|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 8/9 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: There is no design principle until you can explain the model and method used by the designer. Why? DB For the same reason there is no buttercup principle until I can explain the model and method. You got nothing, never have and I doubt that you ever will. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Dawn: Part of the division and misunderstanding is due to the fact that many believe creationism or ID is religiously based, it is not.. . . religion involves the supernatural, creationism and ID do not need to invlove the supernatural to be valid and demonstratable Ahh, ha, ha! The Discovery Institute mantra. "Never use 'Intellegent Design' and 'God' in the same sentence. If we fake a separation between the two then maybe we can sneak the first few pages of Genesis into the Science class through the back door when no one's looking." You're a shill for the Discovery Institute, aren't you. Is this a paid position or are you doing this pro bono? Edited by AZPaul3, : spelin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I note Dawn, that you did not respond to my listing of threads that you now avoid like the plague where discussing your personal take on ID would be on topic.
The topic here is exploring reasons why creationism should be taught in science class.
Bertot writes: there is no such thing as religious creationism Surely, you jest. Picture yourself on a train in the stationWith plasticine porters with looking glass ties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
When and if you ever understand what the words creationism, ID and scientific mehtod, really are, then you will begin to understand that not only should creationism be taught, but you will begin to understand that it invloves nothing more than an examination of the physical world by a means of observation and evaluation to a valid or invalid conclusion I've seen creationism and ID. What they actually involve is bullshitting.
the war will continue to rage because people simply cant understand that both sides are IN FACT using the same approach. No ... the scientific approach involves less bullshitting. And more, what's the word? ... science. If they actually used the same approach to the same facts, they'd come to the same conclusion. The fact that they don't shows that they don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Ive set out an argument which states that creationism cannot fail because it is based in the observation of order, law and purpose in the reality of the natural world. Your next task is to apply this argument to actual scientific research. Show how your view of creationism can be used to perform original research. Then you need to do that research. Then you need to publish it and present it to the scientific community. Then, and only then, can creationism be considered for science class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
There is no rational explanation attempting to explan the nature of things that should be excluded
We aren't talking about Explanation Class. We are talking about Science Class. You need to show us the SCIENCE that has been done to support creationism. You need to show us the original SCIENTIFIC research that has been done to test specific hypotheses made by creationism, and how that research supports creationism. Blathering on and on in internet forms is not science. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Dr Adequate writes: Then you are saying YES. The state can force a opinion upon students that certain Christian doctrines are false. Well if so then how can you say the state can't force upon students that certain Christian doctrines are true. They can teach this --- if there's a secular purpose to it. The Bible says that the sun and moon exist, but that doesn't mean that teachers can't teach that this is so, even though it does confirm certain passages in Scripture.
So creationism can't be banned because it advances religion as a aftereffect to teaching an option for truth on origins. Creationism serves no secular purpose. The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that.To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false. A clear line of reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that. To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false. A clear line of reasoning. No the state just cant condone religion being taught in school why look at your damm constitution. And if you do manage to get creationism in your class be prepared for 1000 of other religions pushing their stuff in and 1000 of protectors making religions up and pushing them in to our classes out of protest, i know i would if anyone had the bright idea of putting such gibberish in to our school system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4624 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined:
|
Jon writes: the state is officially saying creationism is false. No. The State is officially saying that Creationism is religious doctrine, and so it cannot be taken into consideration when deciding what to teach or not to teach, as doing so would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Jon In saying creationism is a religious doctrine and then saying its illegal in classes dealing with subjects on origins where the express purpose of the class is to tell the truth and processes to discovery of truth on origins. THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.So breaking the very law it uses to censor creationism. You can't ban something or teach directly opposite to its conclusions and then say your not rendering an opinion on that very thing's accuracy. The state is making a opinion on God and Genesis conclusions about origins. The state has a opinion on religious truth. This is illegal if you invoke a law saying there is a separation, repeat separation, of church and state. Why is my reasoning wrong?????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 4086 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Robert, do you actually want to scrap all schools? Do you really want to destroy education so everyone is equally ignorant? It may be your purpose but surely even you can understand why the state would be opposed to that. If it wasn't for education, you wouldn't even have the computer to type this on (remember that you can't make much if you teach 2+2=5).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that. To say creationism is banned on subjects that are about truth discovery is a official state opinion creationism and so some religious doctrines are false. Why yes. Just as by use of maps based on a spherical earth rather than a flat one the state (at least tacitly) expresses an official opinion on the religious doctrines of flat-Earth sects. And the state has every right to do this, as the law affirms. Because there is a secular purpose in the state so doing. How many times do you need this explaining to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In saying creationism is a religious doctrine and then saying its illegal in classes dealing with subjects on origins where the express purpose of the class is to tell the truth and processes to discovery of truth on origins. THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false. So breaking the very law it uses to censor creationism. No. For reasons which have been explained to you a jillion times. It may break the stupid law that you've made up in your head, but it does not break the real law which actually exists. How many fucking times do you need this explaining to you?
The state is making a opinion on God and Genesis conclusions about origins. The state has a opinion on religious truth. This is illegal if you invoke a law saying there is a separation, repeat separation, of church and state. Why is my reasoning wrong????? Because this is not in fact illegal if you invoke a law saying there is a separation, repeat separation, of church and state. Because separation, repeat separation, of church and state does not mean that the state should grovel before the doctrines of every and any church. Separation, repeat separation, of church and state means that the state should carry on unaffected by such doctrines. If there were no churches, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said that the Earth was flat, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said the Earth was tetrahedral, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said the Earth was round, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every mosque said that the Earth was round, and every church said that it was flat, the state would still teach that the Earth was round, and this would not constitute undue partiality towards Islam, because the state would teach that the Earth was round anyway, no matter whatever various religious groups choose to say.
That is separation, repeat separation, of church and state. If, on the other hand, one church or all churches by teaching that the world was flat could thereby compel the Navy to throw away their charts and the schools to throw away their globes, that would be entanglement of church and state. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Dawn.
I was really enjoying this thread until you appeared with your usual 'design equals oder' nonsense. Please could you stop, in this thread, and go back to the ones you have abandoned?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
In saying creationism is a religious doctrine and then saying its illegal in classes dealing with subjects on origins where the express purpose of the class is to tell the truth and processes to discovery of truth on origins. THEN the state is officially saying religious doctrines are false.
False. We are not talking about Truth Class. We are talking about Science Class. They teach the science dealing with how species change over time. Nowhere in the curriculum do they state that religious doctrines are false. Nowhere have you shown that creationism qualifies as science. Only creationists are claiming that evolution indicates that religious doctrines are false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
The purpose is the truth of origins about this or that.
No it isn't. The purpose is to teach the science of origins. Again, we are talking about Science Class, not Truth Class.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024