Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Jim,
That specific viewpoint, if indeed it is the one intended for science class, may not be appropriate, as it relies only on one religious text. I do not believe it should be banned, of course-there is no such thing as "separation of Church and State" (really-there isn't) but rather the state is forbidden from forbidding the free practice of religions, and is forbidden from supporting a state religion. Which is why there is no school prayer enforced nor are students required to participate in Christmas plays...but at the same time those periods throughout the year are generally days off school, so students in the majority religions can observe their various religious holidays.
People attempting to add various people's geneologies together to determine the age of the world notwithstanding, even the Bible itself does not make such a claim for the age of everything, nor is it a physics book, but perhaps more a guide for life and an insight into human nature.
Great discussion so far, sorry folks for my really long posts.
I'm bad at the concise thing.


John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

[Snip]
People attempting to add various people's geneologies together to determine the age of the world notwithstanding, even the Bible itself does not make such a claim for the age of everything, nor is it a physics book, but perhaps more a guide for life and an insight into human nature.
Great discussion so far, sorry folks for my really long posts.
I'm bad at the concise thing.


John P.

That's okay, John. If anybody has trouble reading through the post, they can just wait until the movie comes out.

j

Originally Posted by JohnP

If the version of creation you refer to, Jim, is the only version of creationism being considered, then perhaps it does not belong in the same way, and is in the same boat as theories which automatically, based on no proof, assume the nonexistence of a creator(s). It is a religious belief-as it is a specific methodology of creation which is applicable to certain religious beliefs only; and makes assumptions we cannot support one way or the other. Creation itself, is not.

It sure is fun to argue about though.


John P.

You believe that Evolution assumes the nonexistence of a creator(s)? That is a twisting of the theory based on personal bias. Evolution makes no claim about a creator's existence, neither do theories of autogenesis. They just say that a creator isn't necessary to create life, whether he exists or not is a personal belief.

So Evolution and Creation are inherently not in the same boat because Creation insists that there is a creator (thus alienating persons with a naturalistic worldview), while Evolution just says that life does not require a creator (which leaves everyone to make their own assumptions about the divine and It's implication in the guiding of evolutionary processes).

And again, we're back to the argument of what a science is. If a creator is implied, then science mandates that he be investigable, which is impossible for all of the current flavors of creation, thus they are not science.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

You believe that Evolution assumes the nonexistence of a creator(s)? That is a twisting of the theory based on personal bias. Evolution makes no claim about a creator's existence, neither do theories of autogenesis. They just say that a creator isn't necessary to create life, whether he exists or not is a personal belief.

So Evolution and Creation are inherently not in the same boat because Creation insists that there is a creator (thus alienating persons with a naturalistic worldview), while Evolution just says that life does not require a creator (which leaves everyone to make their own assumptions about the divine and It's implication in the guiding of evolutionary processes).

And again, we're back to the argument of what a science is. If a creator is implied, then science mandates that he be investigable, which is impossible for all of the current flavors of creation, thus they are not science.

Russel,
take the time to look at my posts...that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I believe. Hence my assertion previously that evolution has nothing to do with how things began and it has no place in a debate on whether creation should be allowed in school.
Enjoy your weekend.
John P.

Hey John,

If you'll look back at the portion of your own post that I quoted, you will see that you've written ..."theories which automatically, based on no proof, assume the nonexistence of a creator(s)"... in reference to Evolution. Which means that you either believe Evolution "assumes the nonexistence of a creator(s)" or that you assume everyone else does, which is just as invalid.

I'm trying to enjoy it, but I've got work to do (outdoors) and the rain is impeding my progress, thus far.

Hope yours is going better than mine,

Russel

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Hey John,

If you'll look back at the portion of your own post that I quoted, you will see that you've written ..."theories which automatically, based on no proof, assume the nonexistence of a creator(s)"... in reference to Evolution. Which means that you either believe Evolution "assumes the nonexistence of a creator(s)" or that you assume everyone else does, which is just as invalid.

I'm trying to enjoy it, but I've got work to do (outdoors) and the rain is impeding my progress, thus far.

Hope yours is going better than mine,

Russel

Russel, this is tiring. Again you've placed words in my mouth. If I had said the highlighted portion of your quote in reference to "evolution" I would have said evolution; however if you read back through my posts on this topic, you will see me very specifically state that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, and I believe I even went so far as to point out Darwin himself was not an atheist.
I am enjoying the debate for the most part, but please do not change my words. It was hard enough writing them down the first time .
Nice try though. Enjoy your work, I know what you mean about the rain. It's hitting here pretty good too.

John P.

The reason Creationism or its more innocuous sounding little brother "Intelligent Design" cannot be taught in science class is they are not testable. Tio be considered science, something must be testable and repeatable. ID makes assertions and selectively looks for evidence to back up its premise, completely neglecting evidence that would refute its central argument. Furthermore, if you think about it, this whole notion of "irreducible complexity" is a real cop-out. "Oh, we haven't found an answer yet; let's just throw in the towel instead of looking harder."

Contrary to popular spin, there is no debate in the legitimate scientific community that evolution occurs; the only debate (and it can still be heated) is how it occurs. "Teaching the controversy" should be saved for philosophy/history of world religions class, not politicised as "science" to appease the Pat Robertson crowd. (And here we're worried about our students lagging behind in math/science compared to the rest of the world, yet we're trying to teach them this ?)... How can students have a working knowledge of the scientific method when the "alternate" view they're presented with as "just as valid" throws the whole thing on its arse in favor of selective evidence gathering?

Originally Posted by PA23-250

The reason Creationism or its more innocuous sounding little brother "Intelligent Design" cannot be taught in science class is they are not testable. Tio be considered science, something must be testable and repeatable. ID makes assertions and selectively looks for evidence to back up its premise, completely neglecting evidence that would refute its central argument. Furthermore, if you think about it, this whole notion of "irreducible complexity" is a real cop-out. "Oh, we haven't found an answer yet; let's just throw in the towel instead of looking harder."

Contrary to popular spin, there is no debate in the legitimate scientific community that evolution occurs; the only debate (and it can still be heated) is how it occurs. "Teaching the controversy" should be saved for philosophy/history of world religions class, not politicised as "science" to appease the Pat Robertson crowd. (And here we're worried about our students lagging behind in math/science compared to the rest of the world, yet we're trying to teach them this ?)... How can students have a working knowledge of the scientific method when the "alternate" view they're presented with as "just as valid" throws the whole thing on its arse in favor of selective evidence gathering?

For starters, throw out your evolution argument, as it is irrelevant to the topic. I grow tired of addressing the something from nothing crowd only to have people say "but there is EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION!". Perhaps the price of tea in China is going up, also, but it has nothing to do with the initial point of life's beginning.
Hence, while experiments can show proteins created in test tube, or polymers "reproducing" as claimed by Russel, none of these can be said to support abiogenesis any more than they support creation.
So by your own argument, abiogenesis also would not belong in a science classroom. If allowing a house to be produced as evidence of its builder is somehow not appropriate for science class, the fact that one can create a brick in a lab as somehow evidence (????) there is no builder is equally inadmissible. The entire thing is untestable-and this is including abiogenesis. Based on this, if creation is to be banned as a theory, so should this equally untestable theory.


John P.

I think X is coming to get you next john!

Just because abiogenesis is shrouded in mist doesn't mean that evolution is. Evolution is factual. It's as much a successful theory as gravity is. You wouldn't suggest that if you release a rock from your grasp that it would do anything less than fall. Both Gravity and evolution are successful theories of that magnitude.

X