See We're not religious nuts!.....

[Diamond]

No one here said anything about teaching Intelligent Design! It was suggested to mention it as an alternative that some people do believe in and then teach Evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not so simple with kids who absorb all the knowledge without a question. They should know what is currently considered the most reliable scientific theory, and gain knowledge, not speculating over theories. If ID is to be presented in class, then it should stay out of biology class, since it is science class.

[Dark Moth]

And should evolution be presented in your sunday church as a valid possibility?

 

Faith is NOT a way to think, thus it has no place in schools.

 

faith [fayth]

(plural faiths)

noun

1.  belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof 

2.  religion religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it 

 

Microsoft

Edited November 11, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

I think you're the one missing the point, and I think you're being unfairly dismissive with the whole thing.  WWII has nothing to do with math, but ID does have something to do with presenting a theory as to how man came about.  I'm well aware creationism is not science, nor has any evidence to back it up.  But that's not the issue here.  It's pretty easy for you to say being an atheist, but you're not thinking from other perspectives. 

 

And I'll say it AGAIN:

I believe both theories should be presented. However, of the two, I think evolution should be the one taught (keyword). For ID, my view is they should just present it as a theory, and leave it. If people want ID taught in the classroom, they can take a religous study for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Science doesn't consider perspectives that have no standing without science itself. You're starting to sound like you think science is some sort of atheist devil tool. It doesn't care whether it hurts or helps Christianity or any other religion.

[WITHTEETH]

And should evolution be presented in your sunday church as a valid possibility?

 

Faith is NOT a way to think, thus it has no place in schools.

 

faith [fayth]

(plural faiths)

noun

1.  belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof 

2.  religion religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it 

 

Microsoft

Edited November 11, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Jedi Master Dakari]

And you're missing the point as well. Creationism is not science. How many times am I going to have to say it?

 

No, I caught the point fairly well. Sorry if you disagree.

 

and I can hear plenty of drawls whenever I care to.

 

That shows that individual choice can be made.

 

I do recognize that there are some who do speak with a very strong drawl, but that characteristic should not become the standard by which all southerners are judged and ridiculed.

 

And no, the South is not really all that much more religious than any other region. Yes, more people may be flashing their vain fish talismans, W.W.J.D. stickers, tags, bracelets, necklace, and who knows what else in peoples face, professing to be religious. However, when you look past the Jesus-freak exteriors, you will find that they are no more religious and a frat boy in Cancun.

 

It is simple - if it doesn't have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, do not teach it. Because there is less probability of it being valid. That's why some SCIENTIFIC theories are not taught (not only in biology)

 

One scientific "fact" that is being taught is how old the earth is though carbon-dating. If this system of measurement were as solid and accurate as it is believed to be, then axplain why the earth's age keep becoming shorter and shorter with time, and how an up-side down fossilized tree has leaves dating millions of years older than its roots. "

 

That being said, I leave you all with this quote...

What qualifies a theory to be accepted as scientific? The famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science." 2

 

In other words it is impossible to observe evolution in action, therefore it is impossible to establish it, not only as fact, but impossible to establish it even as a theory.

[Dark Moth]

Science doesn't consider perspectives that have no standing without science itself.  You're starting to sound like you think science is some sort of atheist devil tool.  It doesn't care whether it hurts or helps Christianity or any other religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think it's an "atheist devil tool" But it doesn't care if it hurts or helps any religion. It's not supposed to. But in areas where science and faith clash, I don't think it's fair to completely shut either one. My view is that they shouldn't actually teach ID, but just present it as an alternate theory, as I've said at least 5 times already. They can go to Sunday school or take a religous course if they actually want to learn about it. Evolution should be the theory they actually teach and cover, because it is science.

 

As for what WITHTEETH said above, I agree with him on most parts. But as I said, where science and religion clash, I think it's fair for both sides of the issue to be presented so we don't offend those with religious strongpoints. Just because you have religious views means you should go to a private school. Maybe they don't want to go to a private school. I know I wouldn't. Public school is public, and it'd be unfair to exclude them or shut them out completely. Like it or not, religion still plays a role in many people's lives. But yes, if the student decides he or she doesn't want to learn at all about evolution, then yes, maybe they should go to a private school.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Mothman

[Diamond]

One scientific "fact" that is being taught is how old the earth is though carbon-dating. If this system of measurement were as solid and accurate as it is believed to be, then axplain why the earth's age keep becoming shorter and shorter with time, and how an up-side down fossilized tree has leaves dating millions of years older than its roots. "

Can't get your point here. Are you saying that the theory is invalid based on this fact? Yes, it does have inconsistencies as any theory in science, since our knowledge is limited. But it is a base for further research. It is science.

 

That being said, I leave you all with this quote...

What qualifies a theory to be accepted as scientific? The famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science." 2

 

In other words it is impossible to observe evolution in action, therefore it is impossible to establish it, not only as fact, but impossible to establish it even as a theory.

 

So? Another quote supporting your opinion. I can get heaps of quotes supporting mine.

 

 

 

But in areas where science and faith clash, I don't think it's fair to completely shut either one. My view is that they shouldn't actually teach ID, but just present it as an alternate theory, as I've said at least 5 times already.

That's what everyone is saying to you. Present it as an alternative, but not in biology class.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Diamond

[Dark Moth]

But in areas where science and faith clash, I don't think it's fair to completely shut either one. My view is that they shouldn't actually teach ID, but just present it as an alternate theory, as I've said at least 5 times already.

That's what everyone is saying to you. Present it as an alternative, but not in biology class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah? And where else in public school would that be? Aside from a religous studies course? I was under the impression we were talking about biology all along.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Mothman

[Diamond]

Yeah?  And where else in public school would that be?  Aside from a religous studies course?

It should be in Religous Studies or Philisophy couse, but not in Biology until the theory develops a solid scientific research base.

[WITHTEETH]

Jedi Master Dakari there are more then one way to date. I disagree with you and think that carbon dating is generally accurate. This argument has been done a thousand times already with Carbon dating, and everytime you guys lose this battle. Your view on carbon dating is through creationists version of science where they can bend the facts of science. Just like how they did in the 2nd law of thermodynamcs, a mutation with added information and IR.

 

Science is based on empirical evidence

 

Your religion is based on Faith

 

They belong in seperate realms, or at least in seperate schools.

[Diamond]

I was under the impression we were talking about biology all along.

Yep, that was the original issue - teaching creationalism in a pure science class.

[Dark Moth]

Yeah?  And where else in public school would that be?  Aside from a religous studies course?

It should be in Religous Studies or Philisophy couse, but not in Biology until the theory develops a solid scientific research base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I doubt we'll be seeing a solid scientific base for it anytime soon. But I think it should be presented just for the soul purpose of not offending those who do believe in ID. Do I think ID should be presented in every biology class of every school? NO. But if a school decides it wants or needs to, I don't think we should prevent them from doing so, provided of course the school actually doesn't go beyond just presenting the theory. As I said, my viewpoint is not actually teaching creationism, but just leaving the theory open as a possibility. There's a difference.

 

Cause let's face it: a person might not fully agree with evolution, but still might want to learn about biology. But I guess that's where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Mothman

[Jedi Master Dakari]

Can't get your point here. Are you saying that the theory is invalid based on this fact? Yes, it does have inconsistencies as any theory in science, since our knowledge is limited. But it is a base for research.

 

You have just proven my point with your "inconsistencies as any theory" line.

 

Evolution (or Darwinism) is a theory. It is not fact. It should be taught as a theory, but nothing more.

 

I might be able to get my point across better if I put it like this:

No creation theory (scientific, religious, or otherwise) can be proven to be fact. This is because we simply DO NOT know.

 

I am a Christian. I believe that God created the universe. I believe that this world, and the things in it, have evolved over time. I also believe that modern science and technology is a wonderful things, and should not be wasted.

 

But my point is, "Evolution" or any other scientific theory has not been proven through science, and should not be presented as fact. Be it to a an 8th Grade athiest, or to an 80 year old minister.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Jedi Master Dakari

[Diamond]

 

I'm not trying to say that science is fact, but it is SCIENCE. ID is NOT SCIENCE. Evolution is SCIENCE. Biology is SCIENCE class. I hope that should be clear.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Diamond

[Commissar]

Can't get your point here. Are you saying that the theory is invalid based on this fact? Yes, it does have inconsistencies as any theory in science, since our knowledge is limited. But it is a base for research.

 

You have just proven my point with your "inconsistencies as any theory" line.

 

Evolution (or Darwinism) is a theory. It is not fact. It should be taught as a theory, but nothing more.

 

I might be able to get my point across better if I put it like this:

No theory (scientific, religious, or otherwise) can be proven to be fact. This is because we simply DO NOT know.

 

I am a Christian. I believe that God created the universe. I believe that this world, and the things in it, have evolved over time. I also believe that modern science and technology is a wonderful things, and should not be wasted.

 

But my point is, "Evolution" or any other scientific theory has not been proven through science, and should not be presented as fact. Be it to a an 8th Grade athiest, or to an 80 year old minister.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Inconsistencies in the sense that we don't have all the answers yet. But instead of throwing our hands up and saying, "Why, this gull's rib cage is much more flexible than any other bird I've encountered...yet I cannot fathom a reason why, so I shall chalk it up to God's will," science says, "We don't have an answer for this yet, so let's find one."

 

There's not a doubt in my mind we'll be able to fill in the comparatively few blanks at some point. And I think that's exactly the sort of thing that truly terrifies you guys.

 

Furthermore, evolution is taught as theory - I've never yet come across a textbook that calls it, "the law of evolution." It remains, however, a scientific theory, rather than an attempt by the religious to shoehorn their beliefs into public school.

 

Edit: Oh, and things like gravity, Newtonian physics, etc...they were all theories before they became laws. What do we currently think of the nutjobs who tried to suppress Galileo's views when they were in the theory stage?

Edited November 11, 2005 by Commissar

[LoneWolf16]

ID/Creationism should be taught, and mentioned in a religion's respective meeting place...be it a temple, mosque, or church...etc.

 

Evolution should be taught, and mentioned, in school.

 

End of discussion.

[Vashanti]

In the 1600s, Francis Bacon built upon the old teachings of Aristotle, et al., to devise the Scientific Method. Here's a wikipedia definition:

 

"(1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses

[Jedi Master Dakari]

Can you people not comprehend?

 

I am not saying that scientists sould give up and discredit everything they believe in! That is NOT what I am saying.

 

In believing God exists, and that he created man in his image, I likewise believe that he gave mankind the intelligence it has to even work with science.

 

To get a little more clear:

 

You have all said it yourselves that the evolution account of "creation" is a theory. I agree with you 100%. Am I saying that it should not be taught in schools because of that. No! However, you are all advocation that it should be taught as scientific fact. I disagree. It is theory; it has flaws and discrepencies. And until those discrepencies are smoothed over, until the flaws are no more, UNTIL IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FACT, it should not be taught as fact.

 

My point is very easy to understand. You all are just reading too much into what say, simply for arguments sake.

 

However, from this point forward, I agree to disagree. And keep in mind that before you shun people for their faith in their religion (mine being the Lord and his inspired Word), try reading the biblical account of Noah.

[LoneWolf16]

Can you people not comprehend?

 

I am not saying that scientists sould give up and discredit everything they believe in! That is NOT what I am saying.

 

In believing God exists, and that he created man in his image, I likewise believe that he gave mankind the intelligence it has to even work with science.

 

To get a little more clear:

 

You have all said it yourselves that the evolution account of "creation" is a theory. I agree with you 100%. Am I saying that it should not be taught in schools because of that. No! However, you are all advocation that it should be taught as scientific fact. I disagree. It is theory; it has flaws and discrepencies. And until those discrepencies are smoothed over, until the flaws are no more, UNTIL IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FACT, it should not be taught as fact.

 

My point is very easy to understand. You all are just reading too much into what say, simply for arguments sake.

 

However, from this point forward, I agree to disagree. And keep in mind that before you shun people for their faith in their religion (mine being the Lord and his inspired Word), try reading the biblical account of Noah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what do you suggest we teach our children in Evolution's stead?

 

ID? That's even worse according to what you've outlined.

Edited November 11, 2005 by LoneWolf16

[Commissar]

Can you people not comprehend?

 

I am not saying that scientists sould give up and discredit everything they believe in! That is NOT what I am saying.

 

In believing God exists, and that he created man in his image, I likewise believe that he gave mankind the intelligence it has to even work with science.

 

To get a little more clear:

 

You have all said it yourselves that the evolution account of "creation" is a theory. I agree with you 100%. Am I saying that it should not be taught in schools because of that. No! However, you are all advocation that it should be taught as scientific fact. I disagree. It is theory; it has flaws and discrepencies. And until those discrepencies are smoothed over, until the flaws are no more, UNTIL IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FACT, it should not be taught as fact.

 

My point is very easy to understand. You all are just reading too much into what say, simply for arguments sake.

 

However, from this point forward, I agree to disagree. And keep in mind that before you shun people for their faith in their religion (mine being the Lord and his inspired Word), try reading the biblical account of Noah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, we're advocating that it be taught as scientific theory...you know, how it's taught currently.

 

Edit: And I know how to sail, if need be.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Commissar

[WITHTEETH]

A theory and a "Scientific Theory" are VERY different.

 

Here you go Jedi Master Dakari

Further explanation of a scientific theory

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

 

Theories start out with empirical observations such as "sometimes water turns into ice." At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.

 

Wiki Def for scientific theory

Edited November 11, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Jedi Master Dakari]

^^^ Clear example of my argument.

 

Again, you are adding words to my post that I did not say.

 

I never said to not teach it to them.

 

YES! Teach the children the scientific theories. But do not teach the theories as facts until they have been proven to be fact. That's all I'm saying.

 

LoneWolf16, until now I have been strongly against Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Act. Though I now see that the Reading/Comprehension tests should actually be more intensive.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Jedi Master Dakari

[WITHTEETH]

Theories ARENT suppose to be facts! read my post before you argue Jedi Master Dakari.

 

Here, ill make it even easier for you to read this time.

In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Edited November 11, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Diamond]

Can you people not comprehend?

No, we perfectly understand you.

Evolution IS NOT TAUGHT AS A FACT.

Every heading in every textbook I've seen says "Evolution theory"

[LoneWolf16]

^^^ Clear example of my argument.

 

Again, you are adding words to my post that I did not say.

 

I never said to not teach it to them.

 

YES! Teach the children the scientific theories. But do not teach the thearoeis as facts until they have been proven to be fact. That's all I'm saying.

 

LoneWolf16, until now I have been strongly against Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Act. Though I now see that the Reading/Comprehension tests should actually be more intensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That seemed uncalled for.

 

I was merely asking a question. It wasn't really related to what you'd said. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but I was just looking for an opinion on the matter from an "enlightened" individual...who wasn't half crazy, ranting and raving about god's word...

 

But now I'm beginning to reconsider...