Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

This is true, but it shouldn't imply that we aren't accountable for what we do and say, in fact it's my belief that being the top dog means having the most accountability of all, "the buck stops here" in a way. It would be recklessly selfish to possess the cognitive prowess that that we do and not feel the need to be in utter control of ourselves at all times.

As for the atheist religion, one can imply a sinister connection 'til the cows come home, but scientists define their work as the search for natural causes to natural phenomenon through the scientific method, it wasn't forced on them by a group of secularists that wanted to really muck things up for everyone else.

Scientists are simply doing science. I'm not saying there is a secular humanist with a gun to the guy's head, or pulling his strings (not necessarily, anyhow...). But perhaps controlling his funding....

But there are intersections of scienctific research and moarality/ethics i.e.-embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc...

So, as a human with the view that accountability is yours alone (I'm speaking about mankind, not "yours" as in you specifically), that then begins a very slippery slope, does it not? Morality is not fixed in that scenario, but relative.

Power corrupts.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Nobody says it should be taught as science. But science is not the end-all be-all of education.

Art, philosophy, foriegn language are part of curriculums and may not live up to the bar set by "Science", does that mean they should be excluded from a meaningful education?

Science is a mandated curriculum. Religion is not, nor is philosophy. If you like children getting those things, there are private schools which will be more than happy to accommodate.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

As far as I remember there was mention made in science class back at school about the old
primordial soup and lightning bolt, possibly UV radiation, mumble...mumble...amino acids forming in a beaker, mumble, mumble...it somehow came to be...

In other words, it is not taught as a "fairy tale" but rather as science fiction, with no supportive evidence.

The natural selection portion of evolution does have soem supportive evidence, and as such can be taught as science. But when it comes to the origns of it all, it fares no better than creation stories.

When was that called evolution?? Actually, I'm not sure that this is taught in science education, but there is support for simple proteins forming in such an environment. If life should develop in such a manner, the current model of how we get from here to there is called evolution. Most religions do not find conflict between Genesis and the process of evolution.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

But there are intersections of scienctific research and moarality/ethics i.e.-embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc...

Power corrupts.

Yes there are. But are faith based ethics any better than those that are deduced rationally? If one looks to religion in search of those answers there's an immediate conflict of which religion to choose.

In the end there will have to be some toes stepped on, so why not step on all of em?





(I see, there's no funding from the religious side. )

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

(I see, there's no funding from the religious side. )

Sure there is! Many churches support private schools and in return the church gets to inject some of their ideas. No different than public funding

too interesting not to post here.
Slashdot | Biologist (Almost) Creates Artificial Life

Jockey's, that's pretty cool!
Maybe we are really just the product of some other living thing's creation?

Originally Posted by jockeys

too interesting not to post here.
Slashdot | Biologist (Almost) Creates Artificial Life

ScottS, here is the answer to your question:

That opens the possibility that one day, in the distant past, an RNA-like molecule wandered into a fatty acid and started replicating. That random event, through billions of evolutionary iterations, researchers believe, created life as we know it.

Belief in the unknown & unprovable? Is that science?



Furthermore, what the guy is doing is taking already formed genetic material, and providing a place for it to combine. He's making genetic chop-suey, not creating anything new from scratch. The important elements (the nucleic acids) he is using are there to begin with.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

ScottS, here is the answer to your question:


Belief in the unknown & unprovable? Is that science?



Furthermore, what the guy is doing is taking already formed genetic material, and providing a place for it to combine. He's making genetic chop-suey, not creating anything new from scratch. The important elements (the nucleic acids) he is using are there to begin with.

in breaking news, people sometimes learn to crawl before they learn to run marathons. film at 11.

Originally Posted by jockeys

in breaking news, people sometimes learn to crawl before they learn to run marathons. film at 11.

11? That's past my bedtime...