Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Well any tone in my written words are what you read into them. My comprenhension and use of the english language is just fine thank-you. Personally I really don't see the issue with my paraphrasing your statement but I apologize that I used the word "suppose" instead of "ought" if that causes you such great consternation.

My question still stands why "ought" public education be a private matter. If one wants education to be a private matter, one ought to have a private education.


Maybe we can put the crayons away, and stop the personal attacks.

I understand very well the worldview, hence I don't believe forcing my nor anyone else's religious dogmas or supernatural beliefs on anyone else and call it science. If you don't believe in science why would you want your religious believes taught in a science class that you don't believe in?

To equate ancient stories to a scientific theory that has come about through direct observations and experimentation and has under gone extensive peer review is obtuse.

If you have read this entire thread you would have seen that myself and I dare say no one else has said that Creationism shouldn't be taught. It does have a place, but that place is not a science class, it is a religious or philosophy class.

If you want to teach things based on widely held beliefs then I guess we should start teaching Islam and the Qu'ran in public schools as there are far more Muslims than Christians in the world for that matter we should teach the Hindu stories of creation because they too out number Christians.

Guys there is no need to start shouting at or belittling each other.
Keep it cool or keep out.

Russell, that seems about right. Like I say, the origins of life is not just a question for science.

Hutch, I don't think you understand what I've said and I do not understand what you've said. Your English is not the same as my English. I'm sorry.

It is irrelevant to Truth, but check your religious adherents numbers. There isn't a single reliable source in the universe (all 14 billion years of it) that puts more Muslims or Hindus than Christians on this world. That is especially true in our own societies where this evolution vs. creation thing is a big deal.

retracted, misunderstood question being asked.

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph

Originally Posted by xman

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph

Interesting.

Reuters news

As an apology to Charles Darwin was read from the Church of England, Mr. Darwin appeared quite unmoved.

The Church of England official even said "we're really, really sorry!"

Mr. Darwin still said nothing. Perhaps he didn't want to accept the apology? Perhaps the feeling ran too deep...

It was later determined that Mr. Darwin had been dead since April 19, 1882.

Everyone retired to a local pub for some Guiness. Everyone except Mr. Darwin.

Personally I am a christian and I believe in creationism. Here is my 2 centson the whole thing. 1) neither Creationism or Evolution have been proven so BOTH should be taught in schools. It is unfair to teach one or the other exclusivly. 2) About the whole thing. I don't think this is the place for a heated debate about politics or religion. I personally think for peace sake thhis should be kept outside of forums not specified for these topics.

It's true that there are better places to have these discussions, places that will acutally acomplish something, but there's no reason to tip toe around something that is so important to so many of us if we can be civil about it.

As for your point #1; That's both true and misleading. Evolution is known to happen, it's obseravble in the bacterial world ( for example) as plainly as can be. Evolution, btw, is simply change in genetic information with each succeding generation, there's no necessity that the change be positive or even noticeable, the environment will sort out which changes were beneficial or not. (just a quick definition for clarity)

What's not proven is that a natural mechanism resulted in life as we know it, but this alone is not reason for teaching creation in science classes since the two opposing explanations fall under different catagories of thought. Creation is a philosophical endeavor, primarily, and Abiogenesis falls under scientific analysis. And since science education is about teaching theories that are scientifically valid, creation is ruled out of the curriculum.

There should be no issue at all, they each have their place.

And since science education is about teaching theories that are scientifically valid, creation is ruled out of the curriculum.

So long art class.

So long philosophy class....

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

It's true that there are better places to have these discussions, places that will acutally acomplish something, but there's no reason to tip toe around something that is so important to so many of us if we can be civil about it.

As for your point #1; That's both true and misleading. Evolution is known to happen, it's obseravble in the bacterial world ( for example) as plainly as can be. Evolution, btw, is simply change in genetic information with each succeding generation, there's no necessity that the change be positive or even noticeable, the environment will sort out which changes were beneficial or not. (just a quick definition for clarity)

What's not proven is that a natural mechanism resulted in life as we know it, but this alone is not reason for teaching creation in science classes since the two opposing explanations fall under different catagories of thought. Creation is a philosophical endeavor, primarily, and Abiogenesis falls under scientific analysis. And since science education is about teaching theories that are scientifically valid, creation is ruled out of the curriculum.

There should be no issue at all, they each have their place.

Actually only natural selection is observed. Saying that that observable change within a species can therefore be extrapolated to one species changing into another is speculation, not science.

From the ever helpful Wiki:

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritabletraits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducingorganisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. The phenotype's genetic basis, genotype associated with the favorable phenotype, will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this processmay result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution may take place in a population of a specific organism.

I added the bold highlights, the underlining stuff came imbedded from Wiki...