 |
I don't think it would be necessary to attempt to identify any creator/designer in the science class. Your suggestion about a disclaimer would be a good policy. The student is at least not prejudiced against creationism by the teacher. Do you really think something like this would fly with Newdow and associates? I kind of doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Now here is an interesting statement! Evolution requires more time than the evolutionists allow from the beginning of Earth. If life here came from from some extraterrestrial life form, how can it be that we have not been able to locate any despite many years now of efforts to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Actually, I subscribe to that extraterrestrial theory, only I call Him God/Jehovah/Almighty. Agreement at last!!
I think you win the "interesting statement" game. I don't see any evidence for evolution needing longer than it took, could you present that evidence for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Then you go on to say that there is no evidence for life coming from extraterrestrial beginnings, followed by saying that you subscribe to that!
By the way, you still haven't answered Jill's question.
The noted word is the problem with your argument - you aren't arguing for ID; you're arguing for creationism. That's religion, and it does not belong in a science class. Unless in the right setting, it doesn't belong in a public school at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
And that, Gal, is why ID isn't taught in school and never will be - you don't want ID, you want creationism. You can't even distinguish between the two on a silly thread on the interwebs, how do you expect it to be done properly in a school setting?
I think I did answer Jill's question. As to contacting life elsewhere in the universe, I meant by scientific means. I am in contact with intelligent life somewhere out there, but not by means of radio waves. And true, I fail to see any difference between creationism and intelligent design. Does that make you happy? The fact is that the ET that I communicate with invented quantum mechanics, among other things. We communicate by mental telepathy.
We can play with words, but the bottom line remains the same. You do not want students to have access to anything other than your perceived truth, not in ANY public school setting. I think we owe all the available information to them, and am not ashamed to say so. Why won't you admit your intolerance to any concept that disagrees with you?
[QUOTE=Capuchin]I think you win the "interesting statement" game. I don't see any evidence for evolution needing longer than it took, could you present that evidence for me?
You are the one who presented the 9 billion and 4.5 billion year figures. I just took your word for it.
I think you must have misunderstood me at some point, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
It does, because now you've admitted your intent. You don't want ID taught, you want the bible taught. Bible study is not science - keep it out of the science classroom and keep it in church. This is the problem with the people pushing for ID being taught in schools - you don't want ID, you want creationism, you want the story of Genesis. Time and time again the courts have ruled you can't teach the bible in public schools; stop trying to disguise it by calling it science and slipping it in where it doesn't belong. It's dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I want students taught science. I've asked time and time again for someone, anyone, to define science and tell me how ID fits into that definition. It doesn't fit, because it isn't science. That's not an insult, really. I know you think it is, but it isn't. I do think we own children all the information available to them, but it should be appropriate for the subject. I would have NO PROBLEM with ID and creationism being taught in a public school in a Philosophy class, or a Social Sciences class, or a Religious Studies class. But neither of those "theories" belongs in the same class that talks about the table of elements. I'm not intolerant, and I don't oppose ID being taught because I don't agree with it, I oppose it being taught in a science class because it's not science. Would you oppose evolution and the big bang theory being taught at vacation bible school? You might say you don't... but I bet you would.Quote:
We can play with words, but the bottom line remains the same. You do not want students to have access to anything other than your perceived truth, not in ANY public school setting. I think we owe all the available information to them, and am not ashamed to say so. Why won't you admit your intolerance to any concept that disagrees with you?
OK, Jill. You, at least do not agree with the Newdows of the world. You will have to admit that they would not agree with your take on this, that is, teaching creationism/id in some class at school.
I still think your basic premise is wrong. Those who deny any creator/designer are a tiny minority in the world. Most people see a complex universe ordered by definite laws and recognize that there is supreme intelligence behind it. There is nothing religious about this acknowledgement. Religion begins at this point as man attempts to understand and make contact with the creator. How can you say that recognition equals religion? That makes no sense to me.
Probably not, but there are nuts on both sides of the fence. As long as it's not taught in a bible-study manner and it's not in a science class, I'll (probably) give it the green light. I think if more people learned about different religions we'd see a lot less hate and misunderstanding in this world. But don't preach it in school, and keep it out of the science classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
So majority should win? Seems to me that history dictates that's not always a safe way to go, especially if it means suppressing the rights of others... but OK. So more people in this world acknowledge a creator than don't; so what? "God" in any form, by any definition, isn't science. "God" cannot be proven in a lab. "God" cannot be disproven in a lab. That's why "god" doesn't belong in a science class. Recognition of a being doesn't equal religion - identifying that being as the Christian god, or the Hindu god, or the whatever-god makes it religion. And what you and the other pushers of ID in schools want is YOUR idea of creation taught, but let's call it "Intelligent Design" instead of "Creationsim". Sorry, but that doesn't work - Genesis is Genesis, and it's religion - nothing secular about it, and DAMN SURE nothing scientific about it.Quote:
I still think your basic premise is wrong. Those who deny any creator/designer are a tiny minority in the world. Most people see a complex universe ordered by definite laws and recognize that there is supreme intelligence behind it. There is nothing religious about this acknowledgement. Religion begins at this point as man attempts to understand and make contact with the creator. How can you say that recognition equals religion? That makes no sense to me.
Most evolutionists here may start from a cell, not knowing how it came about. Is that taught in school? I post these links to PHDs in the sciences and they have no clear idea about how things came to be, but in grade school, evolution is taught as established fact. There is no discussion about limitations, flaws, gaps, in this theory. That is unscientific and amounts to a religion.
As to why is a Creator important?
That is metaphysical / philosophical. What really does evoultion teach my children?
- survival of the fittest - that is ultimately selfish. How does caring for the sick or elderly
The defenseless or the weak come into cultural play?
- genetic endowment is what matters
- we are no better than animals [ though at times I believe animals, especially dogs,
Behave better ]
- where does kindness, alturism, love, selflessness come into the picture with evolution?
- the idea that in evolutionary "science" there can be no dissent, no questioning of the
Established order.
Now, I understand and agree that no particular religion should be taught in school, but do evolutionists even allow for a God or Creator? In the case of my 3,5,6th grade children - no, since evolution contradicts the Biblical account.
To each his own, but I do not want my children taught unscientifically, and not to know that according to the Bible, that there is a Creator that loves them, that died for them, that gives them ultimate purpose, that grants them eternal life, that wants them to love and serve others.
If there is not, there should be. In order to get a full education, students should be told the evidence we have, and the evidence we don't have. I agree with you there. I disagree that it amounts to a religon (though it's funny you just admitted religoin doesn't talk about limitations, flaws, gaps, etc... ), but I think that's another discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Survival of the fittest goes much larger than caring for the sick - not to mention that those deeds are done from a social standpoint. Just because biologically it might be better to take all the people in the world who have incurable, trasmittable diseases and drop them on an island where they can't get to (infect) anyone, doesn't mean that's what biology is teaching, or what society accepts. Biology doesn't teach social situations or ethics, that's the job of society and parents. I was never taught in biology "save youself if you are fit and screw anyone and everyone else". That's a very narrow-minded and dark way to look at survival of the fittest.Quote:
That is metaphysical / philosophical. What really does evoultion teach my children?
- survival of the fittest - that is ultimately selfish. How does caring for the sick or elderly
The defenseless or the weak come into cultural play?
Care to elaborate on that a bit? We are taught that certain traits attract mates over other traits, but again, I was never taught to hold one's traits against them, or that they are "less" than me because I'm "better".Quote:
- genetic endowment is what matters
From a purely biological standpoint, we aren't. You're talking about a social, moral and ethical standpoint, which again, biology doesn't teach. Humans are animals; we have animalistic behaviors, it's true. Now, I'm not sure if you have an underlying motive for this point, but the fact is, we are animals, so students should be taugh that.Quote:
- we are no better than animals [ though at times I believe animals, especially dogs, behave better
Those traits can be found in the animal kingdom as well; they aren't unique to humans. Even the "evils" of human behavior can be found in the animal kingdom - just the other day I saw an article about a seal raping a penguin. No, I'm not kidding.Quote:
- where does kindness, alturism, love, selflessness come into the picture with evolution?
Again, I was never taught not to question, I was just taught, "This is evolution." What people believe outside of the classroom is there own business. You make it sound like bio teachers everywhere are stading on a box above the students screaming, "NO! THIS IS THE ONLY WAY IT IS!!! YOUR PARENTS AND PREACHERS ARE WRONG!!!!" If that's happening in your child's school, I suggest you get them out of there...Quote:
- the idea that in evolutionary "science" there can be no dissent, no questioning of the established order.
Now there's an interesting statement... you understand and agree no religion should be taught in school, but then you go on to comment how evolution contradicts the bible... sounds like you want creationism taught in school... which is religion...Quote:
Now, I understand and agree that no particular religion should be taught in school, but do evolutionists even allow for a God or Creator? In the case of my 3,5,6th grade children - no, since evolution contradicts the Biblical account.
But, as said many, many, many times before, evolution does not make a claim on the existence or non-existence of a god. You can believe in both. Now, it gets difficult to believe in creationism and evolution, but to believe in evolution and science does NOT mean you have to be an atheist.
I suggest you teach your kids at home the story of creation, and tell them they will learn something else in school, because at school, we have to be secular. Tell them, "Christians believe it happend this way.... and non-Christians believe it happened that way. We know we're right because Jesus says so." Don't rely on the school to give your kids bible study.
Why do your kids teachers have to tell them these things? Why can't you do this at home? At church? Why can't you reserve an hour a day to sit with your kids and tell them abut this wonderful creator and all the things he has done? Why would you want a teacher, who might not have the same views and interpretations as you teach them something you hold so valuable? If I were a teacher, would you want me teaching your kids about your god? :D Didn't think so! :DQuote:
To each his own, but I do not want my children taught unscientifically, and not to know that according to the Bible, that there is a Creator that loves them, that died for them, that gives them ultimate purpose, that grants them eternal life, that wants them to love and serve others.
Survival of the fittest also doesn't always mean survival of the fittest individual. One of the reasons humans are so successful is because we took survival of the fittest to the group mentality. We found that by grouping together and caring for each other we increased everyone survival. If I bring you food when your sick, your much more likely to bring me food when I'm sick. This is what has made human generally good to each other. This is what gives us our morality. A lone human in the forest is easy prey but a village has a much greater chance at surviving and if you want to live in the village you have to be good. So it is in your best interest to be moral.
Morality tests have been done on people with radically different beliefs where they answer a situation.
For example Eric walks into a casualty department, why can't Dr Utilitarian kill him and give his organs to save five of his patents(they all magically match him) waiting for transplants? That way only one person dies but five people live.
Most people say it is immoral to kill Eric even if it does save the other five people, regardless of their spiritual or lack thereof beliefs. We all have the same internal moral compass that is not relative to our religions.
Evolution or in fact any other scientific theory has no bearing on somebody's intrinsic morality, and as much as some people believe otherwise nor does the Torah, the Bible, Qu'ran or any other holy book or teachings.
There is no science in Genesis? There are facts. Do you know that I know from Genesis that there was an inhabited world before Gen. 1? Followed by a long period when Earth was covered by water? That Earth did not have high mountains before Noah's day? That the continents separated shortly after Noah's flood? Remember it is in fairly recent times that scientists came to the knowledge that the continents were originally one piece. That man's body is composed of materials found in clay? This is not a complete list, just what comes to mind at the moment. There are several scientific/historical facts here that fit perfectly with fossil records.
I didn't say Genesis doesn't contain science, I said it's not science. Lots of books contain science (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, crime novels), but it doesn't mean they are science.
I notice that you name fiction. Do you deny the accuracy of what I stated? If you cannot address those statements, then your argument is flawed. Oh, yeah, what does the fossil record show for the appearance of "modern man"? Isn't it about 5 or 6 thousand years?Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Well, since you asked... I do deny the accuracy of what you stated. It appears you subscribe to the "bible is the literal truth" and "earth is 6,000 years old" concepts; since you think continental drift started during Noah's time, not 200 million years ago... and since you think the entire earth was flooded, despite the lack of evidence to support that idea.
So yes, the books I name are fiction. I don't see a problem in the comparison.
PS - not all crime novels are fiction. Still doesn't make them science books.
The only 6,000 tear period is that calculated back to Adam, and that fits with the fossil record for "modern man".Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I still don't think that refusal to consider ALL facts should be the norm in schools.
It's not about considering all the facts, it's about what is considered science and what isn't. There is nothing scientific about saying "god said let there be light, and there was light" or "designer did it". Those statements don't fit in with the scientific method at all. Beyond that, the people pushing for ID are unable to separate ID from creationism - even you can't do it on a silly board on the intertubes. You can't teach creationism in schools - it's religion, plain and simple.
Plus, ID/Creationism can't ever be proven, unless the designer decides to make a personal appearance on the 5:00 news and say, "Hey! Check me out, and check out what I can do!". The scientific theories and laws taught in school are provable - god/designer isn't provable.
I keep saying it, and you keep ignoring it, or keep thinking it's an insult - ID isn't science, it doesn't belong in a science class, no matter what. Honestly, it's not an insult. ID doesn't fit the very definition, the very basic criteria to be science. Right or wrong, it still isn't science. Creationism is religion, it doesn't belong in a public school (when taught as fact).
Why do your kids teachers have to tell them these things? Why can't you do this at home? At church? Why can't you reserve an hour a day to sit with your kids and tell them abut this wonderful creator and all the things he has done? Why would you want a teacher, who might not have the same views and interpretations as you teach them something you hold so valuable? If I were a teacher, would you want me teaching your kids about your god? :D Didn't think so! :D[/QUOTE]
I actually do spend time with the kids - at church, at home, on the way dropping them off at school or pickiing them up when I can, Coaching [ badly I admit ] their basketball team, at the supper table, taking them on trips [ NY, FLA, and all the places in between], making sure their homework is done [ and there seems to be a lot more than I was their age ], signing off on assignments etc..
The other day while taking my 3rd grade son to school, he mentioned that birds came from dinosaurs. I asked him where dinosaurs came from, and he said amphibians, and we went down the line to fish, according to his responses. That was what he was taught.
At that point I asked where fish came from - he said rocks.
I asked him how? Why are current rocks not just becoming fish etc..
This is the type of stuff that is taught as fact in school. It only takes some simple questions
And reasoning to know that evolution is not fact.
Then, [as I have always told my children] I told him that God created him, loves him, cherishes him, gives him eternal life, makes it possible for him to do great things with his life. It is in the Bible.
Confront the teacher/school, there is a problem there obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
What would you say if I told you that the local church sermon here preached violence towards gays?
Um I know that I really have no idea about this ID thing my daughter is only in 1st grade. But I did have a response for inthebox.
When I went into my Freshman year my science teacher told us that next week we were going to learn about the BIG BANG. I immediately told him that I did not want to participate because I did not believe in the big bang theory. He got angry and sent me to the office. I told them what happened and they called my parents. My parents backed me up and said they refuse for me to take that part of the class also. This went all the way to the school board. Where I won. I got study hall for a week! So I just wanted to let everyone know there is still a choice. If you don't want you kids learning about it, tell the school. They can't make you go against your beliefs.
PS I am so glad I got on this website! I learn SO much stuff it's unbelievable!!
NK:
I would tell you that is wrong!
Unbelievable. I am truly sorry that they claim to be Christ followers.
The sermon should be
Galatians 5:4... [niv] The only thing that counts is faith expressed as love.
1 John 4... We love because He first loved us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Welcome.
My wife was taught similar things in College 100 level bio courses. You have to repeat these things on the test in order to get a good grade.
inthebox,
That's the simili I was making. Your child's teacher is wrong and he/she in no way reflects the curriculum that science teacher's use.
Wow. Okay well maybe it only works in elem and high school. But I guess I was thinking keep your kids from learning that way of thinking until they are old enough to know the difference and establish their own beliefs. Thanks for the info though!
Actually the same can be said for religion can't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
The part about old enough to know the difference and establish their own beliefs? Yes. I tell my daughter what I believe. And when she asks me if it is real or the truth I ask her if she believes it's real. She says yes or no. If she wants answers to questions I answer them and show her where or how I got those answers. But I stress to her that it is about belief and faith. It's up to her if she wants to believe and have faith in it or choose her own way. (as of now, she believes with me. We'll see when she is a teen if that stays the same! )
Well done!
Here is some insight to my daughters way of thinking (7 years old)
"Mommy, I think Santa and Easter bunny aren't real. I think big people made them up to make bad kids be good so they will get presents. But the tooth fairy HAS to be real. Because you don't have to be good for the tooth fairy to show up you have to lose a tooth, and that happens if you are good or bad."
So maybe I should let her learn about this ID thing in school. She may have some powerful insight for the teacher!!
By the way when should I be expecting her to come home with all those questions and new knowledge anyway... 3rd grade or so?
I have a 7 year old daughter as well. There is no talk of religion in our house because there is no need for it. My kids have great morals instilled by their parents :). If later she wants to learn about religion she is of course free to do so. I'm OK for her to learn all about science since it is based of man's observation of nature.
Hello again, Galvesgton:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Even if I wasn't an atheist, my scientific "ox would be gored" by your proposal. Even WITH it's gaps, or because of them, evolution is science - ID is religion.
I don't know why you think evolution is a done deal. It ain't. That's what's so coooooool about it. We're LEARNING it, AS we are teaching it. Look, when I was a kid, they taught me that the land mass was fixed. They were wrong. Shortly after I graduated, they discovered plate tectonics. That means the continents move.
Should they NOT have taught what they knew at the time in science class?? No, of course not. They should have (and fortunately they did) taught what they knew. That's what we're doing now with evolution. I don't think there's ANY science teacher ANY where in the world that doesn't teach, that the theory of evolution is itself evolving.
As a matter of fact, it would be MY opinion, that we know 10% about evolution and where we came from. Maybe we'll never find out for sure. I certainly hope we do, and I think we will. The quest for the truth is certainly exciting - unbelievably exciting. I relish each new discovery, and they're happening every day. What a wonderful time to be alive.
But, back to your question. Since ID is religion and NOT science, it really would violate MY First Amendment rights to be free from a state sponsored religion if it were taught in school. That's what would be happening if state employed teachers taught religion.
But, there's good news for you. The other great thing about the First Amendment, is that it allows YOU to teach anything you want in your church and you can even call it science it you want to. Nobody is going to do anything about it.
So, even if (as I've said before), I was the ONLY citizen in this entire country who objected to religion being taught in public school, I, as a minority of ONE, have the Constitutional right to STOP it.
excon
I agree. Here's a thread I started sometime ago that has a pretty good discussion of some of what's new in genetics and evolutionary theory, if you're interested. Genetics-Developmental Biology-Evolutionary theoryQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Here's a great blog by a biologist: 2008 May - Olivia Judson - Evolution - Opinion - New York Times Blog
Science from the opinion section of the NYT?
Come on.
* RNA is different fromm DNA because the former is usually single vs double stranded.
Is that the only difference?
How about R = ribo.. D = Deoxyribo.. or In RNA uracil pairs with adenine. In DNA thymidine pairs with adenine.
The science is there to describe genetics, but mentioning evolution adds no information.
A better way of describing DNA trascription, translation etc... is to marvel at the DESIGN of it.
Truly what goes on in the cell is more complex than what goes on in any man made manufacturing factories.
* Retroviruses.
To believe this is to believe that viruses added to the genetic information present to develop humans and other species? Purely by chance and luck because the majority of gene mutations that medicine finds in humans lead to diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, huntington's, CML, higher risk for breast or colon cancer, or higher risks for alzheimer's
Well, yes, actually. Olivia Judson is a qualified practicing biologist who also is able to write clearly for a general audience. If you aren't interested in what she has to say, don't read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
If you are suggesting that there is no relationship between genetics and evolution, you are displaying your ignorance of both.Quote:
The science is there to describe genetics, but mentioning evolution adds no information.
Science is an observation of fact.
Does genetics need to be taught with an evolutionary assumption?
No. You can teach cell biology and inheritance and genetics without an evolutionary assumption.
You can teach of gene transfer and molecular biological lab techniques, but WHO is doing these experiments?
Scientists, using their INTELLIGENCE. Not evolution.
Now take this blog about HIV vs SIV
ERV: How a 'just so' story turns into just 'so?'-- HIV and the failures of Intelligent Design
Dr Behe has stated that HIV mutates at an astounding rate as do most viruses. Hiv, despite its mutation rate stays HIV. It has not become a herpes virus or another type of virus. Same with influenza.
In this blog note the wording: [hang in there because it is decidedly more complex than the opinion page of the NYT ] :o
"new gene/protein in HIV-1 called 'Vpu'. To quickly summarize, Vpu first emerged in chimpanzees version of HIV, SIV. [ Which does not cause clinically significnt disease in chimps ] After chimpanzees transmitted SIV to humans [HOW? Was this observed?], Vpu ACQUIRED new properties to deal with the environment of a new host. AS TIME PROGRESSED, HIV-1 split into multiple subtypes [ HOW? ], and the Vpus of different subtypes STARTED TO EVOLVE different characteristics as well. Thus SIVcpz Vpu, HIVSubtype B Vpu, and HIVSubtype C Vpu are GENETICALLY AND BIOCHEMICALLY DISTINCT PROTEINS."
Notice all the evolutionary assumptions. From there they go on to more details colored by evolutionary bias.
These are the same type of assumptions that Rev Wright makes about the US government [ not evolution ] as the cause of AIDS. ;)
Let me ask a stupid question what makes a species, a species and not just a variation within a different species? What is the concrete set in stone that says this is a species? Is it say if they are 97% the same call them the same species or do they need to be closer than that?
The definition of species is set by scientists.
Equating similarity/homology to evolutionary relationship is fallacious.
If one is to use, retrospectively, degree of similarity to prove evolutionary relationships, then your tractor trailer is "evolutionarily" related to a Honda Civic. They both have wheels, seats, steering wheels, IC engines, a transmission, a metal body, a/c, etc... the difference is we know that both these vehicles were DESIGNED by humans. We are not assuming that 4 wheels "evolved" into 18, or one, through mutations, "evolved" a turbo diesal engine and the other a gas/electric hybrid engine.
I know the difference between types of cars and trucks, there isn't much variation within them a civic is a civic they never show up with the occasional 5th or 6th wheel because they are designed. (http://weirdpicturearchive.com/pics/6leggedcow.php). I want to know what make a species a particular species or kind. What stops the mutations from continuing until you have a new species?
Also about viruses of course the aids virus is still the aids virus. I wouldn't expect it to change in only 20 or so years. Evolution takes thousands of years and of course eviromental pressure. Although what was it before it was the aids virus it's only been around for the last what 30 maybe 40 years? Are viruses even alive? I seem to remember in science class that it was kind of a debated subject. My information on that may be old though.
Don't even get me started about Michael behe.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:29 PM. |