” (p. 8 ), but this reveals the fatal flaw in Darwin’s theory. As creationists have continually pointed out, natural selection doesn’t create anything new, it only selects from the existing genetic information from which the varieties are produced. The result is either the preservation of some of that information in a variety well suited to a particular environment or the complete loss of some of the information through extinction of a variety. But what never results is the increase or creation of new genetic information.
I'm curious, how is genetic information added?
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
There are domestic cat breeds today that found their origin in just such random mutations, such as the two Rex breeds, and Scotttish Folds. Breeders saw the original mutation, though it was an interesting trait, and through serious inbreeding developed entire new breeds of cats.
Actually, the cats are an example of changes in existing genetic information. That's how we can get different species. But in order to get to a more complex organism from a simpler, genetic information must be added. In other words, humans have more genetic information than a cat. Has random mutation been observed? Does it claim that genetic information can be added randomly?
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
..wonderful semantics arguement by the anti-evolutionists. They are flawed in their understanding,,not the darwin theory. Its known that the highly charged particles and other high energy units zipping around in universal space ,,like Gamma rays, cosmic rays, and the lower , Xrays,,effect the chromosones that make up the DNA chain. ..So, literally, every time our wonderful Sun has a coronal mass ejection,,like it has been doing for the last year or so..and the ejection is aimed at earth,,or earth is in the path of the deadly stuff.. our and every living thing on this planet could be getting our chromozones messed with..as in altered. Altered chromozones of the DNA chain manifest in physical ways..as in skin cancer,,defective off spring,,and mutations in general. yes, most mutations don't get Passed to the next generation because ,,well,,who wants to have sex with 3 eyed midget?..yes, its all surviving to pass the mutation on to a next generation..An albino squirrel doesn't have much as a chance to pass on its mutation because he sticks out like a sore thumb in the forest,,hence,,easy target for mr Hawk. Where as if the same albino squirrel was in Alaska ..it just may survive long enough to pass on the mutation because of all the white snow....
...its obvious that the creationists really don't even have a understanding of the theory and how it came to be. The referenced links are a good example of folks claiming this is how something is ,,then going foward in saying how wrong it is...The problem is ( and this a actual technique used by propogandaists)..is that initial statement of how whatever is...is wrong. its a deliberate misstatement of facts inorder further their own propoganda. to the uninformed,,well,,how would they the difference?
...the American SAT scores have been sinking for almost a generation now..It appears some partys are currently taking advantage of this generational mutation..................MEL
Mel, I don't understand your post (maybe b/c of my SAT scores). You have given a very nice example of mutation, and the change it can have on a species. And I can't find anywhere posted here or from those links anything about mutation and changes in species not being recognized by creationists. I read in those links that National Geographic claimed natural selection is proof of darwinian evolution. But natural selection does not prove that mutation or selection ADDS genetic information. And you post that anti-evolutionists use semantics. By that I must assume you believe natural selection has been shown to ADD genetic information. I'm asking where? Your nice long post shows CHANGE (just like the cats). I guess you didn't quite understand the links.
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
The past several hundred thousand years, the male Y chromosome has greatly shrunk in size and function
In every generation, it frays just a bit.
In a few hundred thousand years, it will be totally unsuitable to carry on genetic information.
By then, though, there will be technology to allow women to have children and such without the need of a male.
In any case, as it frays, other chromosomes take on its role, specifically the X.
I forgot where I read all this, but it's been studied by scientists for quite awhile.
In any case, it happened to another species, and over a couple million years, they gained the ability to be rather..monosexual. Having both sets of reproductive organs.
In any case, that won't happen to us because we've pretty much nerfed our own evolution in any meaningful way by relying on technology (So thus there's very little "survival of the fittest", as any deficiencies someone has can be offset by an outside source, so no particular trait gets passed down), so well..
My point is, yes, chromosomes can grow, and change. It just takes a VERY LONG time.
Whenever I find the article on the above, though, I'll show it for everyone's consumption.
Last edited by The Pumpkin King on Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Go Godzilla, go!
Jurassic Lizard Superstar Hero
Go Godzilla, go!
For the people, for the planet!
...The mutation of the chromozone chain..is not an addition??..what do you mean by addition?..If you have a set of x's..and change anyone of them within the set..thats not an addition?..or were you assuming,,if you have a set of 10 x's,,and one of those x's got changed to a Xa..then some how that set still had 10 x's...Okay, thats rather simplified of my understanding..by it is illustrative ,,if there was no Xa's in the original set, then would not the presense of one now represent an addition?..I mean..theres 26 chromosones in a cell,,and they divide and split to form two cells..Theres still 26 chromosones in a mutation,,but one or more has its chemistry altered from what it was..Virus'es have been shown to be able to effect that kind change within a cell and its chromozones. high energy particles too,,chemical agents also,,etc.
...Now the chemical sequence of the DNA chain and all the possible alignments of chemical compounds in their + and - charges along the double helix structure making up the chromozone,,yes,,there are longer chains generally for more " sophisticated " living things. yet..as sophisticated as the Human being is..top of the food chain and all that..i think there is still only 26 chromozones in our sex cells...Again,,this whole DNA avenue is a dodge from the real issue...Creationism is not open for change and if it is..I've yet to hear from anybody here plausible ways that it is open for re-interpertation or change. It is not a product of the scientific process. What we are trying to teach to the children is the logical step by step scientific process.Its been known to pay off rather well for society,,as in vaccines,,the computor we all enjoy,,etc,,etc. Vaccines just don't pop up successful on the first try..computers just didn't become 520mega bit desk top wonders on the first try..how long did it take man to learn the secrets of flite befor the Wrights got it rite??,geeeezzz!!!..but God created all that there is in 7 days....He hasn't shown that kind of Power ever since..What part of that is of the scientific process? What part of that is subject to improvement..change,,addendums,,revisting,,None of it. Thats the way it is. Unfortunately there are as many creation stories as there are ancient tribes and societies..Again..which one is right?........MEL
I would not like Creationism taught to my child in public school. I'll fess up now, I really don't have a child, but if I did, this is how I would feel.
Creationism is religion (sometimes my statements are so profound and intelligent I crack myself up *eyeroll*) O.K. here we go: Parent Catholic and Parent Mormon (I *think* these two religions have radically different beliefs as to how things came about, but not sure) both have children who attend the same public school. This school teaches "Mormon version Creationism". How would Parent Catholic feel? Child Catholic will be learning Mormon beliefs while in school, and then learn conflicting information at home and at church.
For a young child, this could be disastrous. It could damage the very core of their faith. It would certainly leave him confused and upset. Some thoughts would be along the lines of "Which is right? Why are there so many different viewpoints? What will happen to me if my parents have chosen the wrong religion? Will we all go to hell? Purgatory?" This type of confusion would undermine the very goal of teaching Creationism in public school.
I am agnostic. Teaching Creationism to my child would make me feel like Parent Catholic in the above example. My child would be exposed to teachings that do not coincide with my beliefs. I would run the risk of a very religious teacher trying to influence my young, impressionable child.
For those who feel Creationism SHOULD be taught in school, you should be aware of the flip side; a science teacher completely contemptuous of Creationism teaching your children this topic with a complete lack of respect, possibly singling those who do believe out from the rest of the class. This is not as far-fetched as you may think, many, many science teachers have demonstrated against teaching Creationism.
Some parts of religion are violent and frightening. If a 7 year old classmate whispers to my child, "If you don't believe, you are going to hell!" during a Creationism lesson, that is going to influence my child's fear and confusion much, much more than if that child said the same thing on the playground. The formality of the lesson would reinforce the "you're going to hell!" speech and make it much more concrete in my child's mind. This is the type of situation I would like to avoid.
The next problem is where does it all end? Separation of Church and State in the toilet? Does this mean we get to tax churches? How much religion will sneak into the public school systems? If religion leaks into the public school system, huge arguements will abound. Which religion should be taught, or should we teach a select few religions, should students be exposed to all different religions (multireligionism anyone?), or should students be segregated into classrooms by faith? More arguements about which religion is not getting enough airtime, how much time of the day should the child be studying religion as opposed to learning how to read, write and do arithmetic, blah, blah, blah. And you know what? No one will ever agree on these things. Ever. It's the nature of the beast.
Please understand I am not anti-religion. However, I truly believe religion is something that should be taught at home and at church. Children should be taught by loving family members who can share the positive experiences their faith has brought them. Teaching should also come from the parent's chosen church leaders and the extended network of folks and programs related to that church who all believe the in same ideas.
Trying to homogenize religion to teach to everyone in a public school setting would be sterile and boring at BEST, and disastrous for some children in some cases. It would invite entire communities to fight and argue and disagree with one another. At the very worst, it could cause some children to question the validity of their own faith and come up lacking.
Is this what we really want to accomplish?
*takes her serious hat off* Whew! That was a mouthful, eh?
You know, to be honest, Science is the new religion, the way it is taught.
It really is. Also, in the way its believed in. People have faith in science.
Edit: Sorry, I just have to comment... Mel, do you know something about the comma or the ellipse that I don't? Half the time I'm forced to surrender half way through reading your posts because I can't follow what you're typing. I'm being honest here.
Start where you are,
use what you have,
do what you can.
Jemcheeta, I almost said the same thing. I am forced to surrender also, for lack of punctuation. Its too hard, its like a block of letters. But I like the way you state it, that's comedy.
Oh, and its good to see someone else agree that science, especially evolution, has become a religion.
--Andy
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
JemCheeta wrote:You know, to be honest, Science is the new religion, the way it is taught.
It really is. Also, in the way its believed in. People have faith in science.
Edit: Sorry, I just have to comment... Mel, do you know something about the comma or the ellipse that I don't? Half the time I'm forced to surrender half way through reading your posts because I can't follow what you're typing. I'm being honest here.
Science isn't a religion because it doesn't rely on faith. That's the very definition of science. To find the fact of the matter instead of just assuming something being the truth regardless of plausability.
I honestly don't see why science is seen to be in such opposition to religion. If you look at things a certain way, they go together perfectly.
I think it has to do with the aspect that humans like to be self-important. People had an issue with it when they found out that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system, much less the universe. So, it's natural they'd have an issue with the fact that we weren't immaculately created by some higher power. It makes us less significant in that light.
Go Godzilla, go!
Jurassic Lizard Superstar Hero
Go Godzilla, go!
For the people, for the planet!
...I really do like them , the comma, the elipse...
I use them to denote area for pause and reflection, however so short, in the flow of thought. You are not the only to point out the difficulty of reading in and around and thru them. There was actually a chatroom that threatened expultion if I didn't restrain my usage. Yeeeooow! true, like Letterman with a political joke, i overuse and kill the heck out of them, but, gee whiz. They may well be the subconscious manifesting itself in an attempt to communicate a otherworld perspective...or at least, a perpsective of an individual..MEL
......and while I'm at it...Science as Religion...That is very interesting. Science as a system modern man has put belief into, is more accurate. Again, just about every modern convenience, technological breakthru, etc, improvement in life style aswell as life conditions, is the result of the scientific method. ( please, don't get confused, I am not saying Science gets it right the first time, like religions tend to say about their Diety), I am saying this computor I am dealing with right now is amazing.
...But imho, if it were true that Science has become a religion, then the reverse would also be true, religion as Science,,and since I can think of way too many exceptions to that theorizing( many discussed in varieous threads here) , i find it safe to say, Science as Religion, Not. Science exists in the 3-d real world, manifests itself in the tangilbe . Religion , Faith in no matter what, is ofsome other existance that eventually bridges into this 3-d existance. Unfortunately, it is said to do so when only applicable to the butterflys, rainbows and lollypop results,,and seldom to the less warm and fuzzy part of our existance.
...The point tho..is that Science and the belief system being applied, does represent change. For some folks, Change becomes unacceptable. A steady, secure, safe existance is what they require during times of havoc. imho,,if that is what is wanted, then the ultimate version has to be ,,Death.
....MEL
