Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Luco wrote:

Albatross wrote:Woah! A whole YEAR!?

Yeah, you're right. God must have created humans out of dust, then. Case closed.

Firstly: that's several evolution classes so I have a lot of the theory, timelines, etc.

Your credentials count for dick if you make fundamental errors of reasoning, namely the claim that evolution does not have 100% provenance (what does?), therefore creationism should have parity with evolution in the classroom.

Secondly: I do believe mocking is equivalent to flaming and is rather rude. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.

Meh, report me. If people make stupid claims, I treat them with the appropriate level of scorn. Not all opinions are equally valid.

Thirdly: Regardless as to what my beliefs actually are, I didn't actually advocate the Judeo-Christian formula, I only advocated balance and expressed doubt as to the modern science belief.

Yes, that's stupid. 'Balance' implies that creationism and evolution via natural selection are equally valid.

The kids involved are in high school and are at the time when they are able to begin making decisions on what they believe.

That's true, and also the reason why creationism shouldn't be granted the aura of scientific credibility - secondary school years are formative years for young kids, and their brains should not be poisoned with any more propaganda than is necessary. Teach religion in the RE class and they can make up their mind as to whether they believe ANY of it.

I merely meant that after going into some detail at the collegiate level I found that I express doubts as to its full credibility as it is often given. I did not mean to proclaim myself an expert on the subject by any means.

I agree with your propaganda statement in the sense that schools really are the main point of influence for this type of issue. Thus, why not give all sides with as much data as possible for each and letting the individual decide which to believe based on the data? Balance is giving the best information available on a belief regardless of the trend of the area. If evolution has the best argument in as unbias forum as can be had on the subject, people will believe it over the other creation beliefs. If they do not believe in what others find to be true that is their business providing it does not cause them to harm others.

Thirdly: Regardless as to what my beliefs actually are, I didn't actually advocate the Judeo-Christian formula, I only advocated balance and expressed doubt as to the modern science belief.
Yes, that's stupid. 'Balance' implies that creationism and evolution via natural selection are equally valid.

No it's saying that it should be looked at in a balanced way. If I don't think that Zeus makes lightning bolts it doesn't stand that the only other reason (the wheel falling off Apollos chariot) is also wrong. I can doubt that BOTH Zeus and Apollo have anything to do with lightning.

It seems like you're trying to pigeon hole him into a binary choice (oh the irony for creationists!) - faith in science is not scientific!

I agree with your propaganda statement in the sense that schools really are the main point of influence for this type of issue. Thus, why not give all sides with as much data as possible for each and letting the individual decide which to believe based on the data? Balance is giving the best information available on a belief regardless of the trend of the area. If evolution has the best argument in as unbias forum as can be had on the subject, people will believe it over the other creation beliefs. If they do not believe in what others find to be true that is their business providing it does not cause them to harm others.

While I agree with giving 'both sides' the reality is that some teachers are biased and that despite the holes in creationism people still believe it.

Luco wrote:I have no problem with the guy teaching creationism side by side with evolution. We went over the creation mythos of several different religions in addition to evolution and I honestly don't see it as a bad thing. If we're going to advocate a fair and balanced view then we should teach both the leading religion's (or multiple religious ideas on the matter) in addition to the secular modern view on the subject and each should be given a neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other.

But what right does creationism have to be taught alongside evolution? Because lots of people believe it? Science isn't a popularity contest, just because some idea has support from a group of people doesn't mean that it should therefore be given equal air time in the classroom.

Of course evolution should be favoured over creationism. Why? Because it uses fact. Why is that hard to grasp. You wouldn't teach flat earth-ism in geography class if lots of people in the wider public wanted to believe that the earth was flat. If you had people who desperately wanted to believe that the Earth was at the centre of the universe and the sun and planets went around it you wouldn't give that time in physics class. You wouldn't say "we need to teach the Geocentric model of the solar system and flat earth theory just to give a fair and balanced view" and apply a "neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other".

Of course not. Because these ideas are ridiculous and totally flout science. Now why should creationism be any different. Oh that's right, because more people believe that than in the flat Earth. Well that's not how science works. It's not a popularity contest, theories and scientific principles are judged on their adherence to logic and evidence not on how many people want to believe them.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Luco wrote:I have no problem with the guy teaching creationism side by side with evolution. We went over the creation mythos of several different religions in addition to evolution and I honestly don't see it as a bad thing. If we're going to advocate a fair and balanced view then we should teach both the leading religion's (or multiple religious ideas on the matter) in addition to the secular modern view on the subject and each should be given a neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other.

But what right does creationism have to be taught alongside evolution? Because lots of people believe it? Science isn't a popularity contest, just because some idea has support from a group of people doesn't mean that it should therefore be given equal air time in the classroom.

Of course evolution should be favoured over creationism. Why? Because it uses fact. Why is that hard to grasp. You wouldn't teach flat earth-ism in geography class if lots of people in the wider public wanted to believe that the earth was flat. If you had people who desperately wanted to believe that the Earth was at the centre of the universe and the sun and planets went around it you wouldn't give that time in physics class. You wouldn't say "we need to teach the Geocentric model of the solar system and flat earth theory just to give a fair and balanced view" and apply a "neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other".

Of course not. Because these ideas are ridiculous and totally flout science. Now why should creationism be any different. Oh that's right, because more people believe that than in the flat Earth. Well that's not how science works. It's not a popularity contest, theories and scientific principles are judged on their adherence to logic and evidence not on how many people want to believe them.

I'm going out on a bit of a limb here but...
I daresay science is a popularity contest, any attempt to make an idea known to the population is a popularity contest. If science had a breakthrough and the vast majority of the population disregarded it as insane, science will be fighting to sway public opinion. Without public opinion on the scientists side politicians who favor their work will not be elected and the science will die/be forgotten/locked away for awhile, especially if it is a hot topic issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but government funds often need to be acquired before research can begin. No funds = no project. Also, scientists are not infallible and can be corrupted and pushed to skew data one way or another. Heck, look at Global Warming and the divide that says some scientists swear on their life that the world is coming to an end and on the other scientists swear on their life that it isn't. (Not meaning to go off topic, but its an example). So based on that it should be taught as an understanding of a popular theory. There is also the point that this is a debate still going on around the country and to show only one side of the debate would be bias in itself because it doesn't give a counter argument in which it falls under the catagory of propaganda. While I realize from the responses which way Dakka seems to lean I think it should be kept in mind that this is only an issue at all because it is a public debate, if it weren't it wouldn't be news worthy.

Last I checked we do teach the geocentric model of the solar system, we teach it repeatedly. I learned about the theory in history, earth sciences, physics, chemistry (not sure why, really...) and astronomy. We are also given data about it as well as new data that suggests otherwise. I do have the option of believing the earth is still in the center of the solar system. Also, if I recall from Astronomy correctly, the heliocentric theory was not accepted originally because the geocentric theory explained things effectively and didn't have some of the errors the new theory did, regardless of 'fact'. The main issue that i have with suggesting a religion class for this type of material is that unlike the other classes a religion class isn't required and in a high school setting would require giving up key electives, especially for those in a trade program who have a lot of classes designed around their job out of graduation or the advanced college prep that only get a single elective a year.

Luco wrote:-completely ignoring the past 5 pages in order to keep blood pressure down and inserting opinion on the matter-

I have no problem with the guy teaching creationism side by side with evolution. We went over the creation mythos of several different religions in addition to evolution and I honestly don't see it as a bad thing. If we're going to advocate a fair and balanced view then we should teach both the leading religion's (or multiple religious ideas on the matter) in addition to the secular modern view on the subject and each should be given a neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other.

OK.

Your opinion is contradicted by scientists, education experts, the law, and sense.

Evolution is not an explanation of creation and has no relevance to creation mythos of any religion.

Luco wrote:I merely meant that after going into some detail at the collegiate level I found that I express doubts as to its full credibility as it is often given. I did not mean to proclaim myself an expert on the subject by any means.

I agree with your propaganda statement in the sense that schools really are the main point of influence for this type of issue. Thus, why not give all sides with as much data as possible for each and letting the individual decide which to believe based on the data? Balance is giving the best information available on a belief regardless of the trend of the area. If evolution has the best argument in as unbias forum as can be had on the subject, people will believe it over the other creation beliefs. If they do not believe in what others find to be true that is their business providing it does not cause them to harm others.

But where does that end? At what point do you decide that something is true enough to be transmitted as fact to the student body? Under your rationale, if I was a teacher I could teach that the 'Holocaust' happened and didn't happen at the same time - teaching history would be impossible. Could I teach the kids that 2+2=4, but some people believe that 2+2=5?

The moves to teach creationism in the science class have nothing to do with pluralism, and everything to do with crowbarring religion into children at an early age.

Earlier models are usually taught in science. I know I learned about spontaneous generation, as well as linneaus's theory, and probably a few others. And that was freshman year of high school.

When I took evolution in college, we covered many of the mistakes and dead ends as well.

I think one of the reasons not to give both concepts equal time is you get a guy like Luco, who now seems to think that Evolution (or more properly natural selection) is somehow flawed because it's not as good an explanation for the beginning of life as Creationism. Which is kind of like finding a screwdriver flawed for not being able to make screws.

Polonius wrote:Earlier models are usually taught in science. I know I learned about spontaneous generation, as well as linneaus's theory, and probably a few others. And that was freshman year of high school.

When I took evolution in college, we covered many of the mistakes and dead ends as well.

Which is fine, when they're contextualised in that way. If teachers wanted to discuss creationism by pointing out how flawed and baseless it was as a scientific theory, that would be ok - though a waste of time, in my opinion. What is being argued here seems to be that 'intelligent design' should be given equal consideration with evolution, which is fething risible nonsense. To be honest, this thread has made me decide, once and for all, that such arguments do not even deserve a polite response.

I think one of the reasons not to give both concepts equal time is you get a guy like Luco, who now seems to think that Evolution (or more properly natural selection) is somehow flawed because it's not as good an explanation for the beginning of life as Creationism. Which is kind of like finding a screwdriver flawed for not being able to make screws.

To be fair, it seems that he's just decided that he's seen some flaws in the explanations of certain things, and that in light of that other explanations should be considered. Which sounds perfectly reasonable until you remember that creationism as an alternative has not a shred of evidence whatsoever to support it.

Actually, he keeps trying to compare evolution ( a proposed and generally accepted mechanism for speciation) with Creation myths (explanations for the creation of the cosmos and life).

Evolution does not deal with biogenesis (the creation of life). So if you think evolution does a lousy job explaining how life began, you're correct. Much like you'd be correct if you feel that the Bill of Rights is a bad map of downtown Topeka.

Luco wrote:
I'm going out on a bit of a limb here but...
I daresay science is a popularity contest, any attempt to make an idea known to the population is a popularity contest.

Wait, science is about communicating ideas to the average person? Well damn, if that were the case I shouldn't have paid for this expensive degree!

No, science is about discerning fact, and that will necessarily require political conflict (in the Kuhnian sense), but said conflict will ultimately be determined by measurement (unless politics can deflect light).

The rest of you post can be summarized as "Imre Lakatos".

Polonius wrote:Earlier models are usually taught in science. I know I learned about spontaneous generation, as well as linneaus's theory, and probably a few others. And that was freshman year of high school.

In Science, or in Social Studies? I learned about those things in World History.

Genetics as a science is still being developed, however this does not undermine the basic theory of evolution.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:Earlier models are usually taught in science. I know I learned about spontaneous generation, as well as linneaus's theory, and probably a few others. And that was freshman year of high school.

In Science, or in Social Studies? I learned about those things in World History.

In science. My school district always put a lot of emphasis on the history and development of science. So we learned about various discarded theories before learning about natural selection, we learned how Newton overturned aristotle, etc.

Interesting. I always like hearing about how other US public (I assume) districts teach various things. We had the same emphasis on science (Illinois had terrible test scores in that area) but it was formulaic in Science, and historical outside it; possibly because the school was afraid of teaching the origins of algebra as fact.

Polonius wrote:Earlier models are usually taught in science. I know I learned about spontaneous generation, as well as linneaus's theory, and probably a few others. And that was freshman year of high school.

When I took evolution in college, we covered many of the mistakes and dead ends as well.

That's about teaching context and history to scientific theories, it's entirely worthwhile. But that's where they end, they aren't promoted as actual valid alternatives in any meaningful sense, Lamarckism isn't given equal time to Natural Selection because it's wrong, students are told about it because that's part of the background to modern science. But Lamarckism isn't 'debated', merely described for context.

But it's clearly obvious isn't what the creationist lobby want when they talk about 'discussing' creationism or ID in science class, they want legitimacy. Science class time is too valuable to waste time teaching the nonsense beliefs of religion.

"Teach the controversy" is a common line from creationists. If there's a subject over which there is a genuine scientific controversy then certainly teach both sides of that, but evolution isn't scientifically controversial because it's universally accepted as a matter of scientific fact. There's only a 'controversy' in the sense that there are some very loud religious people demanding their ludicrous beliefs are pandered to and given respect. But being loud doesn't mean you actually have a valid point to make and doesn't make an issue scientifically controversial. As I said earlier, if the flat earth society got militant and started demanding people teach that in school no one would swallow the line that they were merely expecting schools to "teach the controversy". What controversy? An issue is only academically controversial when there are two or more legitimate theories in competition, you need to offer a bit more than being particularly vocal.

Polonius wrote:Earlier models are usually taught in science. I know I learned about spontaneous generation, as well as linneaus's theory, and probably a few others. And that was freshman year of high school.

When I took evolution in college, we covered many of the mistakes and dead ends as well.

I think one of the reasons not to give both concepts equal time is you get a guy like Luco, who now seems to think that Evolution (or more properly natural selection) is somehow flawed because it's not as good an explanation for the beginning of life as Creationism. Which is kind of like finding a screwdriver flawed for not being able to make screws.

I'm not saying that it doesn't work at all nor am I saying it isn't as good of an explanation, I'm merely saying that it needs work and the education system needs to be fair to the leading ideas in this regard. At the very least the dead ends need to be acknowledged in non-college classrooms and that there still is work to be done instead of flaunting it like the knowledge that if you drop something on earth it will fall.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Luco wrote:-completely ignoring the past 5 pages in order to keep blood pressure down and inserting opinion on the matter-

I have no problem with the guy teaching creationism side by side with evolution. We went over the creation mythos of several different religions in addition to evolution and I honestly don't see it as a bad thing. If we're going to advocate a fair and balanced view then we should teach both the leading religion's (or multiple religious ideas on the matter) in addition to the secular modern view on the subject and each should be given a neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other.

OK.

Your opinion is contradicted by scientists, education experts, the law, and sense.

Evolution is not an explanation of creation and has no relevance to creation mythos of any religion.

-sigh-
Creationism expands to more than just the development of the human race yes, however the term is used to denote that Creationism is limited to that aspect in this particular argument. Creationism, if we must give the whole breadth of it should likely be taught as its own section prior or after the lessons on the big bang, evolution, and possibly plate tectonics. However, as this discussion wasn't on the big bang or plate tectonics thus I didn't feel the need to explain that.

Albatross wrote:

Luco wrote:I merely meant that after going into some detail at the collegiate level I found that I express doubts as to its full credibility as it is often given. I did not mean to proclaim myself an expert on the subject by any means.

I agree with your propaganda statement in the sense that schools really are the main point of influence for this type of issue. Thus, why not give all sides with as much data as possible for each and letting the individual decide which to believe based on the data? Balance is giving the best information available on a belief regardless of the trend of the area. If evolution has the best argument in as unbias forum as can be had on the subject, people will believe it over the other creation beliefs. If they do not believe in what others find to be true that is their business providing it does not cause them to harm others.

But where does that end? At what point do you decide that something is true enough to be transmitted as fact to the student body? Under your rationale, if I was a teacher I could teach that the 'Holocaust' happened and didn't happen at the same time - teaching history would be impossible. Could I teach the kids that 2+2=4, but some people believe that 2+2=5?

The moves to teach creationism in the science class have nothing to do with pluralism, and everything to do with crowbarring religion into children at an early age.

By teaching the holocaust at all this argument is made. Primary source information is quite abundant with the holocaust and often required reading, pictures of the camps, and other data is readily available. Evolution has holes that need to be filled before it can fall into the same camp with the holocaust and other more recent historical events. So you crowbar secularism at an early age? You're belief is just that, a belief and is no different in that regard to religion (also a belief). Reasons are irrelevant for that a belief is a belief regardless as to how you back it up. You can convince people you're right all day long, but its still belief vs belief and 'pushing' religion on someone really isn't any different than 'pushing' secularism on someone.

@Howard: if it was universally accepted as you claim this thread wouldn't exist because the article would not exist. Just because its accepted in your circle doesn't mean it is everywhere.

Evolution and Creation shouldn't be taught side by side because as I said before, Religion =/=Science.

I'm not saying we shouldn't teach about the various forms of creationism, but just not alongside Evolution, and certainly not as an alternative.

Luco wrote:By teaching the holocaust at all this argument is made. Primary source information is quite abundant with the holocaust and often required reading, pictures of the camps, and other data is readily available. Evolution has holes that need to be filled before it can fall into the same camp with the holocaust and other more recent historical events. So you crowbar secularism at an early age? You're belief is just that, a belief and is no different in that regard to religion (also a belief). Reasons are irrelevant for that a belief is a belief regardless as to how you back it up. You can convince people you're right all day long, but its still belief vs belief and 'pushing' religion on someone really isn't any different than 'pushing' secularism on someone.

You realize the flaw here is that even with all the evidence there are still people that deny the Holocaust. With all the evidence in support of Evolution the people who deny it are akin to Holocaust deniers. If we go by your argument anyway.

Except that the evidence for evolution isn't exhaustive. The amount of data for the relative time span isn't that much and there are holes in it, starting with how difficult it is to get fossilization in the first place and second the holocaust isn't that hard to believe given the events afterwards. Telling someone their ancestors came from a monkey is about the same as telling someone that the Sky Man is watching him in terms of how it comes off to someone who isn't aware of one or the other.

Luco wrote:The amount of data for the relative time span isn't that much...

Sure, radiometric dating is absolutely insignificant.

Brushfire wrote:
...and there are holes in it, starting with how difficult it is to get fossilization in the first place.

That isn't evidence for the relative age of the Earth.

Luco wrote:
I'm not saying that it doesn't work at all nor am I saying it isn't as good of an explanation, I'm merely saying that it needs work and the education system needs to be fair to the leading ideas in this regard.

Actually Im quite sure that "Creationism" hasnt been a "relevant" leading idea in regards to the origins of man for a very long time now.

Creationism is little more then fictous writing as a convenient and largely fantastical idea of how the world was made, its right up there with the creation theories of countless religions across the world and the one thing they all have in common is that they have no facts to back themselves up and are was not written with any real understanding about how the universe functions. You seem to imply that the holes in evolution makes it as believable as Creationism despite the fact that the holes in Creationism are far larger and pocked with holes within holes, for example, why do we have fossils that are older then the Creationist universe?

Science is not on the same lines as Religion, it is true that some of the theoretical sciences are exactly what they imply, theories but they are theories based upon logical conclusions and not guess work and the result of half arsed brain storming. We can actually see science working before our eyes, Evolution itself is still occuring right now, it frustrates me to no end when religous "experts" claim that since we havnt seen any evolution taking place within the last couple of years it cant exist.......

You may be familiar, or not, that Evolution is a process of speciation which occurs over thousands of years, the change is gradual rather then "omg, that lizard monkey monster turned into a snake, elephant monster in the space of a hundred years", its an extremely gradual change which predominantly becomes apparent in the face of interspecies competition and environmental change. It is the entire basis of why there are black skinned humans in Africa, humans with slanted eyes in Asia and humans with white skin in Europe, environmental factors allowed them to develop into the different varities of human we see today, the very fact that we can breed with one another is evidence of common ancestry as species with largely different genetic makeups cannot breed.

As for "teaching Evolution in schools leads to secular children", I honestly cant see why this would be a bad thing. F.Y.I. there is nothing to fear, its not the case, I went to a Catholic school which taught evolution and half my year still came out as devout Christians but most of them understood the relevance of Evolution.
If people put their values in "respected" scientific theory it really is a benefit to the species as a whole= "when I say respected scientific theory I dont mean for example Eugenics, a flawed and discredited scientific theory used by racists as scientific fact when the "real" scientific world has disproven it.

- Science has basically proven the popular bigoted theory of "pure blood" is null, all humans share a common ancestor thus the term "race" is incorrect, we are all one species.

-There is no true moral basis for persecuting homosexuals or their rights and there is no proven psychological abnormalities amongst children raised by same sex parents, as long as the child grows up in a safe and nurturing environment they come out as healthy, mentally stable human beings. Homosexuality is a genetic characteristic not something taught to a child.

-Being Agnostic does not mean I feel that killing, raping and stealing from people is ok, Religion did not invent morality, it merely hijacked it and perversed it to a degree by installing its own bias's and has decieved thousands of people into believing them as the moral standard, the term "God hates F***'s" comes to mind.

-Stem Cell research is possible the most important medical science in the modern era but is held back by largely religous ethical beliefs. Now dont get me wrong, there is an ethical issue with stem cell research, however I look at it like this..........."Note, this is also an issue regarding abortion"

If people are forced to have their babies when they dont want them, there are major potential issues.

-In some cases people who do not want a baby but do so anyway have killed their babies in the same way that a person whose cat has had kittens sometimes drowns them.
-Adoption and foster care are all alternatives for an unwanted child, while these can be excellent there are many accounts of adults who abuse the system for wellfare checks and other horrid situations.
-A baby brought into a world where its parents had it reluctantly and at odds with their financial goals and personal goals often end up in unhappy households with more chances of developing social issues.
- Some people resort to make shift abortions or go overseas to seedy clinics who will perform the operation, this is unhygienic, often dangerous and far more traumatic for the woman.

Personally I believe that people should be using contraception at all times unless they are in the market for a baby or prepared if the time comes, I believe the fewer feotus's terminated the better but this will continue to happen, simply because questionable laws make it difficult to do does not mean people wont resort to less then wise tactics to a fix a problem, it is best it be legal so as to ensure it is done as safely and ethically as possible. Anyone who is irresponsible in this regard and has no sense personal responsibility are extremely unethical.

Stem cells have the potential to fix numerous medical problems rampant in humans, diabetes for example, but simply because religous groups will not allow the use of already aborted feotus's in medical science people are being denied much needed cures and life saving treatments.

Sorry for my rant there but my god, Creationism has no place in schools outside of Kansas. We would merely be dumbing down the population and reverting to Dark Age times when people put their fath in superstition and heresay rather then reason, fact and logic.

Personally I have no problem with people having religous beliefs as long as they dont enforce them on impressionable children or young adults as scientific when they arent, that would be lying and teaching people lies as facts is wrong.

Luco wrote:Except that the evidence for evolution isn't exhaustive. The amount of data for the relative time span isn't that much and there are holes in it, starting with how difficult it is to get fossilization in the first place and second the holocaust isn't that hard to believe given the events afterwards. Telling someone their ancestors came from a monkey is about the same as telling someone that the Sky Man is watching him in terms of how it comes off to someone who isn't aware of one or the other.

In the case of evolution theory we have the following:

Evidence which demands an explanation; the variation of species.
A logical process which provides this explanation; natural selection.
Observation that some inheritance mechanism exists for natural selection to work; genes.
Physical evidence that genes exist and are embodied in DNA.
Physical evidence that DNA does the things it would need to do in order to “work”, such as replicate when cells divide.
Observational evidence from nature that closely related species have adapted to variations in their environment.
It has been shown by experiment that a population can adapt by natural selection to a changed factor in the environment, and this is expressed in the genes.
We can work out and study the genomes (complete genetic sequences) of species. This allows us to trace modern species back to common ancestors even without a fossil record.

There are still areas of genetics which are not fully understood, so we don’t know everything.

It’s possible in theory that something could disprove the theory.

If this explanation does not satisfy you, you need to provide a different explanation for evolution. The trouble is that there is no evidence for creationism other than the Bible, which is contradicted by other religious texts.

Why do you require science to provide a 99% watertight theory when you will accept a 1% watertight theory from religion?

Luco wrote:@Howard: if it was universally accepted as you claim this thread wouldn't exist because the article would not exist. Just because its accepted in your circle doesn't mean it is everywhere.

I'm not saying it's accepted worldwide, I'm making the distinction that it's universally accepted within science as a 'matter of scientific fact'. There's no debate over the validity of evolution theory within science unless you count the likes of the creation institute who are heavily funded by church groups and have made their own journals just to publish their own 'data' because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny elsewhere.

Evolution isn't a scientific controversy as creationists would like to claim, which is the impression they want to give when saying "teach the controversy" and "it's just a theory". It's disingenuous and people going away thinking that creationism deserves equal time in science class or that evolution is flawed and just a 'belief' like creationism are being suckered. Creationists shouting their ignorance does not undermine or in any way change the validity of evolutionary science. The people upset by evolution are not scientists so they don't offer much to debate other than their outrage. That doesn't make for a meaningful 'controversy' worth teaching just like holocaust denial isn't worth teaching just because some anti-semites loudly claim it never happened. The holocaust is not a 'historically controversial' matter, the only people worth listening to, ie actual historians, are overwhelmingly in agreement that it occurred.

If there's a genuine scientific debate, such as the impacts and dangers of global warming, then certainly discuss both sides of it because the people contributing to each side are hopefully making a scientific argument. Though it is hard to think of a controversial matter that isn't caused by disagreement within science but in fact primarily driven by religion or politics; which is true of GM crops and global warming. Most high school level science is relatively basic and well established, you have to go a bit further into higher education before you start getting into matters that are a matter of genuine debate between scientists rather than politicians.

Luco wrote: So you crowbar secularism at an early age? You're belief is just that, a belief and is no different in that regard to religion (also a belief). Reasons are irrelevant for that a belief is a belief regardless as to how you back it up. You can convince people you're right all day long, but its still belief vs belief and 'pushing' religion on someone really isn't any different than 'pushing' secularism on someone.

Who's talking about pushing secularism? The only thing I'm talking about pushing in the science classroom is science. Creationism ain't it.

That aside, I would be in favour of a completely secular state. I think it's the only sensible way to run public life. Religion should be private, and a matter of entirely personal choice based on a sober assessment of the facts once one reaches adulthood. Children should be as free from religious indoctrination as they are from indoctrination into communism or notions of white supremacy. So in a way, yes, schools should be secular, because they are places of secular, NOT religious, education.

But that's not the same as actively pushing atheism, and the assertion that god does not exist. God should not be mentioned in school at all.

Secularity merely means separated from religion. It does not mean anti-religion. Atheism is anti-religion.

FWIW, the USA is a secular state by rule of its constitution (Bill of Rights).

It has been found illegal to teach Creationism in public schools in the USA, because it contravenes the constitution. That is the reason why this teacher was reported.

Kilkrazy wrote:Secularity merely means separated from religion. It does not mean anti-religion. Atheism is anti-religion.

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

Yes.

I am agreeing with you and reinforcing your point.

Ah, got you. Sorry. I have a terrible hangover. I literally can't remember anything about last night apart from that it involved a LOT of wine.

Math and English*: the devil's crowbar








*or whatever your primary language is.

If people put their values in "respected" scientific theory it really is a benefit to the species as a whole= "when I say respected scientific theory I dont mean for example Eugenics, a flawed and discredited scientific theory used by racists as scientific fact when the "real" scientific world has disproven it.

Actually eugenics is still in effect today - e.g; 98% of babies/foetuses with downs syndrome are terminated in utero.

You realize the flaw here is that even with all the evidence there are still people that deny the Holocaust. With all the evidence in support of Evolution the people who deny it are akin to Holocaust deniers. If we go by your argument anyway.

I havne't seen the holocaust and I haven't seen evolution - ergo it doens't exist?
While I'm sick to the teeth about hearing about the holocaust, the historical evidence is there. I can see why people deny it (after all you can't really hand a lot of people a box labelled '100% proof of the holocaust') but similarly at least remain open to the possibility. I do think making holocaust denial a crime is wrong though.

Stem cells have the potential to fix numerous medical problems rampant in humans, diabetes for example, but simply because religous groups will not allow the use of already aborted feotus's in medical science people are being denied much needed cures and life saving treatments.

Firstly I call BS as embryonic stem cells have not actually cured anything as of yet. But all this money gets pumped into it.. it's bizzare!
In addition that's like saying you have 'faith' in stem cells. I might have the potential to perform magic and heal people with my mind.

Also in relation to diabetes there are several types. I guess when you say 'rampant' you mean or Type 2? Yet referring to stem cells I assume you mean type 1 where other treatments, including gold nanoparticles, pancreatic transplant, islet transplants and antisense therapies also have potential... but stem cells are sexier it seems...

Why do you require science to provide a 99% watertight theory when you will accept a 1% watertight theory from religion?

You poor misguied heretic Kilkrazy... you must have FAITH!!! (also the invisble pink unicorn says hi! :-) ) /sarcasm

You make an excellent point Kk - I think religion merely gives a bias. IF you have faith in something (weather science or religion) you are probably more likely to overlook its gaps. Granted religion is generally worse when it comes to trying to cover its ass but the global warming shenanigans shows what fallible humans can do too.