Creation vs. Evolution

[Initial Racing]

I dont want to read all this thread nor rant on with thousands of words explaining why religion is a plague. I'll just say this; Im 100% Darwinist.

 

[Initial Racing]

Here is a fun story for you theists:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
Here is a fun site for all:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/theism_index.htm

 

[Wayne Gratiot]

Thanks for the welcome PublicSecrecy. As to the letters, they were all from Ventura County, California and I also received a number of irate phone calls and hate letters with propaganda enclosed to "enlighten" me. Not very enlightening as it turned out, but very funny stuff anyway.

As to a6m5's question about more erroneous stuff in the Bible; the Old Testament, which was purported to be divinely inspired, is the product of many authors who wrote it over a period of a thousand years and were concerned with the needs and the best interests of the Jewish people at the time the authors were alive. The writings in the Old Testament were accepted as documents given by God through authors whose names were stated or implied within the texts. For example, it was believed that Moses had authored the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). It was assumed that King Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs because his identity is inferred in Ecclesiastes (1:1, 12) and mentioned in the Song of Songs (3:9, 11). Each prophetic writing was treated as an integral work by a single writer. The psalms labeled "The Psalms of David" were accepted as the work of that king. And so on.

Modern scholarship has demonstrated that each of these assumptions is wrong. There is no way that Moses could have written the Torah. King Solomon wrote neither Ecclesiastes nor the Song of Songs. The prophetic books are composites. The authorship of the psalms is unknown, and they were composed at different times over a period of hundreds of years by different writers.

For example, in Genesis 14:14, Abraham is said to have led a group to the city of Dan, but in Judges 18:29 it is reported that the city of Dan did not come into existence until the time of the Judges - long after Moses was dead. How could the Gileadite conquest of an area known as Havvothjair be reported by Moses (Num. 32:41; Deut. 3:14) when it took place during the time of the Judges (Judges 10:3-4)?

Would a single writer (Moses) entertain contradictions in his writing? The number of animals taken aboard the ark is reported as two of each kind - clean and unclean in Genesis 6:19, but as seven pairs of clean animals in Genesis 7:21.

According to Numbers 35:6-7, the Levites were to receive certain territories as an inheritance, but in Deuteronomy 18:1 it is written that they were to receive no inheritance.

Exodus 3:13-15 and and 6:2-3 states that the Hebrews did not know the personal name of their god Yahweh until it was revealed to Moses on the holy mountain, yet Genesis 4:26 notes that from very early times people called upon the name of Yahweh. Indeed, the pre-Mosiac patriarchs were familiar with the name Yahweh (Gen. 22:14, 26:25, 27:20, 28:13).

The accumulation of such problems has made it clear that more than one author contributed to the so-called books of Moses. The Mosiac authorship has been replaced by a mosiac of authors.

So, yes there is more stuff like the afore-mentioned descrepancies in the Bible.

Wayne

 

[Smoke_U_24/7]

Agreed. The bible was also obviously translated from greek and hebrew through thousands of years. Who knows how many mistranslations there are oin the bible.
Just wondering, what's your stand on bible prophecy?

 

[Famine]

Again i say, READ THE BIBLE.

Who knows how many mistranslations there are oin the bible.

No comment.

 

[Duke]

[repost]

The Only one that is the true faith is The Pentecostal Christian Faith.

Just read between the lines whenever you subscribe to any belief or anything, as a matter of fact.

How can you possibly, with an apparently straight face and less than 2 hours apart, say these two sentences?

I'm appalled. [/repost]

No further comment.

 

[Anaconda]

Its a big deal now for the folks who are upset about the seperation of church and state , to now try to introduce creation into schools by saying that a " benevolent force ' created the universe . What do you think about creation ? Is it a valid enough premise to be taught in school ?

Adam and Eve I dont believe so due to discoveries of the ancient skulls and evolutionary discoveries. The universe created by a force or a being? Possible..can we truly teach the big bang in theory when it is not 100 percent fact and theres still the possibility it was created by something we cannot comprehend or understand?

 

[Famine]

There seems to be some confusion over the nature of science.

It is perfectly acceptable to teach the Big Bang - or Evolution - as theories, as the current theory is supported by all of the currently known evidence. The word "current" is so terribly important here. There really is no such thing as a scientific fact, only current theories which fit currently known evidence. That evidence can be thought to be complete, in which case it's presented as discovery, or thought to be incomplete, in which case it's presented as an interesting trend for future research. But the most important thing in science is that as new information and data comes to light, current theories are adjusted accordingly so that they fit in with all of the known evidence.

Evolution and the birth of the universe are peculiarities. Everything we have says that they happened. Nothing that we have says that they didn't. The theories fit in with all of the known evidence. But they have taken place over such a massive timespan - roughly 2.5 billion years of evolution and 18.5 billion years of universe - that it's almost impossible to conceive that the data will EVER be complete. Nonetheless, all that we have points towards them and nothing points away from (because otherwise the theories would be adjusted, so that all that we had pointed towards them) so while they can never be held to be complete, the evidence is not exactly incomplete, except in the truest sense of the word (*gibbers*). Creationists would have you believe that fossil records have huge gaps in, but this simply isn't true. There ARE gaps - such as Homo floresiensis, an amusing evolutionary offshoot, and deep sea stuff which evolved out of our particular pathway - but there is nothing to suggest there are any "missing links" in the chain from Primordial Soup to all higher life now on Earth..

 

[Wayne Gratiot]

First, thanks for the PM neon_duke. I appreciate the kind words and welcome. I look forward to much more interaction on this huge site, especially when GT4 finally hits the streets. But, for now, this debate is lots of fun and hopefully it will lead many to get up to speed and start reading more about how the universe actually works. As Sir Francis Bacon said: "The universe is not to be narrowed down to the limits of our understanding...But our understanding must be stretched and enlarged to take in the image of the universe as it is discovered."

There is a dark element of catechism thinking among the creationists who don't need evidence, simply because they know they are right. Their mode of thought, straight out of Medieval times, leads not to understanding, but to blind acceptance.

As to my lending any credence to the Biblical prophesies, I find much more truth and direction for the human spirit to be found in Aesop's Fables.

Of course, I have much more to add, but I have to hurry and get ready to go and take a delightful young lady of 91 years of age down to Burbank to visit her "little brother' who is only 84. I will check back in here later today after we return.

Wayne

 

[Danoff]

There really is no such thing as a scientific fact, only current theories which fit currently known evidence.

Of course there's stuff we're pretty sure we know and there's stuff we're pretty sure we don't know but have theories for.

The big bang is one where most scientists will tell you that we don't really know. F=ma is one that few scientists will tell you is wrong.

We teach relativity, F=ma, and the periodic table as fact - since they are about as concrete as science gets. But I think in many schools the big bang is taught as fact as well - which is just wrong since it really doesn't even fit the data very well. They're making lots of exceptions for new data - which reeks of being wrong.

Shaky science, if taught, should be taught as shaky with competing theories presented. But only science should be presented as science.

 

[Famine]

Of course there's stuff we're pretty sure we know and there's stuff we're pretty sure we don't know but have theories for.

Yes! Spot on.

Yet a book (or anthology?) written by some men 1900 years ago is proclaimed as the whole truth by their followers.

The big bang is one where most scientists will tell you that we don't really know. F=ma is one that few scientists will tell you is wrong.

We teach relativity, F=ma, and the periodic table as fact - since they are about as concrete as science gets. But I think in many schools the big bang is taught as fact as well - which is just wrong since it really doesn't even fit the data very well. They're making lots of exceptions for new data - which reeks of being wrong.

Shaky science, if taught, should be taught as shaky with competing theories presented. But only science should be presented as science.

The problem with the Big Bang is that, as a model, it works right back until about 1X10^-12 seconds after the Big Bang, but everything before that is a bit suss. Certain physical laws need altering to make the best of the models (plural) work, such as the speed of light in a vacuum (which cannot change) or Planck's constant (which does not change).

The rest of it - formation of galaxies, stars, planets, interstellar debris, hell even hydrogen atoms - is fairly certain, in a whole "stuff we're pretty sure we know" way. The universe is, most likely, 18.5 billion years old and thus 18.5 billion light years across (or infinite. Take your pick). The Earth is, with some certainty, 4.5 billion years old.


I was just reading through some of Smoke_U_24/7's old posts. It was interesting.

24th November

I'm not scared to say that i'm a pirate also and i'm a pirate for one good reason [...] cd's that sounds like*cough* St. Anger *cough* deserves a little music piracy.

9th December

Me being a pirate is becoming a thing of the past because it's not really worth it to steal audio files and software program. This is only a temporary thing because yes stealing is against gods law,

Quick mind-change.

9th December

I was convinced that god exists, and I still am because it's ridiculous to say that there is no god

12th December

I lost the argument and I am more convinced that god is not real

Total reversal of religion in THREE days.

10th December

read these chapters and versus in the bible, but these are not all: Matthew Chapter 24, Luke Chapter 21, and (here's an important one concerning the coming of the lord), PAUL CHAPTER 2 VERSUS 1-12.
Read those chapters and versus, then compare them to current events that are happening right now. THIS IS EVIDENCE..

10th December

read and research the bible and you will find out that
God is real and Jesus is alive and well.

11th December

Read and RESEARCH THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE.

14th December

The bible was also obviously translated from greek and hebrew through thousands of years. Who knows how many mistranslations there are oin the bible.

"The Bible is fact" to "The Bible is full of mistakes" in four days.

 

[Smoke_U_24/7]

I said that because the bible was translated through thousands of years and could be wrong, I'm not saying that the bible is full of mistakes. As a matter of fact, there is a mistranslation concerning the "end of the world" in the bible. I don't remember where the verse is, but it was saying that jesus will return to end the world, but there's the mistranslation. It was supposed to say that Jesus will return to end this very age we are in now. So basically, it says that the return of christ will usher in a new age and end TIME as we know it, not the world. I'll find that verse later for proof.

My statements concerning piracy may look misleading becasue the reason why I went from "Being a pirate and being proud of it," to "Piracy is wrong" is because of this thread. This thread feels like a wake-up-call for me, but i'm not completely "awake" yet.

I became a Christian because of researching bible prophecy and finding (may be coincidence to you guys) the fulfillments of pre-tribulation period prophecy to
be scary, for me anyway.
It was After 9/11 that I first made the decision, I felt almost forced to get saved because I was fearful of my own life. And coincedentally the next day or two, I came across the Trinity Broadcasting Nework when I was at my most fearful. When I ran into the program, there was someone talking into the camera, and I don't know what exactly what they said, but it made me shed some tears. I then took the chance and said that prayer that was required in order to be saved. Months after that there was an interview on a tbn program called "praise the lord". And one interview was concerning prophecy and people wanting to have prophetic dreams, not of the signs of the times, but things that'll happen in there personal life. And what surprised me is that one the preachers said is that if anyone wants this gift from god, just pray for them. He then lead everyone into prayer. I also said the prayer, and almost immediately, I began having these dreams that felt like god was communicating to me in the form of dreams, dreams that where shockingly revealing. I also remember seeing a church that was aired on tbn teaching people that just prayed that prayer about prophetic dreams, and it was mentioned that god communicates through his people in different ways. One way was through other people, especially close friends. The other was through prophetic dreams. Shortly after that, I began watching the "Benny Hinn Ministries" television program and seeing people getting healed from all sorts of cancers, diseases, and disorders. It was then I was convinced that God is indeed real. I know longer believed, I KNEW that he was real. Two years later, the question that get's alot of people thinking was asked to me by a close FEMALE friend of mine: "If god is real, how can we prove that the authors of the books weren't lying about being annointed by the holy spirit when they wrote the scriptures?" That might have not been worded right, but you get what she was asking me. She brung up a good point. How can I prove the bible is true to it's claims If it was already written in the past? Later that day, I started thinking about why god hasn't been answering my prayers. I also remember watching a program on tbn that was about people who actually saw spirtital beings or parents that had kids that saw jesus in there death beds, and even people that died and came back to life shotrly after.
I also saw a documentary about an african who died and came back to life 3 days later. It seemed real because there was actual footage of him being brung back to life. His body was right there in front of the camera, showing signs of life. When he did regain consiousness, The man claimes that he was given a tour of heaven by an angel and claimed to have spoken to the angel concerning the return of christ. I then thunk to myself, " was that staged? Was all of the miracles I saw happening on christian television staged?" I then started to lose my beliefs, and even heard other questions or "proof" by athiests that god didn't exist. I then became very disappointed in the pentecostal christian "faith" and abandoned myself from christianity. I even blasphemed his name and made up my mind that god was not real. And that's where I am now. confused, saddened, disappointed and angry at the same time.
Please keep in mind that I don't want any of your sympathy from telling this story, I just thought it would be informative.

For those who wanted to see web sites that could prove that the gospels where written during or just after Jesus' life, here's one:
http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

And here's a site that disagrees with that argument in the first site.
http://www.mlife.org/bible_kjv/are_gospels _greek_or_hebrew.html

here is a site that says that bible prophecy that was foretold by jesus is valid by using THE EINSTEIN METHOD
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Jesus_Einstein_Method.htm

I asked everyone that was in this debate to look at bible prohecy, more specifically the signs that point to the return of jesus. I want to know why everyone doesn't want to talk about it because it's an interesting an controversial subject. But the site above proves that the key prophecies couldn't come to pass in the time's they were foretold, which is against the einstein rule (prophecie's that come true during the life of the foreteller).

 

[Pako]

This thread has taken some pretty serious detours of the original topic. It has become a "Does God Exist" discussion. Proving God's existence one way or another would answer the question to the original topic. The fact is that no one can prove God's existence. People can only express what they 'feel' to be true by personal experience and faith in what they believe. So, if God were to be proven real through the scientific method, then teach it in science class. Teach about God and his creation in Theology, Sociology, and/or Psychology.

Maybe we should revisit the "Does God exist thread?".

 

[///M-Spec]

Very amusing. I do believe I haven't seen this sort bare-bottomed spanking since Tercel_driver got the 'whatfor' from milefile. It makes me want to contradict my spiffy new sig and speak of someone as if they were property.


M

 

[Tacet_Blue]

First of all Smoke, I'd like to say that no one here is questioning your faith. As Pako has already said, this thread is turning into a "does God exist" thread. The problem I have is when Christians start trying to "prove" that the Bible is true, or that there was a Global flood, or Eve was created from Adams rib. Its a no win situation...be happy with your choice of faith, but keep it to yourself, there few things more annoying than a cold calling preacher knocking on your door trying to convert you.

But let me just point out a few things for you

And one interview was concerning prophecy and people wanting to have prophetic dreams, not of the signs of the times, but things that'll happen in there personal life. And what surprised me is that one the preachers said is that if anyone wants this gift from god, just pray for them.

Dreams are just dreams...prophecy denies free will. If I had a dream that you were to win the lottery tomorrow, and I told you about it, then you make the choice NOT to buy a ticket, so you don't actually win...was my dream accurate?

He then lead everyone into prayer. I also said the prayer, and almost immediately, I began having these dreams that felt like god was communicating to me in the form of dreams, dreams that where shockingly revealing.

Also I expect they put a telephone number up on the screen so that you could donate some money...why do you have to buy your place in heaven...

Shortly after that, I began watching the "Benny Hinn Ministries" television program and seeing people getting healed from all sorts of cancers, diseases, and disorders.

Have you ever seen one of these types of programmes when they broadcast the transmission using a scanner...very revealing. A famous preacher had his show taken off the air for obtaining monies by deception...

I also saw a documentary about an african who died and came back to life 3 days later. It seemed real because there was actual footage of him being brung back to life. His body was right there in front of the camera, showing signs of life. When he did regain consiousness,

Was there any evidence that he was ACTUALLY dead? (other than, his mate said he was)

 

[Famine]

For those who wanted to see web sites that could prove that the gospels where written during or just after Jesus' life, here's one:
http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

Actually, I'd quite like to see historical documentation (books), not websites. The internet is an unregulated medium and anyone can say anything on it. Did you know that danoff is heir to the throne of Denmark?

Anyway, that site. Let's have a look, shall we?

"If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D."

Oh no! First paragraph and already it's "We're setting out to prove that the Bible was written before 70AD". That's biased from the outset.

"then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them."

So "if" they can prove what they're setting out to prove, and "if" this, and "if" that, then the Bible is true! Hurrah!

"Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical."

So. What exactly was the adult literacy rate in the Middle East in 70AD? Oh and let's not forget the Crusades, Christian Jihads (nice... ), the Catholic Church and the Spanish Inquisition, all of which less-than-isolated instances were involved in the destruction of anything contrary to Christian "teachings" as "heresy".

If (nice word, I think I'll use it) a faith destroys anything which is contrary to that faith, and is the largest secular movement on the planet so is more than capable of doing so, does the lack of evidence contrary to that faith prove it to be right?

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.

Why would they? What events of significance in Islam, or Hinduism, or Jainism, does the Bible report upon? Judaism is different because...?

Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension.

[...]

Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews.

Which one is it? Judaism had had a rather nice 2000 years of their own history at this point.

And now it settles down into proving how early "Acts" was written, because it it was written after Luke, by Luke (this is apparently fact, as no reference is given).

"If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death."

IF what is said of Acts is true. And if it isn't?

Research doesn't go on supposition. "If what is said" counts as serious research how exactly? Shocking.

"But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died."

Yes... Good... I'm following you...

"Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50."

POW! Half a century gone at a stroke.

"Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70. "

I'm sorry? Was this proof-read at all?

Luke in AD55. Matthew in AD50. Oh, but Mark is supposedly the earliest, written between AD55 and AD70. Ex-squeeze me?

"Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."

Oh, right. Now Mark, the earliest one, is between AD55 and AD70, but Acts is thought to be AD63 and Luke came before that? So why the AD70 date for Mark if it's the earliest one and Luke is before AD63?

Do you see what I mean yet by selectively ignoring even their OWN evidence?

Shall we check the vast array of historical works and independant sources for all of this?

1. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
2. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.
3. Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper’s Bible Commentary, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1988.
4. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. pp. 255-256.
5. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.
6. Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.; 1985
7. Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who’s Who in Christian History, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.
8. McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, Tenn., 1993, p. 80.
9. Robertson, A.T., A Harmony of the Gospels, Harper & Row; New York` 1950. pp. 255-256.

Only NINE references for 1700 words, and not ONE of them is an independant historical reference? Oh dear.

I said that because the bible was translated through thousands of years and could be wrong, I'm not saying that the bible is full of mistakes.

Work with me on the logical process here.

"The Bible" is translated from a variety of languages, including Aramaic and Sanskrit, into Hebrew. The Hebrew is translated into Greek. The Greek is translated into Latin. The Latin is translated into English.

ONE mistake in ANY of those translations changes the colour of a sentence. That can change the tone of a verse. That's one mistake in one translation. We're looking at many translations over more than a thousand years. And that doesn't even begin to address the issue of the different versions of the Bible.

Now, who says a mistake is a mistake? Surely someone 1500 years ago would have a better grasp of, say, Aramaic, than someone at the fine end of the Aramaic wedge retranslating it in 2004 without any experience of the spoken language in the every day world? Or maybe the person now has more knowledge than the person then? Has the language evolved at all through misuse, misconception or miseducation?


Either the Bible you read now is the Word of God, the ramblings of a few people on mushrooms or a shadow of what was originally intended, decimated by translation errors and supposed translation errors. If there is one mistake concerning the "End of the World", can there not be another mistake in the Ten Commandments which change into "Thou shalt not wear a silly hat on Friday"?

Incidentally, which Ten Commandments? The King James Bible or the Catholic? Or how about the first set, that Moses, apparently, smashed out of anger?

here is a site that says that bible prophecy that was foretold by jesus is valid by using THE EINSTEIN METHOD
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Jesus_Einstein_Method.htm

Hey-hey! Here we go again!

The creator of this site has invented the "Einstein Method" used upon his site. He's applied a name to it from a famous scientist (who was actually a mathematician) in order to make it look better and more science-y.

Again he falls into the gaping crevasse of using supposition and the English King James Bible to state that some vaguely worded prophecies have come true and thus must have been predicted (at least two of which were wrong - I lost the will to read it after the second one). People believe that Michael de Notre-Dame (also known as "Nostradamus") had the same capacity - also falsely - but surprisingly few of them tote him as the Son of God.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/14/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- The state American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution.

The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power.

The Dover Area School District was believed to be the first in the nation to mandate intelligent design when it voted 6-3 in October in favor of including the concept in the science curriculum.

....School superintendent Richard Nilsen had no comment Monday. Administrators have declined to comment on the mandate, which applies to ninth-grade biology classes at Dover High School, in rural south-central Pennsylvania.

...He has said that he proposed the change as a way of balancing evolution with competing theories that raised questions about its scientific validity.

...But the statement also said Charles Darwin's theory "is still being tested as new evidence is discovered," and that intelligent design "is an explanation of the origins of life that differs from Darwin's view."

----------------------------------------------------------



I know I've already said this but... "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory based on scientific methods or analysis. It does not belong in biology class.

 

[Famine]

I know I've already said this but... "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory based on scientific methods or analysis. It does not belong in biology class.

All it will take for ascientific pomposity like Creationism to get into children's heads is for people who know better to think it's a waste of breath repeatedly repelling these itinerant phonies with an agenda. So danoff, my man, keep on saying it.


Incidentally, I heard the head of the "Creation Research Institute" (guffaw) say, out loud, that he blamed the Theory of Evolution for teenage pregnancies and alcoholism.

 

[ledhed]

The problem I see is a political one . The fundementalist crazys have come out of the woodwork because they were given a little credit for Bush winning the election. They are now pressing thier agenda. Its time to stomp on them like roaches.

 

[Pako]

One could also argue that if "Intelligent Design" is so far fetched, then what would be the harm if it was introduced as a possibility, IF your asking the question, "Where did we come from?". It that setting, with a group of young, self-thinking minds there is no harm in it, but rather a open minded approach to thinking beyond our little rock we call earth. However, if the question is, "What scientific evidence do we have that can tell us where we are from?" then "Intelligent Design" has no place. Again, motive.

 

[Famine]

One could also argue that if "Intelligent Design" is so far fetched, then what would be the harm if it was introduced as a possibility, IF your asking the question, "Where did we come from?". It that setting, with a group of young, self-thinking minds there is no harm in it, but rather a open minded approach to thinking beyond our little rock we call earth. However, if the question is, "What scientific evidence do we have that can tell us where we are from?" then "Intelligent Design" has no place. Again, motive.

Yes - that's all well and good. Science in science rooms, philosophy in philosophy/religious studies rooms (although I believe the US Constitution forbids religion in public schools). That said, there really ought to be a scientist on hand to explain just WHY "Intelligent Design" is such goosenaargh.

But the point of ALL of this is that a certain collection of allegedly moral high-horsers want to introduce Creation, with equal weighting to Evolution, into the Science curriculum, despite there being no scientific evidence to validate it as a doctrine (not theory - theory comes from evidence, doctrine is constructed without it) and just oodles of scientific evidence in favour of Evolutionary Theory.

Creationism IS NOT science. It has no place being taught alongside science, with equal weighting to information which has been thoroughly researched.

 

[cardude2004]

The US Constitution doesn't allow religion to be taught in a school so you couldn't teach creationism, but I don't think that evolution should be taught in school either because not all people believe in it. They don't let religion be taught because not all believe so they shouldn't make those of us who are Christians learn evolution because we don't believe that.

 

[Sage]

So if you don't believe in math, then that shouldn't be taught either? And if your reply is "It'd be ridiculous not to believe in math", my same response goes to evolution.

We've already been over this – Evolution belongs in biology class, Creationism belongs in social studies or something close enough (most high schools don't have philosophy classes). That's all there is to it.

[edit]: Also, there isn't anything in the Constitution prohibiting the study of religion in schools, unless you have a weird interpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof…". To my knowledge, no other part of the Constitution even mentions religion (or hell, even schools for that matter).

 

[Duke]

Yes - that's all well and good. Science in science rooms, philosophy in philosophy/religious studies rooms (although I believe the US Constitution forbids religion in public schools).

You've got this wrong, Famine, but you're not alone - even religious people in the US don't understand it. See the post below yours.

You are not forbidden to teach religion or religion in US public schools. You are just forbidden to teach a SINGLE religion as if religion itself is the curriculum. In other words, you cannot have a Christian parochial school - or one of any faith - masquerading as a public school. But Christianity and other comparative religions are perfectly acceptable in the humanities curriculum.

In still other words, teaching "Christians believe God says..." is perfectly acceptable in US public schools, but "God says..." is not. Which I find perfectly reasonable.

 

[Famine]

The US Constitution doesn't allow religion to be taught in a school so you couldn't teach creationism, but I don't think that evolution should be taught in school either because not all people believe in it.

Evolution does not require "belief". Remember "Proof denies faith"? Evolution IS what happened (again, check back to the differences I posted between Evolution, Evolutionary Theory and Evolutionary Mechanics) - believing it did or didn't is of no consequence. Faith is not required due to empirical evidence.


Sage and the Duke - I was unaware of that, which is why I used the qualifier "I believe" and in parentheses Hedging my bets. I am largely unfamiliar with the niceties of US Law.


Back on the topic, if Christian Creationism is taught with absolutely zero data to back it up, why not teach Hindu Creationism (as in the Bhagavad Gita), Taoist Creationism, Muslim Creationism (as in the Qu'ran), Jewish Creationism (as in the Talmud) and so on? How about the Raelians who believe in the exact same Creationist myth, only with aliens instead of "God"?

 

[Danoff]

Back on the topic, if Christian Creationism is taught with absolutely zero data to back it up, why not teach Hindu Creationism (as in the Bhagavad Gita), Taoist Creationism, Muslim Creationism (as in the Qu'ran), Jewish Creationism (as in the Talmud) and so on? How about the Raelians who believe in the exact same Creationist myth, only with aliens instead of "God"?

This is the real reason that religion isn't taught in public schools - because every religion on the planet would want theirs taught. Because of that, it's just easier to exclude all religions.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taught. I think Americans would benefit from a broader understanding of global religions. We could probably use a "religions of the world" class which covers the "major" religions that the human population follows. But it would have to cover all of the major ones - from creationsim to reincarnation to Atheism. If it didn't then how woud you decide which ones are suitable for teaching and which ones aren't?

There should certainly not be any comparison between science and religion since they're two fundamentally different subjects.

but I don't think that evolution should be taught in school either because not all people believe in it.

"not all people believe in it" has nothing to do with science. It is taught because the theory has a vast amount of empirical data to back it up and is the foremost scientific theory in that area. No "belief" required.

 

[Pako]

*snip*

In still other words, teaching "Christians believe God says..." is perfectly acceptable in US public schools, but "God says..." is not. Which I find perfectly reasonable.

I find it perfectly reasonable as well! Between that and what danoff said,

We teach relativity, F=ma, and the periodic table as fact - since they are about as concrete as science gets. But I think in many schools the big bang is taught as fact as well - which is just wrong since it really doesn't even fit the data very well. They're making lots of exceptions for new data - which reeks of being wrong.

I think we would be headed in the right direction.

 

[Mark T]

This thread makes me want to refer to the crazy "David Icke" He wrote a book on how religion is a hoax.

 

[Ten]

What the hell is this thread about?

Anyway...

I have a question: Is it possible to be a believing Christian and believe the theory of evolution?

Touching a REALLY OLD BASE HERE...(and likely lending the only opinion I can on the entire subject) I believe (from an athiest "thinking outside the box" pov) that it's totally possible to selectively and (at the risk of sounding in opposition to the almighty word of Famine) rationally believe any part of any religion you like - so long as you think like those that wrote the Bible, scriptures, heiro's, etc...etc....and tell yourself that, "Hey! This is what I think happened, so this what I will believe!"

Now, wether you want to go as wildly extreme as, say, the catholic church or the taliban and start labeling heretics and nay-sayers out of the people who oppose or disagree with your view, that's up to you.

(forgive me, I'm plastered off my ass and making a sad attempt to be politically correct...am I even saying that in context???)

 

[Famine]

No, I agree entirely. Although bearing in mind I'm the AntiChrist, I may just be trying to confuse and deceive.

"Lucifer" is Latin for "Bringer of Light". Funky.