Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 431,917 views
- 29,009
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I wish I could share your optimism, but alas I think there is real cause for concern here - compared to what this could potentially unleash, the Dover trail could look like a walk in the park... and whether U.S. schools and the legal system can cope with the sheer volume of "Dover"-type trials that could arise is highly debatable - what is certain is that the level and quality of science education in America can only be damaged - potentially very severely - by wasting valuable time that could be spent teaching/learning on pointless fights about who is allowed to say what. IDers are seeking to undermine the very foundations that brought America to the top of world scientific research, and if they are allowed to do it, it's going to be seriously bad news...
A closer look at the actual bill reveals just how underhand and nefarious, and downright desperate Creationists have become - the bill doesn't say anything about religion at all, only that teachers should be allowed to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of "controversial" scientific theories, like "biological evolution" and "global warming"... The only problem with that is that biological evolution is, according to the entire scientific community, not controversial at all. By specifically mentioning it as if it is a "controversial" issue (still as open to debate as anthropogenic global warming theory, for example), the bill itself is misleading from the outset... again, stick "The Holocaust" in there and perhaps people would think differently about what the true purpose of this bill really is...
Although I have every hope that the bill will ultimately get squished - I also believe that there is a chance that the wedge strategy might just work, and then it might be a VERY long time until you see the U.S recover to even the point we are at today (in terms of church/state separation atleast)...
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
- 29,009
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
And maybe a hydrothermal vent or two... Mike Russell (currently based at the JPL, Pasadena) and co-workers showed recently that a simple temperature gradient within tiny hydrothermal vents/pores (about 100 microns (0.1 mm) in diameter), produces a massive concentrating effect on nucleotides... They've shown that if at one end of the vent you have ocean water, at normal temperatures, with a relative nucleotide concentration of 1, and a temperature gradient across the pore/vent of just 30K, the conc. of nucleotides at the bottom of the pore is 1200 times higher than in the ocean water...
So, hydrothermal vents have a) a solid, catalytically active surface for organic molecules to anchor (bind), b) infinite access to incoming organic matter (one end is always open to the ocean), c) an uninterruptable supply of energy (the other end has heat energy coming up from the Earth, hence it's a hydrothermal vent!), d) the "ability" to concentrate organic molecules via temperature gradient alone. All this leads to a perfectly natural environment where DNA could and does form via the PCR...
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
If you believe in the bible and God - then you believe in creation .
If you do not believe in the bible and God - then you believe in evolution .
We all have to believe in something , but why argue over a persons moral beliefs such as this.This is one of those no-win , no-win , arguements.
2 things I feel should never be argued and or debated : Religion and Politics , you can say all you want to , but these 2 issues can be debated until the temperature reaches 100 degrees at the dead center of the North Pole.
If you do not believe in the bible and God - then you believe in evolution .
We all have to believe in something , but why argue over a persons moral beliefs such as this.This is one of those no-win , no-win , arguements.
2 things I feel should never be argued and or debated : Religion and Politics , you can say all you want to , but these 2 issues can be debated until the temperature reaches 100 degrees at the dead center of the North Pole.
- 29,009
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
That is the issue - why should this debate be carried out in science classes in classrooms across the country? I'm sure you'll agree, it shouldn't... but that is what this debate is about... it's not about converting believers or championing atheism. It's about presenting and preserving the factual over the bogus and protecting children from the moral crusade that is the creationist movement.
The irony of that moral crusade is rich. To knowingly teach falsehoods to children is as morally corrupt as you can get, if you ask me.
Excellent quote, as is the quote in your sigmindwise
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
Here in the states , religion is fastly being taken out of the classrooms , and so is the Pledge of Allegience ( due to it having the word God in it ) , they are removing "in God we trust" from our monetary units due to the non-believers , and all the other extremist's. So why is it fair to remove these beliefs from our children , especially when some have been brought up to believe in the bible and creation.
This is not protecting our children , it is transforming their minds against what they were taught while growing up and distorting their beliefs.Once the child grows into an adult , he / she may take on any belief they want , it's part of their freedom.But until that point in time , there should be none of this nonsense of removing God from anything.You should be allowed to believe what you believe ( creation or evolution ) with no infringements.
While in the classroom ( in the morning ), the child should have the option to stay or leave the room for a few moments while The Pledge of Allegiance is being said , along with the Lords prayer , or those who do participate in this can meet in the Libary or somewhere , then go on about their schoolday , without infringing on others beliefs.
btw - what is your belief ? I believe in creation
- 29,009
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I'm an atheist, and I agree with the separation of church and state. I respect the fact that people should have the freedom to believe whatever they want, hence why the separation of church and state is so crucial, because without it, you would not be free to believe whatever you want, but what the state sanctioned.
I think that schools should be allowed to cater for religious children, but they should not be allowed/obliged/forced to accept or impose a particular religious doctrine across the board.
I agree, but schools should be obliged to teach the truth. As such, evolution should be taught and bogus creationism should not. I accept that people of a religious persuasion may not accept it or believe it, but that's their choice, and it's their problem. There is simply no merit in teaching what is known to be untrue just because some people can't accept it because it contradicts what they believe.
Take the Holocaust for example. Some people believe it didn't happen, but they are wrong. So why should a history teacher be forced to teach that it didn't happen? Just to appease the folks who don't believe it? Who benefits from it? The believers are emboldened in their incorrect view, and everyone else is left confused, or worse still, converted. That, in my opinion anyway, is morally bankrupt, especially when the people being taught don't know any better, but the teachers do...
Similarly, creationism makes bogus scientific claims that are simply false, and have no place in science class. Teaching that the entire living world does not exhibit genetic relatedness in a tree-like pattern or that all extant species do not share common ancestry is plainly false, but that is what creationism teaches.
I don't think creationism should be banned from schools because it is pro-religious, but because it is wrong.
- 401
- GTP_mindwise
- xbox?, my pc you mean?
Well, that seems to be in accordance with the first amendment.
Secondly, you have to remember that:
The pledge originally did NOT have 'one nation under god' in it,that was put in somewhere in the 1950's (or 60's) and neither did the coins or notes have any god reference on them. That was all added later by ??? read below
So non believers are extremists, thank you ??
Noone is 'removing' beliefs from any children, that's nonsense, children can still pray in school if they like, what is being removed (i hope) is a mandatory prayer in schools since that is a violation of the first amendment.
Btw, perhaps you should be more concerned with children being brought up to believe things. Children should be brought up to learn How to think, not What to think.
'taking on' a belief and being 'brought up' to believe what the parents do are two separate things. No school is 'teaching' there is no god, or do they?
That second option is open, children can meet in a library or before school starts or wherever, the point is that non believers or believers of other god(s) should not be expected to say 'the lord prayer' since that is a violation of the first amendment. Besides, there are plenty of churches where they are already praying too. No one is preventing children that want to pray to pray, the issue is forcing others to pray.
The school is a secular place, and the school cannot prefer one religion over another as that violates the first amendment (did i say that already?)
That's fine, is that your belief, or what you have been brought up to believe?
Keef
Premium
- 24,922
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I agree that people should be given the opportunity to separate themselves if they'd like. Nobody should ever be forced to by a government run entity like a public school or government office. Private entities of all sorts should have the freedom to exercise their beliefs in whatever ways they see fit, as long as it's lawful, of course.
However, that doesn't mean I won't pity the poor souls who feel the need to separate themselves. I'd look upon them as weak, ignorant, and selfish. I think being open to learning about other beliefs garners respect, but those who separate themselves from learning will get no respect from me, at least in that context.
Last edited:
- 15,485
- UK
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/index.html
Just found this, not only some really interesting information, for example, I didn't know Lucy was only 3"6 tall. But I find it more interesting with the overlapping of the species.
Just found this, not only some really interesting information, for example, I didn't know Lucy was only 3"6 tall. But I find it more interesting with the overlapping of the species.
- 29,009
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Great site 👍
I watched (almost all of) Master & Commander the other night, and wasn't overly impressed by it, although it was OK - Russell Crowe is not... oh sorry, wrong thread! Where was I? Oh yes... I noticed that Paul Bettany, who plays the doctor on board, was portraying a decidedly Darwinesque character, fascinated by the variety (and origins!) of new species on the islands they encounter (the Galapagos Islands, no less
)
Funny that I should now find today that Bettany is to portray Darwin in a forthcoming film, Creation, in which he will appear alongside his wife Jennifer Connolley, in an apparent portrayal of how Darwin's research and ultimate discovery of the true origin of species conflicted with his/his wife's religious beliefs...
Sounds like an interesting film to watch out for, no coincidence either than the film is due for release next year, the year which marks Chuck D's 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of "On The Origin Of Species"...
I watched (almost all of) Master & Commander the other night, and wasn't overly impressed by it, although it was OK - Russell Crowe is not... oh sorry, wrong thread! Where was I? Oh yes... I noticed that Paul Bettany, who plays the doctor on board, was portraying a decidedly Darwinesque character, fascinated by the variety (and origins!) of new species on the islands they encounter (the Galapagos Islands, no less
)Funny that I should now find today that Bettany is to portray Darwin in a forthcoming film, Creation, in which he will appear alongside his wife Jennifer Connolley, in an apparent portrayal of how Darwin's research and ultimate discovery of the true origin of species conflicted with his/his wife's religious beliefs...
Sounds like an interesting film to watch out for, no coincidence either than the film is due for release next year, the year which marks Chuck D's 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of "On The Origin Of Species"...
- 24,309
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
You do realize that "In God We Trust" was added to the money in the early 1860s, and that "Under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the the early 1950s by McCarthyists? None of that has anything to do with the Founding Fathers and is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. So if they are removing it (which they aren't), then I say it's about damn time.
No, it's not. It's "transforming" and "distorting" your mind against what YOU were taught growing up, mybe, but certainly not mine or my children's. Or a lot of people I grew up with and know, whether they are believers or non-believers.
Which is precisely why it should be removed from the public (meaning government-operated and -funded) arena.
It is only by removing God from everything to do with government and public education that people can have any freedom to believe as they want.
No one is stopping a child from praying on his or her own time. But requiring a child to do so, or teaching a child about Christian Creationism in a science classroom (it is NOT science) instead of social studies (it IS a cultural topic worth study) prevents non-Christians from having the beliefs )or non-beliefs) that you seem to feel are your exclusive right.
- 29,009
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Interesting interview with George W Bush on ABC last night, where he states that he is not a biblical literalist, and doesn't believe that acceptance of the scientific proof of evolution is incompatible with religious faith...
Although GWB is hardly an authority on the subject, his views seem to be much closer to those of theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller than perhaps he was given credit for previously. It is good to hear Bush speaking so candidly and effectively renouncing evolution denial, whilst maintaining his personal stance as a believer in God etc. A rare opportunity to say "Bravo, W!"
Article...
Although GWB is hardly an authority on the subject, his views seem to be much closer to those of theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller than perhaps he was given credit for previously. It is good to hear Bush speaking so candidly and effectively renouncing evolution denial, whilst maintaining his personal stance as a believer in God etc. A rare opportunity to say "Bravo, W!"
Article...
- 15,485
- UK
Great site 👍
I watched (almost all of) Master & Commander the other night, and wasn't overly impressed by it, although it was OK - Russell Crowe is not... oh sorry, wrong thread! Where was I? Oh yes... I noticed that Paul Bettany, who plays the doctor on board, was portraying a decidedly Darwinesque character, fascinated by the variety (and origins!) of new species on the islands they encounter (the Galapagos Islands, no less
Funny that I should now find today that Bettany is to portray Darwin in a forthcoming film, Creation, in which he will appear alongside his wife Jennifer Connolley, in an apparent portrayal of how Darwin's research and ultimate discovery of the true origin of species conflicted with his/his wife's religious beliefs...
Sounds like an interesting film to watch out for, no coincidence either than the film is due for release next year, the year which marks Chuck D's 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of "On The Origin Of Species"...
Did you see the set of programmes (or maybe it was only one) on Channel 4 about Darwin? They were good, especially relating to his wife's strength of religious belief.
Also, currently there is a series called "Catastrophe" hosted by Baldrick. Really good. Also, there was a programme (again on C4) documenting the transition between wolf and dog and the story of the Russian physicist (I think he was a physicist), and how he created a whole new species of dog from a wild wolf in just SIX generations.
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
Care to take a trip over here to the states,over to my kids school district and approach the teacher that denies God and is trying to imply creation on MY kids mind by saying God does not exist. Oh yeah,this is a true story my friend. Gee , I wonder why that teachers class has had a major decline in it ( parents pulling kids from this class) and it is being fought as we speak at the district level !!!!! Lets be honest here , what would you call this ? I call it B******T.
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
Your right, that is absolutely out of order. Teachers should not attempt to persuade children for or against religion, it is up to childern to decide for themselves.
However this is not the point being made by Duke or TM or any others for that matter.
Teachers should not make any attempt to influences religion or politics, children should be given facts from both sides and then be allowed to decide for themselves as they get older and they have the the ability to make an informed decision after being presented with all the relevant facts. The debating point in this thread is that a creationist movement is trying to force non science into science classes. I am sure you would agree in science classes only science should be taught.
I don't know quite how the education system works in America, over here there are both compulsory science and religious education classes. So the religious side is represented in religious education (this includes more than just Christianity), and the science side is represented in the science classes (funnily enough). Children get to see both sides of the coin and can use that to make up their own mind.
I am sure there is a similar system in America and it seems a fair way to do things, do you agree?
- 15,485
- UK
Then the schools governors/principles should have better control of their staff. In that case, I'm not really sure of its relevance to Duke's post.
Also interesting to note that from your post, the complaints (from what you've said) have all been coming from the parents.
Also interesting to note that from your post, the complaints (from what you've said) have all been coming from the parents.
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
You are correct , and let me say that I do respect Duke's and TM's opinions on their inputs and beliefs concerning this issue. ( To each his own )
My biggest thing with this thread was the fact of what our schools are doing to our kids,this is not the only case here in the states concerning this matter of Creation -vs- Evolution , it's getting out of hand. What gives teachers the right to TEACH their personal thoughts upon our children ? NOTHING
AT ALL !!!!
It did not take long for the parents to notify the principal and superintendant of the school district of this certain teachers teachings. This is the reason for parents pulling their kids out of this class.This certain teacher is currently under investigation for this as is the school for allowing this to be taught,of course the school states " they knew nothing of this ", BS !!!
If this is a double post , I apologize
Last edited by a moderator:
- 86,241
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
If s/he's a biology teacher I see no issue with teaching evolutionary theory and refusing to teach the existence of any deity.
