[Galveston1]

I understand your objection, Gal, but you didn't answer my questions. What does teaching "creator did it" get us? Unless we define a specific creator, it means nothing. Would you creationists stop complaining if, on the first day of school the science teacher said, "We're going to study science in this class, but you should know, it is possible, though not proven, that it could all have been done by an intelligent creator. Now, moving on, let's talk about photosynthesis..."

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.

[Galveston1]

Life could not get far in space, there are many hypotheses about this, and the vast majority of them require a terrestrial setting, whether it be due to a lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc. Since the Earth only formed 4.5 billion years ago, evolution is irrelevant for the first 9 billion years unless we find some evidence for an extraterrestrial form of life, at least from evolution on Earth's point of view.

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?

Actually, I subscribe to that extraterrestrial theory, only I call Him God/Jehovah/Almighty. Agreement at last!!

[Capuchin]

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?

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?

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

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.

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?

[Galveston1]

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?

[Galveston1]

[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.

[Capuchin]

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.

[jillianleab]

And true, I fail to see any difference between creationism and intelligent design. Does that make you happy?

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.

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?

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.

[Galveston1]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[inthebox]

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.

[jillianleab]

There is no discussion about limitations, flaws, gaps, in this theory. That is unscientific and amounts to a religion.

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.

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?

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.

- genetic endowment is what matters

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".

- we are no better than animals [ though at times I believe animals, especially dogs, behave better

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.

- where does kindness, alturism, love, selflessness come into the picture with evolution?

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.

- the idea that in evolutionary "science" there can be no dissent, no questioning of the established order.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

[michealb]

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.

[templelane]

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.

[Galveston1]

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.

[jillianleab]

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.

[Galveston1]

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?

[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.

[Galveston1]

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;

READ my lips! I have said before that I DO NOT believe that Earth is 6,000 years old. Nowhere does the Bible say any such thing.

since you think continental drift started during Noah's time, not 200 million years ago...

Every major geological event that I have ever heard of was sudden and drastic. What reason would you have to think that the break up of the continent was gradual? Isn't it more reasonable to think that it happened suddenly, and that the drift now observed is only residual, that the drift slowed rather quickly? You certainly can't prove me wrong here.

and since you think the entire earth was flooded, despite the lack of evidence to support that idea.

Isn't there a gap in the fossil record? That would be accounted for by a long period of time when the dry land was covered by water.

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".

I still don't think that refusal to consider ALL facts should be the norm in schools.

[jillianleab]

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).