Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

This discussion reminded me of a passage a recently read. This is from a lecture given by Joseph Campbell in 1961. I'm not saying that this decides anything or will convince anyone of anything. I just found it entertaining and interesting given what has been said here - almost 50 years after this was written. Take it for what it is

Jordan

I was sitting the other day at a lunch counter that I particularly enjoy, when a youngster about twelve years old, arriving with his school satchel, took the place at my left. Beside him came a younger little man, holding the hand of his mother, and those two took the next seats. All gave their orders, and, while waiting, the boy at my side said, turning his head slightly to the mother, “Jimmy wrote a paper today on the evolution of man, and Teacher said he was wrong, that Adam and Eve were our first parents.”

My Lord! I thought. What a teacher!

The lady three seats away then said, “Well, Teacher was right. Our first parents were Adam and Eve.”

What a mother for a twentieth-century child!

The youngster responded, “Yes, I know, but this was a scientific paper.” And for that, I was ready to recommend him for a distinguished-service medal from the Smithsonian Institution.

The mother, however, came back with another. “Oh, those scientists!” she said angrily. “Those are only theories.”

And he was up to that one too. “Yes, I know,” was his cool and calm reply; “but they have been factualized: they found the bones.”

The milk and the sandwiches came, and that was that.

-Joseph Campbell

Your point is valid, Hoglahoo, but the the issue remains: how did the Creator make living organisms?

Science says that the natural laws of the universe (that may have been set in place by a designer, but also maybe not) interact with matter via the Fundamental Forces to create groups of ordered bodies composed of the elements, some of which have become very complex and given rise to intelligence and consciousness.

Creation says that an unknown Designer decided to design lifeforms in an undetectable, untestable, unprovable way.

That's worth a whole 2 minute speech in a science class, because everything past that very basic description gets specific to one religion or another, which isn't acceptable for a science class.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If Creationism is true it should be taught

Rob, what's interesting to me about what you said is (speaking of your parents): "As conservatives, they didn't want the government's help for anything."
And yet they sent you to public school - curriculum will be a sore point for every taxpayer who strongly disagrees with what is or isn't being taught because they have to pay for it. I don't know what the best solution is, but if a parent wants their kid to learn creationism, they are free to teach them outside of public school. Although like I mentioned above I think ideally whatever is true is what ought to be taught. The problem is that the people who make the rules disagree on what's true

They sent me to a PAROCHIAL school. That is a school supported by a particular church or parish. It was and is private.

I got in and stayed in on my own merits, they paid for my education. Hope that clarifies my point for you!

-Rob

Anybody ponder the idea that Evolution is also supporting a religious point of view, that of Atheism?


And as far as Joseph Campbell's "...they found the bones..." whose bones where they? Can it be proved that they are ancestors of man, or simply ancestors of currnet apes/chimps?

Lucy:


Chimpanzee skull:


Human skull:




Scientists are just as guilty as religious believers as far as bending the facts to try and prove their point.

Niether side has any hard "proof". So it is a matter of faith one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Anybody ponder the idea that Evolution is also supporting a religious point of view, that of Atheism?


And as far as Joseph Campbell's "...they found the bones..." whose bones where they? Can it be proved that they are ancestors of man, or simply ancestors of currnet apes/chimps?

Scientists are just as guilty as religious believers as far as bending the facts to try and prove their point.

Niether side has any hard "proof". So it is a matter of faith one way or the other.

This was obviously an anecdote meant to frame the lecture. I don't think anyone, including Joseph Campbell, would rest their argument on the words of a twelve year old boy talking to his mother...

Jordan

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Anybody ponder the idea that Evolution is also supporting a religious point of view, that of Atheism?


And as far as Joseph Campbell's "...they found the bones..." whose bones where they? Can it be proved that they are ancestors of man, or simply ancestors of currnet apes/chimps?

Lucy:


Chimpanzee skull:


Human skull:




Scientists are just as guilty as religious believers as far as bending the facts to try and prove their point.
This is may be the first time I have heard someone admit that religious believers are bending the facts. I am positive Seraphim didn't mean to do this...

Niether side has any hard "proof". So it is a matter of faith one way or the other.

Dude, a visual comparison of low quality pictures from the internet is so not science.

As far as the theory of evolution supporting atheism goes, it sure does. Of course, atheism isn't the only religious belief it supports. It is a shame that people would endeavor to believe that there is no mystery in life at all IMHO. To say that there is nothing after death, there is no life in the rest of the universe, that we can possibly know everything all make me sad for the sayer. To me, the beauty of science and religion is that they constantly express how mysterious our life and existence happen to be.

Originally Posted by sicboater

Dude, a visual comparison of low quality pictures from the internet is so not science.

As far as the theory of evolution supporting atheism goes, it sure does. Of course, atheism isn't the only religious belief it supports. It is a shame that people would endeavor to believe that there is no mystery in life at all IMHO. To say that there is nothing after death, there is no life in the rest of the universe, that we can possibly know everything all make me sad for the sayer. To me, the beauty of science and religion is that they constantly express how mysterious our life and existence happen to be.

Low quality?!

C'mon, that's the best stuff I could get while looking busy here at my desk....

Even with such low quality images, please note: on the Lucy skull, only the dark portions are actual pieces of fossil they found. The people who did the "reconstruction" of the skull chose to put in a set of human looking teeth, even though there is no evidence of what kind of teeth may have been in that skull. Which would support my above statement that even "scientists" definitely fudge it the way they want it to appear.

If they did the reconstruction using sharp incisors such as found on a chimp skull, it would look pretty much like a chimp skull and that wouldn't help their argument or research grant funding...

Lucy was 3'6" tall, about the same size as a.....

chimpanzee

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Anybody ponder the idea that Evolution is also supporting a religious point of view, that of Atheism?

Scientists are just as guilty as religious believers as far as bending the facts to try and prove their point.

Niether side has any hard "proof". So it is a matter of faith one way or the other.

1. perhaps, but it does so with theories and methods that the "religion" allows to be debated, experimented upon and changed over time to suit the current wisdom.
2. maybe. but religious believers aren't using the scientific method, at all, because the belief is completely unscientific. it's based on nothing but ancient texts, and by its very definition, can't be scientifically examined.
3. neither side has a COMPLETE proof. a complete proof is impossible by the very definition of scientific provability. to scientifically prove something, repetition and observation are required. neither of these things are logistically possible. the difference, at least to my eyes, is that proponents of evolution have continued to expand, granularize and refine their theory over the years as they have learned more. this is the very definition of scientific study. the ID crowd seems to just toe the party line, unmodified, for the last several thousand years by claiming that their chosen deity defies rational explanation and therefore cannot be studied. additionally, (warning: anecdotal evidence based on personal experience) it seems that some ID proponents even preach that questioning and doubting will get you an eternity of the most awful, inhuman torture. the evolution proponents actively solicit questions and doubts, as studying them makes their theory stronger, and helps them correct it when they find a flaw.

ymmv

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Made my point as well. I think they should indeed ALL be taught. It's good for people to know what someone else believes. There's no need for bias to be involved. I had comparative religion classes in my school. It was very usefull.

Besides....you can't really teach much about creationism now can you? it's pretty much summed up by the following:

"Some people believe that the creation of the world was not done because of a random event but because of the interference of a creator" lesson done.

There...I taught you all about creationism.....are you offended now?

Right on. We should know about other religions. It could help us to be more understanding and accepting of other people. I would be happy to have my children exposed to the teachings of all religions. But then we have a question what is a religion and what is a cult?