The Kooky Kreationism Krew

[SpamSandwich]

Looks like the McCain-Palin hook-up buddies agree on creationism as well as killing Iraqis.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html

Makes one wonder how much kookier this election can get. I'm shellshocked.

[jimmac]

Looks like the McCain-Palin hook-up buddies agree on creationism as well as killing Iraqis.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html

Makes one wonder how much kookier this election can get. I'm shellshocked.

Oh for god's sake ( pun intended )!

When are they going to learn that this stuff won't fly anymore! The people out there want answers not some alternative agenda by the rightwingers.:no:

[Jubelum]

I'm shellshocked.

She said "teach both."

[jimmac]

She said "teach both."

[QUOTE][Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.

/QUOTE]


Priceless!:lol:

[Jubelum]

"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.



Um, what is wrong with that statement? That it is OK to talk about both creationism and evolution and that she does not know for sure? That's what you consider priceless?

[BRussell]

My evangelical-creationist-"there-is-no-global-warming" neighbors are really into her. They know about her, and know she is one of them. Republicans are just going to hope that the low-information voters look at her as just an attractive young woman and assume that she's a moderate.

[jimmac]

Um, what is wrong with that statement? That it is OK to talk about both creationism and evolution and that she does not know for sure? That's what you consider priceless?


Because she's clearly not unbiased on this issue. You can see what side her theological bread's buttered on.

Kind of an unintelligent response for someone who's up for VP in my book.

[groverat]

"Teach both" is an absurd position to hold for anyone who knows anything about education or science. It is either pure idiocy (believing creationism and thinking it is a valid part of a science curriculum) or political correctness gone awry.

[BRussell]

Yeah, the idea that "teach both" is the middle ground is ridiculous. That's the extreme, not to mention unconstitutional position in the United States.

[mydo]

I'd be for "Teach both" as long it was in a religion class and not a science class.

[Akumulator]

I'd be for "Teach both" as long it was in a religion class and not a science class.

Isn't that where it's generally taught anyway? :err:

There's a place for it already. It's called sunday school.

[jimmac]

Man! In this case sitting on the white picket fence has just got to hurt!:lol:

Sorry I just couldn't resist!

[Jubelum]

Yeah, the idea that "teach both" is the middle ground is ridiculous. That's the extreme, not to mention unconstitutional position in the United States.

Hmmm.. I guess the "fairness doctrine" does not apply here, then. Got it. We need balance until it challenges the currently anti-religion status quo.

It's only unconstitutional because activist judges have thrown out the rather explicit free exercise clause.

[Jubelum]

I'd be for "Teach both" as long it was in a religion class and not a science class.

I think this is the way to go. I personally do not think that I want science teachers teaching religion. Judging by the way we're doing in the world with regards to education, I think I can do a much better job at home. In fact, we do a much better job at home in ALL subjects. :D

What I object to is the overt hostility of "we cannot say the word 'god' in a schoolhouse." I think it is fine for teachers in the science department to deflect discourse about creationism to the religion department. It's not their field of expertise anyway.

That being said, there has to also be some freedom for teacher in the religion/soc/anthro/etc department TO discuss it without reprisal.

[BRussell]

Hmmm.. I guess the "fairness doctrine" does not apply here, then. Got it. We need balance until it challenges the currently anti-religion status quo.

It's only unconstitutional because activist judges have thrown out the rather explicit free exercise clause. Oh I thought free exercise was about private citizens practicing religion how they see fit, and not about public school teachers evangelizing to students. I guess I misunderstood that part.

Wow, Jubelum, you had always described yourself as a libertarian-minded independent. I didn't realize you supported all-out social conservativism like teaching creationism. I'm surprised - I mean that genuinely.

[jimmac]

I think this is the way to go. I personally do not think that I want science teachers teaching religion. Judging by the way we're doing in the world with regards to education, I think I can do a much better job at home. In fact, we do a much better job at home in ALL subjects. :D

What I object to is the overt hostility of "we cannot say the word 'god' in a schoolhouse." I think it is fine for teachers in the science department to deflect discourse about creationism to the religion department. It's not their field of expertise anyway.

That being said, there has to also be some freedom for teacher in the religion/soc/anthro/etc department TO discuss it without reprisal.

It's all about containment isn't it?:no:

[Jubelum]

Flame Deleted

Do you have something to contribute here? If you take issue with what I post, then talk to the post. I'm not interested in your words for me. If you are clueless as to my meaning, then the gift of silence on your part would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Jubelum]

It's all about containment isn't it?:no:

Tell me more about this "containment" you speak of.

[jimmac]

Tell me more about this "containment" you speak of.

Exbit A!


I think this is the way to go. I personally do not think that I want science teachers teaching religion. Judging by the way we're doing in the world with regards to education, I think I can do a much better job at home. In fact, we do a much better job at home in ALL subjects.



Yes why expose children to any other viewpoint?:rolleyes:

Tell me. Would you have this for all children or just yours? Because if it's just yours I think that's fine as parents should raise their kids the way they want. However advocating this for everyone is a very different ball of wax.

[Jubelum]

Oh I thought free exercise was about private citizens practicing religion how they see fit, and not about public school teachers evangelizing to students. I guess I misunderstood that part.

Wow, Jubelum, you had always described yourself as a libertarian-minded independent. I didn't realize you supported all-out social conservativism like teaching creationism. I'm surprised - I mean that genuinely.

If we are going to go into the "where the world began" discussion, I'm for inclusion... that is, teaching the diversity of opinions that students are likely to encounter in their lifelong travels. Evolution is just one of those. So it Christian creationism.

I don't want teachers evangelizing anything to kids, be that pro-Christianity, pro-Islam, pro-sex, pro-abortion, whatever. That's one of the reasons we have decided to home school in my family.

I bring up free exercise because we've reached a point where the hostility to religion on public campuses has become a de facto abridgment of free exercise. We can talk about how teachers cannot say "Jesus is the way" but a student cannot pray when they want to in front of a gathering of fellow students.

[Flounder]

I'd just like to point out, as I do in every thread about evolution, that the evolutionary theory has exactly zero opinion on God, or how life first formed on this planet.

Evolution is in no way, shape, or form, inconsistent with the christian/jewish/muslim etc. faith

Which just drives home the point of how incredibly stupid it is to "teach them both"

They aren't alternate viewpoints, because they're really not about the same thing.

[Flounder]

If we are going to go into the "where the world began" discussion, I'm for inclusion... that is, teaching the diversity of opinions that students are likely to encounter in their lifelong travels. Evolution is just one of those.

Evolution is not one of those. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on the subject of "where the world began"

[Jubelum]

Yes why expose children to any other viewpoint?:rolleyes:
Tell me. Would you have this for all children or just yours?

I expose my children to all viewpoints, then tell them why our family believes as it does. That's my prerogative as a parent. One, I know, that drives some liberals bat shit crazy.

Would I have what for all children? Avoiding protracted religious discussions in science class or inclusive teaching in the religion department WRT: how the world began?

[Jubelum]

Evolution is not one of those. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say on the subject of "where the world began"

True. I guess I needed to add the Big Bang in there as well. Good catch.

[jimmac]

I'd just like to point out, as I do in every thread about evolution, that the evolutionary theory has exactly zero opinion on God, or how life first formed on this planet.

Which just drives home the point of how incredibly stupid it is to "teach them both"

They aren't alternate viewpoints, because they're really not about the same thing.


This kind of reminds me of when I asked too many questions in Sunday school. One question was how does the philosophy in the bible relate to the possibility of life on other planets? The answer was a good one for a change. If you've read the bible you'll realize it's a book specifically about the earth. So it really doesn't address the subject. Two different things.

[Flounder]

True. I guess I needed to add the Big Bang in there as well. Good catch.

I'm still not sure if you're understanding me.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origins of life on this planet.

[Jubelum]

I'm still not sure if you're understanding me.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origins of life on this planet.

Correct. They are two different questions... how did the universe get here (which has a religious as well as scientific answer) and where did people come from (which has both as well.)

[jimmac]

I expose my children to all viewpoints, then tell them why our family believes as it does. That's my prerogative as a parent. One, I know, that drives some liberals bat shit crazy.

Would I have what for all children? Avoiding protracted religious discussions in science class or inclusive teaching in the religion department WRT: how the world began?


Well you'll forgive me if I prefer a unconnected third party that's much less likely to influence the program and the conclusions that the child will draw from the information.

[Jubelum]

Well you'll forgive me if I prefer a unconnected third party that's much less likely to influence the program and the conclusions that the child will draw from the information.

An unconnected third party? By that I guess you mean you don't trust clergy or parents, rather state employed human teachers, who we all know must be devoid of bias by default.

[jimmac]

An unconnected third party? By that I guess you mean you don't trust clergy or parents, rather state employed human teachers, who we all know must be devoid of bias by default.

Yes. An unbiased 3rd party. " Just the facts maam. "

Nothing about humans is perfect but as far providing the facts in an unbiased state this is as close as it gets in this world. As I've said before individual parents should be free to raise their children as they like however.

[Jubelum]

As I've said before individual parents should be free to raise their children as they like however.

That much is appreciated.

I do, however, think that "unbiased 3rd parties" are a little like unicorns in many subject areas. Even history, which should be "just the facts," can be spun in 15 different directions. I think striving for "values neutral education" sounds like a good thing, but nature abhors a vacuum. And there are points of view and values attached to the ways things are presented. It's just an inextricable part of the process.

[jimmac]

That much is appreciated.

I do, however, think that "unbiased 3rd parties" are a little like unicorns in many subject areas. Even history, which should be "just the facts," can be spun in 15 different directions. I think striving for "values neutral education" sounds like a good thing, but nature abhors a vacuum. And there are points of view and values attached to the ways things are presented. It's just an inextricable part of the process.

As I've said in human terms nothing's perfect.

[addabox]

That much is appreciated.

I do, however, think that "unbiased 3rd parties" are a little like unicorns in many subject areas. Even history, which should be "just the facts," can be spun in 15 different directions. I think striving for "values neutral education" sounds like a good thing, but nature abhors a vacuum. And there are points of view and values attached to the ways things are presented. It's just an inextricable part of the process.

Except, for the most part, in the case of science-- you know, the topic that you'd like to freight with points of view and values.

I guess we could start teaching that the Enlightenment was overrated and offer classes like "The Dark Ages: Misunderstood Time of Faith?" Just to be fair, and all.

By the way, I don't believe that "nature abhors a vacuum", I think it's more likely that God just digs matter. Shouldn't that be offered up in physics class as a "point of view" to be seriously considered?

[Jubelum]

Except, for the most part, in the case of science-- you know, the topic that you'd like to freight with points of view and values.

Please do not post falsehoods about my position:

I think this is the way to go. I personally do not think that I want science teachers teaching religion. Judging by the way we're doing in the world with regards to education, I think I can do a much better job at home. In fact, we do a much better job at home in ALL subjects. :D

[addabox]

Please do not post falsehoods about my position:


You're right, I misread a post you were replying to and jumped to conclusions. My apologies.

I hereby redirect my earlier reply to whichever stupid fucktard is arguing whatever stupid fucktarded thing that is wrong.

That should cover it.

[Jubelum]

You're right, I misread a post you were replying to and jumped to conclusions. My apologies.

I hereby redirect my earlier reply to whichever stupid fucktard is arguing whatever stupid fucktarded thing that is wrong.

That should cover it.

Your post has been properly forwarded to the correct stupid fucktard.

[Jubelum]

God just digs matter

What an excellent bumper sticker. 8-)

[BRussell]

I bring up free exercise because we've reached a point where the hostility to religion on public campuses has become a de facto abridgment of free exercise. We can talk about how teachers cannot say "Jesus is the way" but a student cannot pray when they want to in front of a gathering of fellow students. There are two relevant clauses: Free exercise, which guarantees that individuals be able to practice their religion as they want, and the establishment, which guarantees that the government stays out of religion. When it comes to what gets taught at public schools, I think it's obvious that the establishment clause applies, not the free exercise clause.

Anyway, you've very clearly answered my question about being a libertarian-minded independent or an all-out social conservative. I'm disappointed, but life is full of them.

[Jubelum]

When it comes to what gets taught at public schools, I think it's obvious that the establishment clause applies, not the free exercise clause.


The free exercise clause applies to the students, does it not? Or do students have to check their right to practice at the compulsory school-room door, as the teachers do? Do you oppose students having the right to pray, if such behaviour is not being led by a school official?

Anyway, you've clearly answered my question about being a libertarian-minded independent or an all-out social conservative.

Yes, I am a right-leaning libertarian, just like I've been for years now. Or you can put me into whatever box works for you. Its the internets, and we don't really know each other around here anyway. I think if you read the body of my posts you'll see that pure social conservatism is not where I am at, but again, believe what you'd like.

[BRussell]

The free exercise clause applies to the students, does it not? Not when they're on school grounds. At home you can put up a picture of the pope and burn incense while sacrificing goats. Obviously you can't do that at school. It's the establishment clause that applies.

Yes, I am a right-leaning libertarian, just like I've been for years now. Or you can put me into whatever box works for you. Its the internets, and we don't really know each other around here anyway. We all know what we've each posted. And most of us liberal Democrats have long suspected that when people call themselves libertarians or right-leaning independents, it's a bit like gays who call themselves bi. So when you take a position as run-of-the-mill religious/social conservative as teaching kids creationism in public schools, it just makes us go "hmmm."

[Jubelum]

Not when they're on school grounds. At home you can put up a picture of the pope and burn incense while sacrificing goats. Obviously you can't do that at school. It's the establishment clause that applies.

Sorry. I don't think the state has the right to tell a student that they have no right to pray wherever they see fit. Do you see how, once empowered in that way, it could be a *little* dangerous for the state to be able to tell you what to think or say in certain locations? Man, I cannot believe you actually believe that people do not have the right to religious behaviour simply for being in public. No live-let-live here. Rather authoritarian. And then some wonder why we will NOT send our kids to public school. The same people then advocate the outlawing of homeschooling as well. Apparently, when it comes to the youth, the state should be parent, and their basic rights to something as simple as a prayer are abhorrent and punishable.

So when you take a position as run-of-the-mill religious/social conservative as teaching kids creationism in public schools, it just makes us go "hmmm."

Show me where I advocated teaching creationism in public schools, as you are inferring that I want it taught alongside or as an alternative to science. I said that it only has a place in a religion or other humanities classroom.

[BRussell]

Sorry. I don't think the state has the right to tell a student that they have no right to pray wherever they see fit. Do you see how, once empowered in that way, it could be a *little* dangerous for the state to be able to tell you what to think or say in certain locations? Man, I cannot believe you actually believe that people do not have the right to religious behaviour simply for being in public. No live-let-live here. Now wait, I thought we were talking about your desire to have creationism taught to public school students, not prayer. I don't know what fantasy you've conjured about telling student what to think or whether to pray privately. There's obviously no legal way anyone could or should do that. Again, this is a standard (bogus) social/religious conservative Republican line of argument to get religion into schools, and the polar opposite of what a libertarian independent would argue.

Show me where I advocated teaching creationism in public schools, as you are inferring that I want it taught alongside or as an alternative to science. I said that it only has a place in a religion or other humanities classroom. You argued how reasonable it was to "teach both" for several posts on the previous page until you mentioned anything about religion or humanities. When discussing Palin's statement that both should be taught, you said "what's wrong with that." Then you brought up the fairness doctrine and said we needed balance and blamed the fact that you can't legally teach both on activist judges. You were very clear in your positions.

[Jubelum]

Again, this is a standard (bogus) social/religious conservative Republican line of argument to get religion into schools

Wow. Allowing kids the freedom to pray at school is "a bogus line of argument to get religion into schools." I asked you if the free exercise clause applied at school for the students, you said it didn't. That's as straightforward as it gets.

Incredible.

[Jubelum]

You argued how reasonable it was to "teach both" for several posts on the previous page until you mentioned anything about religion or humanities. When discussing Palin's statement that both should be taught, you said "what's wrong with that." Then you brought up the fairness doctrine and said we needed balance and blamed the fact that you can't legally teach both on activist judges. You were very clear in your positions.

I don't see what your claimed problem is. What is wrong with kids being presented both or all sides of an issue? Christian, Muslim, FSM, whatever. I said exactly what I meant... that there is a time and place for giving facts about belief systems that students are likely to encounter in the world. Diversity is a two-way street.

As I've clearly stated, teaching creationism does not belong in science class. It's not the proper place. Humanities should be able to handle these things without further censoring.

[BRussell]

Wow. Allowing kids the freedom to pray at school is "a bogus line of argument to get religion into schools."

Incredible. Ha! What's bogus is claiming either that 1) anyone is stopping kids from privately praying whenever they want and 2) conflating that issue with the real agenda of organized prayer in schools. People who do that are as far from a libertarian independent as they can be; they're run-of-the-mill social conservative Republicans.

[Jubelum]

Ha! What's bogus is claiming either that 1) anyone is stopping kids from privately praying whenever they want and 2) conflating that issue with the real agenda of organized prayer in schools. People who do that are as far from a libertarian independent as they can be; they're run-of-the-mill social conservative Republicans.

Just keep repeating it, it will make it so in your mind. Give it up on the libertarian needling, it's not going anywhere. Again, put me in whatever box you want.

I asked you simply if kids are protected by the free exercise clause while in school. You said no. How is that not preventing their free exercise, if you are saying that free exercise should be restricted? (!) You do know that there are cases where kids have been threatened with severe sanction for praying at school or at school events, right?

You are the one that is going whole-hog into the "conspiracy for organized prayer" BS. And like it matters to you, I am against organized prayer in school. I would fight any public school that did require prayer. Requiring prayer is not the place of the state, nor is it consistent with my religious beliefs.

Please, BR, speak to my post, not the caricature you seem to have of a Baptist deacon demanding that schools do his job.

[BRussell]

I don't see what your claimed problem is. What is wrong with kids being presented both or all sides of an issue? Christian, Muslim, FSM, whatever. I said exactly what I meant... that there is a time and place for giving facts about belief systems that students are likely to encounter in the world. Diversity is a two-way street.

As I've clearly stated, teaching creationism does not belong in science class. It's not the proper place. Humanities should be able to handle these things without further censoring. 1. You've only "clearly stated" that after repeated posts demanding balance.
2. Biological evolution in science class can't be "balanced" by a religion class, and the two can't be debated if presented as two separate fields in two separate classes.
3. No one has advocated censoring creationism out of humanities classes.

[BRussell]

I asked you simply if kids are protected by the free exercise clause while in school. You said no. How is that not preventing their free exercise, if you are saying that free exercise should be restricted? (!) I didn't mean to say students have no first amendment rights at all, just that they are severely limited because at school students' behavior is dictated by the teachers and the class schedule - you can't burn incense by your Pope picture. And because student behavior is dictated by teachers and classes, when it comes to school prayer the relevant clause is the establishment clause. All of these school prayer cases are establishment clause cases, not free exercise cases.
You do know that there are cases where kids have been threatened with severe sanction for praying at school or at school events, right? No I don't know that. I know that people keep trying to figure out ways of getting religion into schools, and one way they've done it is by teachers having a student stand up to lead a prayer.

[Jubelum]

1. You've only "clearly stated" that after repeated posts demanding balance.

You don't get every single aspect of your belief on a subject crammed into the first post, and neither do I. I've said what I believe explicitly. Please stop belaboring this for the sake of... who knows what.

2. Biological evolution in science class can't be "balanced" by a religion class, and the two can't be debated if presented as two separate fields in two separate classes.

I never said that one balanced the other. I said that there are proper places for certain information to be presented.

3. No one has advocated censoring creationism out of humanities classes.

Wrong. Frazier Mountain High School in Bakersfield, Kahleepornia is an example. The school created an ID class in the philosophy department. The ACLU and AUSCS sued. The class was pulled.

[Jubelum]

No I don't know that.

I would encourage you to look into the case with (just indicted this past Thursday) U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent and his restrictions on student prayer at graduation. Student prayer.

Of course, you'll probably dismiss such student-led prayer as being under the direction of staff, so why bother arguing this. Nevermind.

[BRussell]

Grow up. You don't get every single aspect of your belief on a subject crammed into the first post, and neither do I. I've said what I believe explicitly. Please stop belaboring this for the sake of... who knows what. That's not the way it looked to me. You said teaching creationism was about balancing scientific evolution and about having free exercise of religion. If you don't believe that, great.

I never said that one balanced the other. I said that there are proper places for certain information to be presented. You said "Hmmm.. I guess the "fairness doctrine" does not apply here, then. Got it. We need balance until it challenges the currently anti-religion status quo.

It's only unconstitutional because activist judges have thrown out the rather explicit free exercise clause."

Wrong. Frazier Mountain High School in Bakersfield, Kahleepornia is an example. The school created an ID class in the philosophy department. The ACLU and AUSCS sued. The class was pulled. I hadn't heard of that, but having looked it up (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/10/state/n160010S80.DTL), it seems quite a bit different from what you suggest.

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

removed smartass comment

[SpamSandwich]

If we are going to go into the "where the world began" discussion, I'm for inclusion... that is, teaching the diversity of opinions that students are likely to encounter in their lifelong travels. Evolution is just one of those. So it Christian creationism.

I'd be in favor of this if it were taught in a comparative religions class and if it included Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shinto... heck, why not even throw in Rastafarianism and Scientology. But please keep it out of science class.

[SpamSandwich]

And most of us liberal Democrats have long suspected that when people call themselves libertarians or right-leaning independents, it's a bit like gays who call themselves bi. So when you take a position as run-of-the-mill religious/social conservative as teaching kids creationism in public schools, it just makes us go "hmmm."

Hmmm, indeed. Libertarianism can be summed up best with this quote from Wikipedia... "'Libertarian' is an antonym of 'authoritarian'."

[Fellowship]

Progressives are a strange bunch.

So many times so-called progressives are anything but progressive.

If it is not about gay sex, the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy or if anyone questions the religion of evolution in regard to origins these "progressives" flip out.

Progressive can take a much broader form than just who and how you poke under the sheets, if you can kill an unborn child or not or if you believe your origins are accounted for by the theory of evolution.

so much for "progressive"

Fellows

[mydo]

Fellowship evolution is a scientific fact not a "religion". It's a hypothesis that's been tested and proven true via observation of living species that have evolved differently as well as fossilized remains that show the evolution of plans and animals over time. Not to mention analysis of DNA to show how plants and animals share common genes that change over time in response to environmental stress and what not.

[Fellowship]

Fellowship evolution is a scientific fact not a "religion". It's a hypothesis that's been tested and proven true via observation of living species that have evolved differently as well as fossilized remains that show the evolution of plans and animals over time. Not to mention analysis of DNA to show how plants and animals share common genes that change over time in response to environmental stress and what not.

Sounds nice but there is no evidence to prove what you state here and needless to say I am not buying it.

Fellows

[tonton]

Jubelum, I'm very happy to allow you to teach your children your values about religion and creationism at home, or to send them to an elective Sunday school, or even an elective bible study group arranged through school, to learn more about God and Jesus.

Please answer a question, though.

If a science teacher in publically funded school should teach about creationism, and that evolution is NOT a viable science, should they lose their job?

[Akumulator]

Sounds nice but there is no evidence to prove what you state here and needless to say I am not buying it.

Fellows

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I love it. A person of blind faith dismisses science by saying there's no evidence. Classic.

[Fellowship]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I love it. A person of blind faith dismisses science.

I never dismissed science.

I dismissed a subject area which has taken cover under the banner of science which is no more scientific than alternative creation viewpoints.

Science is a very reputable field and thanks to it mankind has truly progressed.

Fellows

[mydo]

To be fair Fellowship is saying that I presented no evidence. To which I would reply, "Read a book."

[mydo]

A science book that is. On evolutionary biology. Written by a biologist. One with at least three letters after his/her name. From a reputable university, not in the south.

[Fellowship]

To be fair Fellowship is saying that I presented no evidence. To which I would reply, "Read a book."

Those who like to laugh at, remain condescending towards and mock those who don't drink the evolution kool-aide are not unlike neocons who think the war in Iraq was just and needed while mocking the French and renaming foods while making fools of themselves.

Carry on if you must.

Fellows

[mydo]

Oh don't take it so hard. I mean really? This is science. I've read the bible at least once. You should read and evolutionary biology book at least once.

[Fellowship]

Oh don't take it so hard. I mean really?


Nothing hard taken.


This is science.

LOL :lol:

Fellows

[tonton]

The fossil record is undeniable proof against young earth creationism. Next.

I have studied paleontology. I have done carbon dating and I know how it works. I have held fossils in my hand that are more than 7000 years old.

This is evidence that proves you wrong, Fellowship.

Denial does not make your case that "there is no scientific evidence for evolution" just because you say so.

[Fellowship]

The fossil record is undeniable proof against young earth creationism. Next.

I have studied paleontology. I have done carbon dating and I know how it works. I have held fossils in my hand that are more than 7000 years old.

This is evidence that proves you wrong, Fellowship.

Denial does not make your case that "there is no scientific evidence for evolution" just because you say so.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Fellows

[Fellowship]

A science book that is. On evolutionary biology. Written by a biologist. One with at least three letters after his/her name. From a reputable university, not in the south.

I suppose none of the people on the list have ever bothered to read a book either?

Is that what you are suggesting?

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Fellows

[tonton]

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Fellows

Do we need to teach scientific dissent from Newtonian Physics prior to the third year college level? As we all know, there is plenty of dissent from Newton. Why aren't you clinging to this issue?

And please explain how this is a response to the clear proof that young earth creationism is scientifically impossible. It seems you're trying to change the subject without doing any actual work.

You said there's no proof. I gave you proof against young earth theory. You brought up a website against Darwinism. We weren't talking about proving Darwinism. We were talking about the disproof of young earth creationism. Which stands.

There is scientific proof against young earth creationism. End of story. It cannot be taught in publicly funded schools.

Meanwhile, I go with your topic change. There is dissent against Darwinism. Yet Darwinism still manages to solve, in a scientific manner, most of the applicable questions in relation to species. So it is useful, just like Newtonian Physics is useful.

There is dissent against Darwinism. But there is no proof against Darwinism. That's a huge distinction.

There is clear proof against young earth creationism. It cannot be taught in publicly funded schools.

[mydo]

Kinda strange um? I just spit and it hit me in the face. So I think maybe I'll stop doing that or turn down wind before spitting again.

[Fellowship]

Do we need to teach scientific dissent from Newtonian Physics prior to the third year college level? As we all know, there is plenty of dissent from Newton. Why aren't you clinging to this issue?

And please explain how this is a response to the clear proof that young earth creationism is scientifically impossible. It seems you're trying to change the subject without doing any actual work.

You said there's no proof. I gave you proof against young earth theory. You brought up a website against Darwinism. We weren't talking about proving Darwinism. We were talking about the disproof of young earth creationism. Which stands.

I don't think any of us should pretend to know things we don't know.

You clearly "know" quite a bit about the age of things.

I never claimed to know anything so strongly.

Fellows

[tonton]

I don't think any of us should pretend to know things we don't know.

You clearly "know" quite a bit about the age of things.

I never claimed to know anything so strongly.

Fellows

Yes. I know about the age of things, just like I know that there are electrons. This is how science works. Carbon dating and sub-atomic particles are things that have been scientifically proven, tested and applied.

This is akin to saying that since we can't "see" air, then we shouldn't teach about it in school, or should be required to teach the "alternative air theory".

[Fellowship]

Kinda strange um? I just spit and it hit me in the face. So I think maybe I'll stop doing that or turn down wind before spitting again.

While you are over there slobbering yourself could you pass me the freedom fries.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Just because you can't see the air doesn't mean there is no air.

Really?

Wow...

Tell ya what. Time for bed. You have officially put me to sleep with that one..

Fellows

[Fellowship]

A science book that is. On evolutionary biology. Written by a biologist. One with at least three letters after his/her name. From a reputable university, not in the south.

homework assignment for all you evolutionists in the name of science.

Let me know if the scientists on the list in link posted in above posts ever picked up a book.

I am just curious if they are as ignorant and deserving of mockery as some of you all insinuate.

Please show to me with sufficient evidence that they never read a book.

Thanks,, that should do it for now.

Fellows

[midwinter]

I never dismissed science.

I dismissed a subject area which has taken cover under the banner of science which is no more scientific than alternative creation viewpoints.

And those two sentences right there are all you need to know about this "debate." The theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science) of evolution is "taking cover" under the "banner of science."

In the meantime, I'm taking a Bible as literature class and it's completely, utterly, awesome.

[Jubelum]

Jubelum, I'm very happy to allow you to teach your children your values about religion and creationism at home, or to send them to an elective Sunday school

By the same token, I do not want my children told in regular compulsory public school that our beliefs are idiotic, stupid, backwards, and fodder for justifiable ridicule, just as they are by so many on this board. I'm willing to respect the presentation of evolution. I only ask that if we are going to present "fact" then we stick to "fact" and not commentary about other belief systems. It cannot be both ways.

or even an elective bible study group arranged through school, to learn more about God
and Jesus.

Interesting. I'm pleasantly surprised you'd go for that.

If a science teacher in publically funded school should teach about creationism, and that evolution is NOT a viable science, should they lose their job?

I think they should be in serious risk of losing their job, based on the actual context of what is presented. Teaching that there is no validity to major aspects of evolution seems to be just silly, and is made a whole hell of a lot worse when an alternative like creationism is presented as fully valid, depending on the particular flavour of creationism, of course. Public schools I've been in generally do such a cursory job on the topic of evolution anyway that it is handled in a day or two, if that.

As I said before, for a myriad of reasons, science teachers are among the lest credentialed to have such debates and discussions. They are there to teach the scientific method, and stick to its results. I say, let em do that. If creationism comes up, it's OK for a science teacher to say "that is beyond the scope of what we're doing in this class," let the student be directed to their philosophy teacher, parent, or religious leader, and move on. Students can find answers to those questions in humanities, presented next to the rest of the belief systems of how all of this came to be, earth and people alike. I think that presenting theories about how all this got here is not the problem... the arrogant claiming by either side that "only our perspectives can be presented as truth" is the problem. I think so much of this misses the point... we're talking about education, an area where I believe we're way too hung up on teaching students what to think, rather than critical thinking after taking in as much information as possible. Teaching just evolution or just creationism is not the answer.

"Many scientists believe X. Others believe Y. Today, we're going to cover X. If you are interested in learning more about Y, it is in (name the department)." It should be that simple.

[SpamSandwich]

And those two sentences right there are all you need to know about this "debate." The theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science) of evolution is "taking cover" under the "banner of science."

In the meantime, I'm taking a Bible as literature class and it's completely, utterly, awesome.

Eh? :wow: What? :wow: Huh?

[midwinter]

By the same token, I do not want my children told in regular compulsory public school that our beliefs are idiotic, stupid, backwards, and fodder for justifiable ridicule

I would suggest that any high school biology teacher who says such a thing should not be teaching. But the science classroom is not the place for religion.

[midwinter]

Eh? :wow: What? :wow: Huh?

I assume that's in response to the Bible class? Dude. It's awesome. We spent about 15 minutes the first day discussing why sometimes it's God and sometimes it's LORD GOD and sometimes it's Lord in the Old Testament/First Testament/Pentateuch/Torah.

I don't know that I've ever mentioned here that one of my hobbies is early Christian church history. A godless heathen has to have something to occupy his time, doesn't he?

[Jubelum]

I don't know that I've ever mentioned here that one of my hobbies is early Christian church history. A godless heathen has to have something to occupy his time, doesn't he?

The early Christian Church model was so much better IMHO than the current megachurch/ God Inc. system we've moved toward, especially in the past 20 years.

Early Church Book of the Week: Foxe's Book of Martyrs (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/martyrs/index.htm)

[tonton]

By the same token, I do not want my children told in regular compulsory public school that our beliefs are idiotic, stupid, backwards, and fodder for justifiable ridicule, just as they are by so many on this board. I'm willing to respect the presentation of evolution. I only ask that if we are going to present "fact" then we stick to "fact" and not commentary about other belief systems. It cannot be both ways.

I am a product of the (secular) public school system, and state University.

Never, ever, not once was I ever told or even implied by a teacher that creationist views are "idiotic". I would expect a teacher who does so to be fired.

Taking religion out of government also includes taking criticism of religion out of government. Or do you not have any understanding of the concept?

Interesting. I'm pleasantly surprised you'd go for that.
Why are you surprised? I've never said I don't believe parents should be able to teach children their own beliefs and values on top of the general curriculum, even if it's something lie "trickle down" economics. I'm against home schooling by people with less than a Master's in Education, not because I don't want them to teach their own beliefs, but because I don't believe the core curriculum is being taught, and I don't believe home schooled children are always exposed to non-classroom lessons like social interaction and behavior.

I think they should be in serious risk of losing their job, based on the actual context of what is presented. Teaching that there is no validity to major aspects of evolution seems to be just silly, and is made a whole hell of a lot worse when an alternative like creationism is presented as fully valid, depending on the particular flavour of creationism, of course. Public schools I've been in generally do such a cursory job on the topic of evolution anyway that it is handled in a day or two, if that.

But the fact is that with young earth theory, anyway, the teaching of creationism is not valid and cannot be accepted in an academic setting. With old earth creationism or intelligent design, the issue is a little less solid, but I still believe this should be taught in a comparative religion course, as it has zero basis in science. But ID cannot be taught on equal footing with evolution simply because of the test of applicability. Darwinism and Evolution is applicable. You can use evolutionary theory to solve complex biological questions that can lead to progress in medical and genetic science. You cannot use creationism to do the same.

As I said before, for a myriad of reasons, science teachers are among the lest credentialed to have such debates and discussions. They are there to teach the scientific method, and stick to its results. I say, let em do that. If creationism comes up, it's OK for a science teacher to say "that is beyond the scope of what we're doing in this class," let the student be directed to their philosophy teacher, parent, or religious leader, and move on. Students can find answers to those questions in humanities, presented next to the rest of the belief systems of how all of this came to be, earth and people alike. I think that presenting theories about how all this got here is not the problem... the arrogant claiming by either side that "only our perspectives can be presented as truth" is the problem. I think so much of this misses the point... we're talking about education, an area where I believe we're way too hung up on teaching students what to think, rather than critical thinking after taking in as much information as possible. Teaching just evolution or just creationism is not the answer.
Agreed, except where proven science disproves the topic being discussed. A science teacher has every right to argue, with evidence, that there is absolutely no possibility that dinosaurs and people lived concurrently. A science teacher has every right to call ideas that the earth is 7000 years old "ignorant".

"Many scientists believe X. Others believe Y. Today, we're going to cover X. If you are interested in learning more about Y, it is in (name the department)." It should be that simple.

Agreed, see above.

[Jubelum]

Or do you not have any understanding of the concept?

Was that necessary? We were moving toward an actual productive discussion. :\


but because I don't believe the core curriculum is being taught

If the core cirriculum was not being taught, then the kids would not be able to pass the standardized tests that are still required of homeschooled students. So that puts that one to rest, especially considering how far above average scores homeschoolers routinely achieve.

and I don't believe home schooled children are always exposed to non-classroom lessons like social interaction and behavior.

This, too, is a massive misconception. I know a lot about homeschooling. First person, "doing it" knowledge. And we do a LOT within our homeschool groups. We do at least 20 field trips a year with other homeschool families or group members who contribute. We have a sports league. We have a band that meets weekly and performs for the nursing homes, bringing together 20-30 kids from all over the county. The stereotype of one parent, one or two children, sitting in a living room five days a week with Bibles as primary textbooks and no social interaction is simply not reality. Please look into what homeschool communities do. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands across the country.

But the fact is that with young earth theory, anyway, the teaching of creationism is not valid and cannot be accepted in an academic setting.

You mean, in a scientific academic setting.

But ID cannot be taught on equal footing with evolution simply because of the test of applicability. Darwinism and Evolution is applicable. You can use evolutionary theory to solve complex biological questions that can lead to progress in medical and genetic science. You cannot use creationism to do the same.

I'm not sure how you determine "equal footing" when they are in different departments.

Agreed, except where proven science disproves the topic being discussed. A science teacher has every right to argue, with evidence, that there is absolutely no possibility that dinosaurs and people lived concurrently. A science teacher has every right to call ideas that the earth is 7000 years old "ignorant".

"Ignorant" is not the proper construction. "Inconsistent with the evidence at hand" is better. I agree that the 7000 year timeline has no place in a science classroom, based on a wide breadth of settled science.

[MarcUK]

http://edsphotoblog.com/wp-content/photos/800px/sunrise_over_mediterranean_sea.jpg

All together now, say ahhh! and worship the baby Jesus.

[tonton]

You mean, in a scientific academic setting.
Which is the only academic setting allowed in public education under the concept of separation of church and state.
I'm not sure how you determine "equal footing" when they are in different departments.
In college, yes. But what are the "different departments" in K-12? You know very well that the proponents of creationism in education, including Sarah Palin, want creationism to be taught there.
"Ignorant" is not the proper construction. "Inconsistent with the evidence at hand" is better. I agree that the 7000 year timeline has no place in a science classroom, based on a wide breadth of settled science.
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Believing something that is "inconsistent with the evidence at hand" with no regard to said evidence, is ignorant, no matter how you say it.

[MarcUK]

What Scientists need to be doing is getting Religion taught in RE classes with the same zeal as the cretinists

http://www.truthbeknown.com/
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

and then we need to enlighten people on the true meaning of God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

[Fellowship]

Eh? :wow: What? :wow: Huh?

This says volumes...

It is as if.... a thinking person can't do such a thing.

I beg to differ.

Fellows

[jimmac]

Do we need to teach scientific dissent from Newtonian Physics prior to the third year college level? As we all know, there is plenty of dissent from Newton. Why aren't you clinging to this issue?

And please explain how this is a response to the clear proof that young earth creationism is scientifically impossible. It seems you're trying to change the subject without doing any actual work.

You said there's no proof. I gave you proof against young earth theory. You brought up a website against Darwinism. We weren't talking about proving Darwinism. We were talking about the disproof of young earth creationism. Which stands.

There is scientific proof against young earth creationism. End of story. It cannot be taught in publicly funded schools.

Meanwhile, I go with your topic change. There is dissent against Darwinism. Yet Darwinism still manages to solve, in a scientific manner, most of the applicable questions in relation to species. So it is useful, just like Newtonian Physics is useful.

There is dissent against Darwinism. But there is no proof against Darwinism. That's a huge distinction.

There is clear proof against young earth creationism. It cannot be taught in publicly funded schools.



Ok I hesitated to get into this but I thought I'd share my viewpoint since I like Fellowship and tonton maybe this might put things in perspective for both of you.

Ok from the start I do believe evidence for evolution is undeniable. While it's not a complete theory there's enough there to show that it's the right track.

The earth is easily over 6,000 years old and anyone who doesn't realize that is in denial.

However I've lived long enough to realize that scientific " Facts " change. It's what you don't know that makes the impossible possible.

Now the Holy Bible is ripe with metaphor. Perhaps what it discribes isn't meant ultimately to be taken literally. This was written for a primative people thousands of years ago so they could understand some of what has been going on. So maybe it wasn't just 7 days as in 7 /24 hour periods. Maybe it was just 7 periods of time by someone else's measurment.

If you've read the Bible you know what it says has to be interpreted.

I also know the universe is a huge place with room for most anything to happen.

So who's to say there isn't some bigger truth here? We hardly know everything. In a short 100 years what we know now will seem quaint. Kind of like " Comet pills " in 1910 or the notion that we've discovered everything around the turn of the 20th century. They believed this so much universities were saying academia in science was unnecessary as in just a few years we'll wrap up the mysteries of the universe! You know the Unified field theory that Einstein was always chasing. For you folks keeping score we're still not there. Now it's called " The Grand Unified Theory " or GUT.

It's what you don't know that you can't take into account. When looking at the nature of everything it's more about what you don't know ( yet ) than what you know.

I don't believe in mixing Church and State for the obvious reasons. I also don't like it when religion is misused to control society. However I do think there's room for both beliefs to coexist. The more science unravels the nature of things the bigger the mystery. But at times it seems so elegant. So poetic that it seems like it guided. Then again maybe coincidence is more intricate than we can imagine and it only seems like intelligence. Perhaps they're both the truth.

What's the real truth? Hell I don't know! But I do know one thing. Never say " Never " in this ever changing universe.

Now it's still morning here and I need more coffee after all that rambling and pontification.:lol:

Thank you for your attention.

[SpamSandwich]

I assume that's in response to the Bible class? Dude. It's awesome. We spent about 15 minutes the first day discussing why sometimes it's God and sometimes it's LORD GOD and sometimes it's Lord in the Old Testament/First Testament/Pentateuch/Torah.

I don't know that I've ever mentioned here that one of my hobbies is early Christian church history. A godless heathen has to have something to occupy his time, doesn't he?

Sounds like you may be overcompensating. :D

[jamac]

Progressives are a strange bunch.

So many times so-called progressives are anything but progressive.

If it is not about gay sex, the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy or if anyone questions the religion of evolution in regard to origins these "progressives" flip out.

Progressive can take a much broader form than just who and how you poke under the sheets, if you can kill an unborn child or not or if you believe your origins are accounted for by the theory of evolution.

so much for "progressive"

Fellows

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I have a theory.
Fellows has not evolved. He is exactly like god made him: naked, eating bad apples given to him by an EVIL woman.

[vinea]

A science book that is. On evolutionary biology. Written by a biologist. One with at least three letters after his/her name. From a reputable university, not in the south.

How dare you. William and Mary is a fine school.

[addabox]

I assume that's in response to the Bible class? Dude. It's awesome. We spent about 15 minutes the first day discussing why sometimes it's God and sometimes it's LORD GOD and sometimes it's Lord in the Old Testament/First Testament/Pentateuch/Torah.

I don't know that I've ever mentioned here that one of my hobbies is early Christian church history. A godless heathen has to have something to occupy his time, doesn't he?

Claiming to appreciate the Bible because you're studying it in a literature class is like claiming to be getting to know Jesus because you're taking human anatomy.

I'm not even sure what that means, it just struck me as hugely clever. I suspect I'm mistaken.

[KingOfSomewhereHot]

mydo...

While I agree that creationism doesn't have much going for it, evolution is far from proven fact.
Evolutionary changes WITHIN a species have been observed (tetsi (sp)flies being an academic favorite); evolutionary change from one species to another is still theoretical conjecture.

That said, it sure sounds a lot more plausible than some omnicient, omnipotent, all-loving GOD that created us as mere playthings.

[addabox]

mydo...

While I agree that creationism doesn't have much going for it, evolution is far from proven fact.
Evolutionary changes WITHIN a species have been observed (tetsi (sp)flies being an academic favorite); evolutionary change from one species to another is still theoretical conjecture.

That said, it sure sounds a lot more plausible than some omnicient, omnipotent, all-loving GOD that created us as mere playthings.

It's the theory that does the best job of accounting for the known facts, which is how theories work. If a new theory emerges that does a better job of accounting or the known facts, or if new facts emerge that the theory of evolution can't account for, then science will adjust its explanations accordingly.

That is true of every extant theory, and, in that sense, none of them are "proven fact", since the possibility remains that new evidence could emerge that throws long held believes into question. That's the beauty of how science works.

As theories go, "direct observation" isn't even that big a clincher, since so much of the universe we seek to describe is too small, too distant or too ephemeral to nail down that way, at least for the time being.

Lack of such direct observation in no way precludes very high levels of confidence in a given theory, and, in the case of evolution, there is a vast array of mutually supporting evidence from multiple fields of inquiry. Everywhere we look, we find conformational processes and phenomena. Predictions are born out, evidence obtains where we thought it might, and new discoveries fit neatly into existing frameworks. The Theory of Evolution has and surely will undergo refinement and changes in emphasis, but it seems extremely unlikely, at this point, that we will come to find it "wrong."

[midwinter]

Claiming to appreciate the Bible because you're studying it in a literature class is like claiming to be getting to know Jesus because you're taking human anatomy.

I'm not even sure what that means, it just struck me as hugely clever. I suspect I'm mistaken.

Funny you should mention it. I'm also taking an "Anatomy and Physiology of Jesus" class.

[midwinter]

How dare you. William and Mary is a fine school.

Emory Sucks! So does Vandy!

[addabox]

Funny you should mention it. I'm also taking an "Anatomy and Physiology of Jesus" class.

Yikes. Any startling revelations?

[midwinter]

Yikes. Any startling revelations?

He tended to swing to the right.

[addabox]

He tended to swing to the right.

Oh shit. So he actually was a Republican?

[hardeeharhar]

Oh shit. So he actually was a Republican?
No. The mohel was a bit tipsy on the day of his bris...

[midwinter]

Oh shit. So he actually was a Republican?

Not that kind of right. Jesus was obviously a liberal.

[addabox]

Not that kind of right. Jesus was obviously a liberal.

Oh, his golf game, then. Whew.

I guess that explains the Parable of the Wicked Slice. I never got that.

[midwinter]

Oh, his golf game, then. Whew.

I guess that explains the Parable of the Wicked Slice. I never got that.

Isaiah 9:20

[addabox]

Remind me never to play golf with Jesus. The handicap is brutal.

[Jubelum]

Remind me never to play golf with Jesus. The handicap is brutal.

:lol:

[tonton]

Remind me never to play golf with Jesus. The handicap is brutal.

Not to mention he can part the water traps... I think there should be a rule against that.

[Jubelum]

Not to mention he can part the water traps... I think there should be a rule against that.

No, he walks on water traps. Parting water traps is why we don't play golf with Moses. ;)

[Bergermeister]

I think Jesus would likely be more than capable of parting the water, but he never did. That story was reserved for another guy. Just a book for interpretation.

[midwinter]

No, he walks on water traps. Parting water traps is why we don't play golf with Moses. ;)

Are you saying a golfing baby Jesus couldn't part a water trap?! HUH?! ARE YOU?!?!!

As an aside:

at 8:00 AM, the guy with the cannon fired off a couple of shots, no doubt in honor of the achievements of labor unions in Utah.

[vinea]

Are you saying a golfing baby Jesus couldn't part a water trap?! HUH?! ARE YOU?!?!!


Are you saying Jesus can't avoid a lousy water trap in the first place and hit a hole in one every time?

[Bergermeister]

Are you saying Jesus can't avoid a lousy water trap in the first place and hit a hole in one every time?

Sounds elitist to me.

[midwinter]

Are you saying Jesus can't avoid a lousy water trap in the first place and hit a hole in one every time?

Deus ex Machina happens.

OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT GOD THE FATHER COULDN'T PLAY A PRANK ON THE BABY JESUS ONCE IN A WHILE?!?!